Systemic indices of skeletal muscle damage and recovery of muscle function after exercise: effect of combined carbohydrate–protein ingestion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies indicate that exercise-induced muscle damage may be attenuated when protein is included in a carbohydrate recovery supplement. This study was designed to examine systemic indices of muscle damage, inflammation, and recovery of muscle function, following strenuous exercise, with ingestion of either carbohydrate alone or a carbohydrate-protein mixture. Seventeen highly trained volunteers participated in 2 trials in a randomized order, separated by approximately 9 weeks. Each trial involved 90 min of intermittent shuttle-running, either with ingestion of a 9% sucrose solution during and for 4 h after (1.2 g.kg-1 body mass.h-1) or with the same solution plus 3% whey protein isolate (0.4 g.kg-1 body mass.h-1). Blood was sampled throughout and 24 h after each trial to determinate the systemic indices of muscle damage and inflammation. An isokinetic dynamometer was used to establish reliable baseline measurements of peak isometric torque for knee and hip flexors and extensors, which were then followed-up at 4-, 24-, 48-, and 168-h postexercise. The exercise protocol resulted in significantly elevated variables indicative of muscle damage and inflammation, while peak isometric torque was immediately reduced by 10%-20% relative to baseline, across all muscle groups tested. However, none of these responses varied in magnitude or time-course between the treatments, or between participants' first and second trials. The addition of whey protein isolate to a dietary carbohydrate supplement ingested during and for 4 h following strenuous exercise did not attenuate systemic indices of muscle damage or inflammation, nor did it restore muscle function more rapidly than when the carbohydrate fraction was ingested alone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".