Contraction-induced muscle damage is unaffected by vitamin E supplementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Vitamin E supplementation may confer a protective effect against eccentrically biased exercise-induced muscle damage through stabilization of the cell membrane and possibly via inhibition of free radical formation. Evidence supporting a protective role of vitamin E after contraction-induced muscle injury in humans is, however, inconsistent. The present study sought to determine the effect of vitamin E supplementation on indices of exercise-induced muscle damage and the postexercise inflammatory response after performance of repeated eccentric muscle contractions. METHODS: Young healthy men performed a bout of 240 maximal isokinetic eccentric muscle contractions (0.52 rad.s-1) after being supplemented for 30 d with either vitamin E (N = 9; 1200 IU.d-1) or placebo (N = 7; safflower oil). RESULTS: Measurements of torque (isometric and concentric) decreased (P < 0.05) below preexercise values immediately post- and at 48 h post-exercise. Biopsies taken 24 h postexercise showed a significant increase in the amount of extensive Z-band disruption (P < 0.01); however, neither the torque deficit nor the extent of Z-band disruption were affected by vitamin E. Exercise resulted in increased macrophage cell infiltration (P = 0.05) into muscle, which was also unaffected by vitamin E. Serum CK also increased as a result of the exercise (P < 0.05) with no effect of vitamin E. CONCLUSION: We conclude that vitamin E supplementation (30 d at 1200 IU.d-1), which resulted in a 2.8-fold higher serum vitamin E concentration (P < 0.01), had no affect on indices of contraction-induced muscle damage nor inflammation (macrophage infiltration) as a result of eccentrically biased muscle contractions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".