MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Glutamate ingestion and its effects at rest and during exercise in humans

2002· article· en· W2077437786 on OpenAlexaff
Marina Mourtzakis, Terry E. Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransaminationGlutamineIngestionInternal medicineEndocrinologyTaurineGlutamate receptorAlanineChemistryAmino acidMetabolismPhysical exerciseBiochemistryBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glutamate is central to several transamination reactions that affect the production of ammonia, alanine, glutamine, as well as TCA cycle intermediates during exercise. To further study glutamate metabolism, we administered 150 mg/kg body wt of monosodium glutamate (MSG) and placebo to seven male subjects who then either rested or exercised (15-min cycling at approximately 85% maximal oxygen consumption). MSG ingestion resulted in elevated plasma glutamate, aspartate, and taurine, both at rest and during exercise (P < 0.05), whereas most other amino acids were unchanged. Neither plasma alanine nor ammonia was altered at rest. During exercise and after glutamate ingestion, alanine was increased (P < 0.05) and ammonia was attenuated (P < 0.05). Glutamine was also elevated after glutamate ingestion during rest and exercise trials. MSG administration also resulted in elevated insulin levels (P < 0.05), which were parallel to the trend in C-peptide levels. Thus MSG can successfully elevate plasma glutamate, both at rest and during exercise. The plasma amino acid responses suggest that increased glutamate availability during exercise alters its distribution in transamination reactions within active muscle, which results in elevated alanine and decreased ammonia levels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.518
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations54
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicMuscle metabolism and nutritionFrench-language works237,207