Exercise mode influences post‐exercise glucose sensitivity and insulin clearance in young, healthy males and females in a sex‐dependent manner: A randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) risk is lower in females than males. It has been reported that females have greater pancreatic 𝛽-cell function than males, which may at least in part contribute to the T2D risk in females. 𝛽-cell function is influenced by exercise training; however, previous trials comparing 𝛽-cell function between the sexes have not included participants matched for training status. Furthermore, the acute effects of different modes of exercise on 𝛽-cell function, and whether sex inherently influences these effects, are largely unexamined. Males and females (12/sex) completed a 120-min oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at rest (CON) and following acute bouts of high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE), moderate intensity continuous (MIC) exercise, and low-load high-repetition (LLHR) resistance exercise to assess whether sex inherently influences baseline and/or post-exercise pancreatic function in the absence of pathology. We found no sex differences in basal pancreatic 𝛽-cell function. Females had greater basal insulin clearance following MIC exercise compared to males (p = 0.01) and males tended to have a higher potentiation ratio following HIIE (p = 0.07). Females also had lower glucose sensitivity following MIC exercise compared to HIIE (p = 0.007) and LLHR (p = 0.003). Insulin clearance during the OGTT was greater following HIIE as compared with CON and MIC exercise (p = 0.02). 2-H oral glucose insulin sensitivity was greater following LLHR compared to CON (p = 0.01). Acute bouts of different modes of exercise do not differentially influence 𝛽-cell function but do influence insulin clearance and insulin sensitivity. Therefore, sex and exercise mode interact to differentially influence insulin clearance and glucose 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".