Data from the paper entitled 'Glycaemic effects of a 156-km ultra-trail race in athletes: an observational field study'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives We aimed to explore the impact of an ultra-endurance race on continuously measured glycaemia and to understand potential physiological mechanisms, as well as the consequences for performance and behavioural alertness. Methods Fifty-five athletes (78% men, 43.7 +/- 9.6 years) ran a 156-km ultra-trail race (‘Trail Scientifique de Clécy’: six 26-km laps, total elevation +6000 m). Participants wore a masked continuous glucose monitoring sensor from the day before the race until 10 days post-race. Blood was taken at rest, during refuelling stops after each lap, and after 24-h recovery. Running intensity (% heart rate reserve), performance (lap times), psychological stress and behavioural alertness were explored. Linear mixed models and logistic regressions were carried out. Results No higher risk of hypo or hyperglycaemia was observed during the exercise phases of the race (i.e., excluding stops for scientific measurements and refuelling) compared with resting values. Laps comprising a greater proportion of time spent at maximal aerobic intensity were nevertheless associated with more time >180 mg/dL (P=0.021). A major risk of hyperglycaemia appeared during the 48-h post-race period compared with pre-race (P<0.05), with 31.9% of the participants spending time >180 mg/dL during recovery vs. 5.5% during resting. Changes in circulating insulin, cortisol and free fatty acids followed profiles comparable with those usually observed during traditional aerobic exercise. However, creatine phosphokinase, and to a lesser extent lactate dehydrogenase, increased exponentially during the race (P<0.001) and remained high at 24-h post-race (P<0.001; respectively 43.6 and 1.8 times higher vs. resting). Glycaemic metrics did not influence physical performance nor behavioural alertness. Conclusion Ultra-endurance athletes were exposed to hyperglycaemia during the 48-h post-race period, possibly linked to muscle damage and inflammation. Strategies to mitigate muscle damage or subsequent inflammation before or after ultra-trail races could limit recovery hyperglycaemia and hence its related adverse health consequences.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.009 |
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".