Gender differences in exercise efficiency: the influence of adiposity during low-intensity cycling in healthy Lebanese university students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Low-intensity physical activity plays a key role in weight regulation, and reduced engagement in such activities is associated with rising obesity rates. This study explored the relationship between body fat distribution and exercise efficiency during low-intensity cycling, comparable to everyday life, focusing on adiposity in men and women. METHODS: Thirty participants (50% women and 50% men) underwent basal metabolic rate (BMR) measurements after an overnight fast. Following 500 ml water intake, they cycled at 60 rpm for 5 min at four intensities (20 W, 40 W, 60 W, 80 W), with respiratory parameters (i.e., energy expenditure (EE)) recorded using an indirect calorimeter system. Spearman correlations were used to assess the relationships among BMI, total body and trunk fat percentages, and delta efficiency (DE), which quantifies the energy cost associated with incremental work output during exercise. RESULTS: values of 0.999 for men and 0.995 for women. Additionally, significant positive correlations were observed between BMI, fat percentage, trunk and limb fat percentages, and delta efficiency (DE) in women, explaining 45.7%, 34.7%, 34.1%, and 29.7% of the variance in DE, respectively. No significant correlations were found between these variables in men. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that body fat distribution, particularly in women, is significantly associated with exercise efficiency during low-intensity cycling. These findings highlight the need for larger studies that incorporate gender-specific considerations in exercise and targeted interventions.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".