Conjugated Linoleic Acid Improves Insulin Sensitivity in Young, Sedentary Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preliminary evidence in obese diabetic rats suggests that conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) may have antidiabetic properties, based on reductions in fasting glucose and insulin concentrations. However, in lean rats, CLA causes hyperinsulinemia. Furthermore, experiments in humans also suggest that CLA may worsen insulin sensitivity. OBJECTIVES: The present study examined whether CLA supplementation can improve insulin sensitivity in humans. DESIGN: : Sixteen young sedentary individuals (age, 21.5 +/- 0.4 yr (mean +/- SEM); body mass, 77.6 +/- 3.4 kg) participated in this study. Ten subjects received 4 g x d of mixed CLA isomers (35.5%cis-9, trans-11; 36.8%trans-10, cis-12) for 8 wk, whereas six subjects received placebo (safflower oil). Oral glucose tolerance tests were performed at baseline (0), 4 and 8 wk of supplementation. RESULTS: : After 8 wk of CLA supplementation, insulin sensitivity index (ISI) increased (14.4 +/- 1.0, 8 wk vs 11.3 +/- 1.3, 0 wk; P < 0.05), which corresponded to a decrease in fasting insulin concentrations. Six of the 10 subjects showed large increases in their ISI (range, +27 to 90%), whereas two demonstrated essential no change (+3 to 5%), and two had a decrease in insulin sensitivity (-12 to -13%). ISI was unchanged over 8 wk in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that a common dosage of a commercially available CLA supplement can improve ISI in young, sedentary individuals. However, there is considerable individual variability in the response. Additional studies are required to identify underlying metabolic changes in human skeletal muscle.
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".