MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002984846 · doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e318164cb33

Effect of Dietary Fat on Serum and Intramyocellular Lipids and Running Performance

2008· article· en· W2002984846 on OpenAlexafffund
D. Enette Larson‐Meyer, Olga N. Borkhsenious, Jon C. Gullett, RYAN R. RUSSELL, Michaela C. Devries, Steven R. Smith, Éric Ravussin

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesSchool of Veterinary Medicine, Louisiana State UniversityNational Institutes of HealthMcMaster University
KeywordsGlycogenInternal medicineEndocrinologyTime trialMorningCholesterolCrossover studyAnimal scienceMedicineChemistryBiologyPlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study evaluated whether lowering IMCL stores via 3-d consumption of very-low-fat (LFAT) diet impairs endurance performance relative to a moderate-fat diet (MFAT), and whether such a diet unfavorably alters lipid profiles. METHODS: Twenty-one male and female endurance-trained runners followed a controlled diet and training regimen for 3 d prior to consuming either a LFAT (10% fat) or MFAT (35% fat) isoenergetic diet for another 3 d in random crossover fashion. On day 7, runners followed a glycogen normalization protocol (to equalize glycogen stores) and then underwent performance testing (90-min preload run at 62 +/- 1% VO2max followed by a 10-km time trial) on the morning of day 8. Muscle biopsies obtained from vastus lateralis before and after performance testing were analyzed for IMCL (via electron microscopy) and glycogen content (via enzymatic methodology). RESULTS: Despite approximately 30% lower IMCL (0.220 +/- 0.032% LFAT, 0.316 +/- 0.049% MFAT; P = 0.045) and approximately 22% higher muscle glycogen stores at the start of performance testing (P = 0.10), 10-km performance time was not significantly different following the two diet treatments (43.5 +/- 1.4 min LFAT vs 43.7 +/- 1.2 min MFAT). However, LFAT produced less favorable lipid profiles (P < 0.01) by increasing fasting triglycerides (baseline = 84.9 +/- 8.6; LFAT = 118.7 +/- 10.0 mg.dL(-1)) and the total cholesterol:HDL cholesterol ratio (baseline = 3.42 +/- 0.13:1; LFAT = 3.75 +/- 0.20:1), whereas MFAT lowered triglycerides (baseline = 97.5 +/- 12.2; MFAT = 70.9 +/- 7.1 mg.dL(-1)) and the total cholesterol:HDL cholesterol ratio (baseline = 3.47 +/- 0.18:1; MFAT = 3.33 +/- 0.14:1). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that reducing IMCL via 3-d consumption of a LFAT diet does not impair running performance lasting a little over 2 h (compared with 3-d consumption of a MFAT diet plus 1-d glycogen normalization), but that even short-term consumption of a LFAT diet may unfavorably alter serum lipids, even in healthy, endurance-trained runners.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicMuscle metabolism and nutritionFrench-language works237,207