MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Comparing The Effects Of Different Modes Of Exercise On Glucose Handling In Young Recreationally Active Men

2020· article· en· W3041228677 on OpenAlexaff
Kayleigh M. Beaudry, Kirstian Pancevski, Claire Woodgate, Cory Tremblay, Michaela C. Devries

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyHeart ratePlasma glucoseType 2 diabetesArea under the curveInsulinDiabetes mellitusBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is increasing dramatically and is characterized by insulin resistance (IR). Exercise training is an effective modality to improve IR and acutely can increase post-exercise glucose handling for up to 72 hours. However, there is conflicting evidence as to which mode of exercise elicits the greatest positive effect on glucose handling. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of different modes of exercise on post-exercise glucose handling in young recreationally active men. METHODS: Twelve (age: 22±3 years) recreationally active men completed 4 separate oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT) either at rest, or 1.5 hours after moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MICE; 30 min @ 65% VO2peak), low-load high-repetition resistance exercise circuit (LLHR; 20-25 reps/set for 3 sets at 30% 1RM) and high-intensity interval training bout (HIIE; 10x1min at 90% HRmax). Heart rate and blood lactate were taken throughout the exercise bouts. Blood was analyzed for total plasma glucose concentration (mmol/L), c-peptide concentration (ng/mL) and blood insulin concentration (μIU/mL). RESULTS: Average blood glucose concentration during the OGTT was lower following LLHR (6.386 ± 0.261mmol/L, p = 0.03) as compared with MICE (6.839 ± 0.256 mmol/L, p = 0.03) with no differences between baseline (6.625 ± 0.333 mmol/L) and HIIE (6.737 ± 0.267 mmol/L). Glucose area under the curve (AUC) was lower following LLHR (781.76 ± 36.08) as compared to MICE (842.81 ± 35.8; p = 0.033) with no difference compared to baseline glucose AUC (804.61 ± 46.7, p = 0.475). Blood c-peptide concentrations were not significantly different between baseline, MICE, HIIE or LLHR average concentrations. Similar to c-peptide there were no significant differences between blood insulin concentrations post exercise. CONCLUSION: In young, healthy men none of the exercise modes improved glucose handling as compared with baseline. However, LLHR resistance exercise did result in greater glucose clearance than MICE, suggesting that it may be a better modality to improve glucose control. Future work should examine the acute and chronic effects of LLHR resistance exercise on glucose handling in individuals with IR to determine the potential effectiveness of this exercise modality to improve insulin sensitivity.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicMuscle metabolism and nutrition→French-language works237,207→