Ambient temperature influences metabolic substrate oxidation curves during running and cycling in healthy men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fat oxidation in cold environments and carbohydrate (CHO) use in hot environments are increased during exercise at steady‐state submaximal workloads. However, the influence of cold and heat on fat and CHO oxidation curves remain unknown. We therefore examined the influence of a cold and warm ambient temperature on fat and CHO oxidation across a wide range of exercise intensities during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise. Nine, young, healthy, male subjects completed four trials, during which they performed an incremental peak oxygen consumption (⩒O 2peak ) test on a cycle ergometer or treadmill in a 4.6°C or 34.1°C environment. Substrate oxidation, maximal fat oxidation rate (MFO), and exercise intensity where MFO occurs (Fat max ) were assessed via indirect calorimetry. MFO was significantly greater in the cold vs. warm during the treadmill exercise (0.66 ± 0.31 vs. 0.43 ± 0.23 g min −1 ; p = 0.02) but not during cycling (0.45 ± 0.24 vs. 0.29 ± 0.11 g min −1 ; p = 0.076). MFO was also greater during treadmill vs. cycling exercise, irrespective of ambient temperature (0.57 g min −1 vs. 0.37 g min −1 ; p = 0.04). Fat max was greater in the cold vs. warm for both treadmill (57 ± 20 vs. 37 ± 17%⩒O 2peak ; p = 0.025) and cycling (62 ± 28 vs. 36 ± 13%⩒O 2peak ; p = 0.003). Multiple, linear, mixed‐effects regressions revealed a strong influence of ambient temperature on substrate oxidation. We demonstrated that exercising in a cold environment increases MFO and Fat max , predominantly during treadmill exercise. These results validate the implication of ambient temperature on energy metabolism over a wide range of exercise intensities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".