Steroid anabolic and catabolic hormones in highly and recreationally trained female athletes across the menstrual cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex hormone fluctuations across the normal menstrual cycle (NMC) may affect women's performance and health, but literature is sparse on the estradiol (E2) impact on anabolic and catabolic hormones and well-being in female athletes. We therefore measured in 21 NMC anaerobically trained female athletes: 12 highly (HT) and nine recreationally (RT) during late luteal/early follicular (Low E2) and late follicular/peri-ovulatory (High E2) phases: DHEAS, DHEA, androstenedione (A4), testosterone (T), sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), cortisol, free androgen index (FAI = T/SHBG), and their relative ratios. Body composition and well-being, assessed by positive and negative affects (PANAS), were determined in parallel. In High versus Low E2, subjects showed a significant percentage increase in T, A4 (p < 0.001) and FAI (p < 0.05), with high A4/T correlation (r = 0.78), without any change in the other parameters. While no group difference was detected in hormone concentrations, HT versus RT subjects presented higher muscle mass and positive affects and lower FAI (p < 0.05). In conclusion, T and A4 were modulated across NMC, probably resulting from a variable ovarian contribution, but without inducing any change in the anabolic/catabolic balance, regardless of the physical training level. However, high anaerobic training may enhance T sensitivity in view of the FAI, body composition and well-being outcomes.
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".