MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exercise training and protein metabolism: influences of contraction, protein intake, and sex-based differences

2008· review· en· W1964107990 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas A. Burd, Jason E. Tang, Daniel R. Moore, Stuart M. Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnabolismProtein turnoverMuscle hypertrophyEndocrinologyInternal medicineSkeletal muscleProtein metabolismBiologyMuscle contractionProtein biosynthesisSignal transductionMetabolismMedicineCell biologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Muscle contraction during exercise, whether resistive or endurance in nature, has profound affects on muscle protein turnover that can persist for up to 72 h. It is well established that feeding during the postexercise period is required to bring about a positive net protein balance (muscle protein synthesis - muscle protein breakdown). There is mounting evidence that the timing of ingestion and the protein source during recovery independently regulate the protein synthetic response and influence the extent of muscle hypertrophy. Minor differences in muscle protein turnover appear to exist in young men and women; however, with aging there may be more substantial sex-based differences in response to both feeding and resistance exercise. The recognition of anabolic signaling pathways and molecules are also enhancing our understanding of the regulation of protein turnover following exercise perturbations. In this review we summarize the current understanding of muscle protein turnover in response to exercise and feeding and highlight potential sex-based dimorphisms. Furthermore, we examine the underlying anabolic signaling pathways and molecules that regulate these processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations392
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicMuscle metabolism and nutritionFrench-language works237,207