Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated the glycemic response to an acute high-intensity interval training (HIIT) session (10 one-minute intervals ≥90% HR<sub>max</sub> interspersed with one-minute of active recovery) versus a moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) session (30 min at 64%-76% HR<sub>max</sub> ) during pregnancy. Twenty-four normoglycemic females with a singleton pregnancy (27.8 ± 4.7 weeks of gestation, 31.5 ± 4.1 years of age, body mass index: 25.2 ± 11.3) participated in a randomized crossover design study. A flash glucose monitor and accelerometer were worn continuously for 7 days recording glycemic response, physical activity, and sleep. Nutritional intake and enjoyment of the exercise were self-reported. Average heart rate during exercise was higher for HIIT (82 ± 4% HR<sub>max</sub> ) compared with MICT (74 ± 4% HR<sub>max</sub> ; p < 0.001) and participants achieved a peak heart rate of 92 ± 3% during HIIT (range 85%-97% HR<sub>max</sub> ) compared with 81 ± 4% during MICT (p < 0.001). The change in glucose values from pre-to-postexercise were not different between conditions (HIIT: -0.62 ± 1.00 mmol/L; MICT: -0.81 ± 1.05 mmol/L; p = 0.300) with the exception that fewer individuals experienced postexercise hypoglycemia immediately following HIIT compared with MICT (8% versus 33% respectively; p = 0.041). Other glucose variables was not different between exercise protocols. Physical activity (p = 0.07) and caloric intake did not differ (p = 0.10). The majority of participants preferred HIIT (87.5%) and had greater perceived enjoyment compared to MICT (HIIT: 7.8 ± 1.5; MICT: 6.6 ± 2.0; p = 0.015). Sleep duration was 52 ± 73 min longer after participating in HIIT compared with the night prior (main effect for time p = 0.017); no significant changes for MICT. Overall, an acute session of HIIT appears to be well tolerated and demonstrates no adverse effects on maternal glycemic response.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".