Blood Glucose During High Altitude Trekking in Young Healthy Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reid, Ly-Anh, Jordan L. Rees, Miranda Kimber, Marina James, Graeme M. Purdy, Megan Smorschok, Lauren E. Maier, Normand G. Boulé, Trevor A. Day, Margie H. Davenport, and Craig D. Steinback. Blood glucose during high altitude trekking in young healthy adults. High Alt Med Biol. 26:30–36, 2025. Introduction: High altitude trekking is becoming more popular and accessible to an increased number of people. Simultaneously, there is a worldwide rise in the prevalence of metabolic diseases. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of a gradual trekking ascent to high altitude on continuous glucose monitoring outcomes including fasting, mean 24-hour, postprandial, and post-75 g modified oral glucose tolerance test. This study also investigated the relationship between physical activity intensity, high altitude, and glucose concentrations. Methods: Individuals ( n = 9) from Alberta, Canada participated in a 2-week trek in the Khumbu Valley in Nepal, ascending by foot from 2,860 m to 5,300 m (∼65 km) over 10 days. A standardized 75 g oral glucose load was given to participants at four different altitudes (1,130 m, 3,440 m, 3,820 m, 5,160 m). Physical activity (Actigraph accelerometry) and interstitial glucose (iPro2, Medtronic) were measured continuously during the trek. Results: Fasting and mean 24-hour glucose concentrations were not different between altitudes. However, 2-hour post dinner glucose and 2-hour post lunch glucose, AUC concentrations were different between altitudes. The relationship between physical activity intensity and glucose was not influenced by increasing altitudes. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that glucose regulation is largely preserved at high altitude; however, inconsistency in our postprandial glucose concentrations at altitude warrants further investigation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".