Real World Interstitial Glucose Profiles of a Large Cohort of Physically Active Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) in individuals living without diabetes is increasing. The purpose of this study was to profile various CGM metrics around nutritional intake, sleep and exercise in a large cohort of physically active men and women living without any known metabolic disease diagnosis to better understand the normative glycemic response to these common stimuli. A total of 12,504 physically active adults (age 40 ± 11 years, BMI 23.8 ± 3.6 kg/m2; 23% self-identified as women) wore a real-time CGM (Abbott Libre Sense Sport Glucose Biosensor, Abbott, USA) and used a smartphone application (Supersapiens Inc., Atlanta, GA, USA) to log meals, sleep and exercise activities. A total of >1 M exercise events and 274,344 meal events were analyzed. A majority of participants (85%) presented an overall (24 h) average glucose profile between 90 and 110 mg/dL, with the highest glucose levels associated with meals and exercise and the lowest glucose levels associated with sleep. Men had higher mean 24 h glucose levels than women (24 h—men: 100 ± 11 mg/dL, women: 96 ± 10 mg/dL). During exercise, the % time above >140 mg/dL was 10.3 ± 16.7%, while the % time <70 mg/dL was 11.9 ± 11.6%, with the remaining % within the so-called glycemic tight target range (70–140 mg/dL). Average glycemia was also lower for females during exercise and sleep events (p < 0.001). Overall, we see small differences in glucose trends during activity and sleep in females as compared to males and higher levels of both TAR and TBR when these active individuals are undertaking or competing in endurance exercise training and/or competitive events.
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) | 0.000 | 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".