Ascorbic acid supplementation does not alter oxidative stress markers in healthy volunteers engaged in a supervised exercise program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of ascorbic acid (AA) consumption on the oxidative stress status of untrained volunteers participating in a supervised exercise program. The study included 46 young adults (average age, 23.5 ± 0.59 years; 37 females, 9 males) who remained sedentary (n = 16) or participated in 30 min of outdoor aerobic running (n = 30) at an intensity corresponding to 65%-75% of maximum heart rate for 3 times per week for 12 weeks. Exercised subjects were randomly assigned to an exercise group without AA supplementation (control; n = 10) or received either 250 mg (n = 10) or 500 mg (n = 10) of AA supplementation previous to each exercise session. Blood samples were taken on day 0 and day 84 to evaluate metabolic profiles and antioxidant status. Sedentary subjects underwent in a single bout of aerobic running to determine total antioxidant status (TAS) and malondiadehyde (MDA) at pre- and postexercise with or without AA supplementation. No significant change in TAS was observed. Plasma MDA significantly increased at postexercise (P < 0.05), and AA supplementation decreased MDA level significantly (P < 0.05). After 3 months of exercise, there was no significant change in blood glucose, lipid profile, MDA, TAS, superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), and catalase activities amongst groups. Supplementation of AA was associated with minor and inconsistent reductions in SOD, GPx, and catalase activities (P < 0.05). These findings indicate that pre-exercise supplementation of ascorbic acid does not alter oxidative stress markers in the plasma and erythrocytes of young adults engaged in a supervised exercise program.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".