The Impact of Sex, Body Mass Index, Age, Exercise Type and Exercise Duration on Interstitial Glucose Levels during Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of age, sex and body mass index on interstitial glucose levels as measured via continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) during exercise in the healthy population is largely unexplored. We conducted a multivariable generalized estimating equation (GEE) analysis on CGM data (Dexcom G6, 10 days) collected from 119 healthy exercising individuals using CGM with the following specified covariates: age; sex; BMI; exercise type and duration. Females had lower postexercise glycemia as compared with males (92 ± 18 vs. 100 ± 20 mg/dL, p = 0.04) and a greater change in glycemia during exercise from pre- to postexercise (p = 0.001) or from pre-exercise to glucose nadir during exercise (p = 0.009). Younger individuals (i.e., <20 yrs) had higher glucose during exercise as compared with all other age groups (all p < 0.05) and less CGM data in the hypoglycemic range (<70 mg/dL) as compared with those aged 20–39 yrs (p < 0.05). Those who were underweight, based on body mass index (BMI: <18.5 kg/m2), had higher pre-exercise glycemia than the healthy BMI group (104 ± 20 vs. 97 ± 17 mg/dL, p = 0.02) but similar glucose levels after exercise. Resistance exercise was associated with less of a drop in glycemia as compared with aerobic or mixed forms of exercise (p = 0.008) and resulted in a lower percent of time in the hypoglycemic (p = 0.04) or hyperglycemic (glucose > 140 mg/dL) (p = 0.03) ranges. In summary, various factors such as age, sex and exercise type appear to have subtle but potentially important influence on CGM measurements during exercise in healthy individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".