Day-to-Day Changes in Muscle Protein Synthesis in Recovery From Resistance, Aerobic, and High-Intensity Interval Exercise in Older Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Resistance exercise (RE) and aerobic exercise are recommended for older adults for fitness and strength. High-intensity interval exercise (HIIT) is an understudied but potent potential alternative to aerobic exercise. This study aimed to determine how each mode of exercise affected the integrated day-to-day response of muscle protein synthesis. METHODS: Sedentary men (n = 22; 67±4 years; body mass index: 27.0±2.6 kg m(-) (2) [mean ± SEM]) were randomly assigned to perform RE, aerobic exercise, or HIIT. Participants consumed a stable isotope tracer (D2O) for 9 days. Daily saliva samples were taken to measure tracer incorporation in body water. Muscle biopsies were obtained on Days 5-8 of D2O consumption to measure tracer incorporation into muscle at rest, 24 hours, and 48 hours following each exercise bout: RE (3 × 10 repetitions: leg extensor and press, 95% 10RM), HIIT (10 × 1 minute, 95% maximal heart rate [HRmax]), or aerobic exercise (30 minutes, 55%-60% HRmax). RESULTS: Myofibrillar protein fractional synthetic rate was elevated, relative to rest, at 24 and 48 hours following RE and HIIT. The increase in myofibrillar fractional synthetic rate was greater following RE versus HIIT at both time points. HIIT was the only mode of exercise to increase sarcoplasmic protein fractional synthetic rate 24-hour postexercise (2.30±0.34% d(-) (1) vs 1.83±0.21% d(-) (1)). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that in older men, changes in muscle protein synthesis in response to certain exercises are long lasting and that HIIT significantly increases myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic fractional synthetic rate in this population.
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".