Menstrual and oral contraceptive cycle phases do not affect submaximal and maximal exercise responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To examine whether the menstrual or monophasic oral contraceptive cycle phases affect submaximal (oxygen uptake ( O 2 ) kinetics, maximal lactate steady‐state (MLSS)) and maximal ( O 2max , time‐to‐exhaustion (TTE)) responses to exercise in healthy, active women. During the mid‐follicular or inactive‐pill phase and the mid‐luteal or active‐pill phase of the respective menstrual or oral contraceptive cycle, 15 non‐oral contraceptive users (mean and standard deviation (SD) (±): 27 ± 6 years; 171 ± 5 cm; 65 ± 7 kg) and 15 monophasic oral contraceptive users (24 ± 4 years; 169 ± 10 cm; 68 ± 10 kg) performed: one O 2 kinetics test; one ramp‐incremental test; two to three 30‐minute constant‐load cycling trials to determine the power output corresponding to MLSS (MLSS p ), followed by a TTE trial. The phase of the menstrual or oral contraceptive cycle did not affect the time constant of the O 2 kinetics response (τ O 2 ) (mid‐follicular, 20 ± 5 seconds and mid‐luteal, 18 ± 3 seconds; inactive‐pill, 22 ± 8 seconds and active‐pill, 23 ± 6 seconds), O 2max (mid‐follicular, 3.06 ± 0.32 L min −1 and mid‐luteal, 3.00 ± 0.33 L min −1 ; inactive‐pill, 2.87 ± 0.39 L min −1 and active‐pill, 2.87 ± 0.45 L min −1 ), MLSS p (mid‐follicular, 181 ± 30 W and mid‐luteal, 182 ± 29 W; inactive‐pill, 155 ± 26 W and active‐pill, 155 ± 27 W), and TTE (mid‐follicular, 147 ± 42 seconds and mid‐luteal, 128 ± 54 seconds; inactive‐pill, 146 ± 70 seconds and active‐pill, 139 ± 77 seconds) ( P > .05). The rate of perceived exertion (RPE) at minute 30 of the MLSS p trials was greater in the mid‐follicular phase (6.2 ± 1.5) compared with the mid‐luteal phase (5.3 ± 1.4) for non‐oral contraceptive users ( P = .022). The hormonal fluctuations between the menstrual and oral contraceptive cycle phases had no detectable effects on submaximal and maximal exercise performance, even when RPE differed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".