Alterations in glycemic control and glucose tolerance following overtraining in endurance athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has demonstrated attenuated exercising carbohydrate oxidation and circulating glucose when endurance athletes are functionally overreached; however, whether free-living glycemic control is altered with overreaching is unknown. Trained endurance athletes (M:8, F:2) completed a 5-week training protocol composed of three phases: 1 week of reduced training, 3 weeks of high-intensity overtraining, and 1 week of recovery training. Participants wore continuous glucose monitors (CGM) to collect minute-by-minute interstitial glucose concentrations, and data were analyzed for weeks 1 (PRE), 4 (POST), and 5 (REC). A fasted 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed at the end of each phase with repeated capillary sampling to measure glucose concentrations. CGM-derived 24 h average glucose, overnight average glucose (12 am to 6 am), and daily time spent in low (<3.9 mmol/L), normal (3.9–5.0 mmol/L), and medium-high (5.1–7.8 mmol/L) glucose ranges were not different across training phases. The proportion of time with elevated interstitial glucose (>7.8 mmol/L) was elevated at REC (3.5 ± 1.1%) relative to PRE (2.4 ± 1.9%, P = 0.05) and POST (2.1 ± 1.0%, P = 0.021; ηp 2 = 0.66). The daily mean amplitude of glycemic excursions also increased at REC (2.6 ± 0.2 mmol/L) relative to PRE (2.3 ± 0.3 mmol/L, P = 0.05) and POST (2.2 ± 0.3 mmol/L, P = 0.008; ηp 2 = 0.41). Capillary glucose area-under-the-curve was nonsignificantly reduced from PRE (852.5 ± 87.6 mmol/L·min) to POST (811.4 ± 77.5 mmol/L·min, P = 0.06), and elevated from POST-to-REC (866.3 ± 79.8 mmol/L·min, P = 0.02; ηp 2 = 0.3) during the OGTT. Glycemic control and glucose tolerance are unchanged with overtraining; however, following a week of recovery there is greater time spent with elevated glucose and greater glucose variability suggesting disrupted glycemic control during recovery.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".