A Single Bout of Upper-Body Exercise Has No Effect on Postprandial Metabolism in Persons with Chronic Paraplegia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The acute effects of a single bout of upper-body exercise on postprandial metabolism in persons with spinal cord injury are currently not well understood. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a single bout of upper-body high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE) and moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MICE) in comparison with a no-exercise control (REST) condition on postprandial metabolic responses in persons with chronic paraplegia. METHODS: Ten participants (eight males, two females; age, 49 ± 10 yr; time since injury, 22 ± 13 yr) with chronic paraplegia took part in a randomized crossover study, consisting of three trials: HIIE (8 × 60 s at 70% peak power output [PPEAK]), MICE (25 min at 45% PPEAK), and REST, at least 3 d apart. Exercise was performed in the fasted state, and participants consumed a mixed-macronutrient liquid meal 1-h postexercise. Venous blood and expired gas samples were collected at regular intervals for 6-h postmeal consumption. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in postprandial incremental area under the curve for triglycerides (P = 0.59) or glucose (P = 0.56) between conditions. Insulin incremental area under the curve tended to be lower after MICE (135 ± 85 nmol·L-1 per 360 min) compared with REST (162 ± 93 nmol·L-1 per 360 min), but this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.06, d = 0.30). Participants reported a greater fondness (P = 0.04) and preference for HIIE over MICE. CONCLUSIONS: After an overnight fast, a single bout of upper-body exercise before eating has no effect on postprandial metabolism in persons with chronic paraplegia, irrespective of exercise intensity. This suggests that alternative exercise strategies may be required to stimulate postprandial substrate oxidation for this population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".