No Effect of Short-Term Green Tea Extract Supplementation on Metabolism at Rest or During Exercise in the Fed State
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Supplementation with green tea extract (GTE) in animals has been reported to induce numerous metabolic adaptations including increased fat oxidation during exercise and improved performance. However, data regarding the metabolic and physiological effects of GTE during exercise in humans are limited and equivocal. PURPOSE: To examine the effects of short-term GTE treatment on resting energy expenditure (REE), wholebody substrate utilization during exercise and time trial performance. METHODS: Fifteen active men (24 ± 3 y; VO(2)peak = 48 ± 7 ml · kg · min(-1); BMI = 26 ± 3 kg · m(2)((-1))) ingested GTE (3x per day = 1,000 mg/d) or placebo (PLA) for 2 day in a double-blind, crossover design (each separated by a 1 week wash-out period). REE was assessed in the fasted state. Subjects then ingested a standardized breakfast (~5.0 kcal · kg(-1)) and 90 min later performed a 60 min cycling bout at an intensity corresponding to individual maximal fat oxidation (44 ± 11% VO(2)peak), followed by a 250 kJ TT. RESULTS: REE, whole-body oxygen consumption (VO2) and substrate oxidation rates during steady-state exercise were not different between treatments. However, mean heart rate (HR) was lower in GTE vs. PLA (115 ± 16 vs. 118 ± 17 beats · min(-1); main effect, p = .049). Mixed venous blood [glycerol] was higher during rest and exercise after GTE vs. PLA (p = .006, main effect for treatment) but glucose, insulin and free-fatty acids were not different. Subsequent time trial performance was not different between treatments (GTE = 25:38 ± 5:32 vs. PLA = 26:08 ± 8:13 min; p = .75). CONCLUSION: GTE had minimal effects on whole-body substrate metabolism but significantly increased plasma glycerol and lowered heart rate during steady-state exercise, suggesting a potential increase in lipolysis and a cardiovascular effect that warrants further investigation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".