Trial reportPhysiological reports2026
Maximal fat oxidation assessment in active postmenopausal females: A novel relative power FATmax test.
Trial report in Physiological reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study compared a novel relative-to-body-mass FATmax test (RFT; 0.15 W/kg/4 min from 0.45 W/kg) with a traditional absolute power FATmax test (AFT; 10 W/3min15sec from 30 W) in postmenopausal females. The aim was to determine whether the RFT protocol would improve fat oxidation kinetics during exercise, in females with lower maximal fat oxidation (MFO). It was hypothesized that the longer duration and the lower workload increments would result in higher fat oxidation values than AFT. Seventeen active postmenopausal females (69.2 ± 5.1 years) performed both protocols in a randomized order and were divided into above (H-MFO) or below (L-MFO) 0.3 g/min MFO. Groups were equal in age and body composition. Overall, time to MFO was delayed during the RFT protocol (765 ± 621 vs. 401 ± 262 s) without MFO differences. Both groups displayed longer time to MFO in RFT, whilst significantly only for L-MFO (420 ± 280 s vs. 317 ± 232). Although no statistical differences, moderate effect sizes were observed in the L-MFO group during RFT for both MFO (0.22 ± 0.04 vs. 0.19 ± 0.06 g/min, d = 0.65) and VO
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.