The Physiological Effect of Fasting the Month of Ramadan on Anthropometrics and Blood Variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manystudies have beenconducted onfastingduring the monthof Ramadan;however, their resultswerevastly inconsistent.Itis importanttonote thatnone of these studiescontrolledor evenmonitoredphysical activityandfoodintake. Purpose Thisstudy willdetermineifintermittentfastingwillaffectbody composition, blood lipid profile,glucose, blood proteins and hormones. Methods Eight healthyathletemales participatedinthisstudy.Weight,height andbody compositionofallsubjectswererecordedatbaselineoneday before Ramadan(D1),after ten daysof fastingRamadan(D10) andtwenty‐eightdaysof fastingRamadan (D28). All data was analyzed using 1x3 repeatedmeasuresANOVA(p<.05). Results There wassignificantdecreasein bodymassandLeanbody masscomparingD28withD1andD10.Vigorousactivityand ModerateactivityweresignificantlydecreaseatD10andD28ofRamadan. Thepercentagewhichrecommendeddietary allowancesof caloriesfromproteinshowedsignificantdecreaseatD10andD28comparetoD1.Inaddition,the percentage of calories fromcarbohydrate showedsignificant increaseatD10andD28comparetoD1.FastedGlucoselevelsweresignificantly increasedat D10compareto D1. Glucagondecreasesignificantly at D10, but not at D28.Inaddition,Albumin levelsweresignificantlyloweratD10andD28compareto D1;however,all measurements were stillwithinnormal/healthrange. Conclusion Resultsshowthelevelofphysicalactivity andfoodintakeare majorcontributingfactorsonthereductioninbodyweight.Overall,thesefindingsindicatenohealthriskforfastingthe month of Ramadan.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".