The Temporal Effects of Altitude and Low Energy Availability Manipulation on Resting Metabolic Rate in Female Race Walkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the temporal effects of ~1800 m altitude exposure and energy availability (EA) manipulation on resting metabolic rate (RMR). METHODS: Twenty elite female race walkers underwent a 3-wk training camp at an altitude of ~1800 m. During the first 2 wk, athletes consumed a high EA (HEA) diet of 45 kcal·kg fat-free mass (FFM) -1 ·d -1 . During the final week, half the athletes consumed a low EA (LEA) diet of 15 kcal·kg FFM -1 ·d -1 , whereas the others continued on an HEA diet. Athletes followed individualized training plans throughout the study. To assess the effect of altitude on RMR, athletes in the HEA group had RMR measured at baseline (~580 m) before altitude exposure (Pre-alt), at 36 h (36h-alt), 2 wk (Wk2-alt), and 3 wk into altitude exposure (Wk3-alt), and at 36 h post-altitude exposure at ~580 m (36h-post). To assess the effect of LEA exposure on RMR while at altitude, athletes in the LEA group underwent RMR measurements at Pre-alt and before (Wk2-alt) and after the 7 d of LEA (Wk3-alt). RESULTS: Compared with Pre-alt, the RMR of HEA athletes was increased at 36h-alt (+5.3% ± 3.1%; P = 0.026) and Wk2-alt (+4.9% ± 4.9%; P = 0.049), but was no longer elevated at Wk3-alt (+1.7% ± 4.2%; P = 0.850). The RMR of HEA athletes at 36h-post was lower than all timepoints at altitude ( P < 0.05) but was not different from Pre-alt (-3.9% ± 7.2%; P = 0.124). The 7-d period of LEA exposure at altitude did not affect RMR ( P = 0.347). CONCLUSIONS: RMR was transiently increased with ~1800-m altitude exposure in female athletes and was unaffected by short-term LEA. However, the altitude-induced increase was small (~25-75 kcal·d -1 ) and was unlikely to have clinically significant implications for daily energy requirements.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".