Morning (Fasting) vs Afternoon Resistance Exercise in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Crossover Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of morning exercise in the fasting condition vs afternoon exercise on blood glucose responses to resistance exercise (RE). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: For this randomized crossover design, 12 participants with type 1 diabetes mellitus [nine females; aged 31 ± 8.9 years; diabetes duration, 19.1 ± 8.3 years; HbA1c, 7.4% ± 0.8% (57.4 ± 8.5 mmol/mol)] performed ∼40 minutes of RE (three sets of eight repetitions, seven exercises, at the individual's predetermined eight repetition maximum) at either 7 am (fasting) or 5 pm. Sessions were performed at least 48 hours apart. Venous blood samples were collected immediately preexercise, immediately postexercise, and 60 minutes postexercise. Interstitial glucose was monitored overnight postexercise by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). RESULTS: Data are presented as mean ± SD. Blood glucose rose during fasting morning exercise (9.5 ± 3.0 to 10.4 ± 3.0 mmol/L), whereas it declined with afternoon exercise (8.2 ± 2.5 to 7.4 ± 2.6 mmol/L; P = 0.031 for time-by-treatment interaction). Sixty minutes postexercise, blood glucose concentration was significantly higher after fasting morning exercise than after afternoon exercise (10.9 ± 3.2 vs 7.9 ± 2.9 mmol/L; P = 0.019). CGM data indicated more glucose variability (2.7 ± 1.1 vs 2.0 ± 0.7 mmol/L; P = 0.019) and more frequent hyperglycemia (12 events vs five events; P = 0.025) after morning RE than after afternoon RE. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with afternoon RE, morning (fasting) RE was associated with distinctly different blood glucose responses and postexercise profiles.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".