Variable effects of 12 weeks of omega-3 supplementation on resting skeletal muscle metabolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Omega-3 supplementation has been purported to improve the function of several organs in the body, including reports of increased resting metabolic rate (RMR) and reliance on fat oxidation. However, the potential for omega-3s to modulate human skeletal muscle metabolism has received little attention. This study examined the effects of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplementation on whole-body RMR and the content of proteins involved in fat metabolism in human skeletal muscle. Recreationally active males supplemented with 3.0 g/day of EPA and DHA (n = 21) or olive oil (n = 9) for 12 weeks. Resting muscle biopsies were sampled in a subset of 10 subjects before (pre) and after (post) omega-3 supplementation. RMR significantly increased (5.3%, p = 0.040) following omega-3 supplementation (Pre, 1.33 ±0.05; Post, 1.40 ±0.04 kcal/min) with variable individual responses. When normalizing for body mass, this effect was lost (5.2%, p = 0.058). Omega-3s did not affect whole-body fat oxidation, and olive oil did not alter any parameter assessed. Omega-3 supplementation did not affect whole muscle, sarcolemmal, or mitochondrial FAT/CD36, FABPpm, FATP1 or FATP4 contents or mitochondrial electron chain and PDH proteins, but did increase the long form of UCP3 by 11%. In conclusion, supplementation with a high dose of omega-3s for 12 weeks increased RMR in a small and variable manner in a group of healthy young men. Omega-3 supplementation also had no effect on several proteins involved in skeletal muscle fat metabolism and did not cause mitochondrial biogenesis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".