Alpha-linolenic acid supplementation and resistance training in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased inflammation with aging has been linked to sarcopenia. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of supplementing older adults with alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) during a resistance training program, based on the hypothesis that ALA decreases the plasma concentration of the inflammatory cytokine tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha and interleukin (IL)-6, which in turn would improve muscle size and strength. Fifty-one older adults (65.4 +/- 0.8 years) were randomized to receive ALA in flax oil (~14 g.day-1) or placebo for 12 weeks while completing a resistance training program (3 days a week). Subjects were evaluated at baseline and after 12 weeks for muscle thickness of knee and elbow flexors and extensors (B-mode ultrasound), muscle strength (1 repetition maximum), body composition (dual energy X-ray absorptiometry), and concentrations of TNF-alpha and IL-6. Males supplementing with ALA decreased IL-6 concentration over the 12 weeks (62 +/- 36% decrease; p = 0.003), with no other changes in inflammatory cytokines. Chest and leg press strength, lean tissue mass, muscle thickness, hip bone mineral content and density, and total bone mineral content significantly increased, and percent fat and total body mass decreased with training (p < 0.05), with the only benefit of ALA being a significantly greater increase in knee flexor muscle thickness in males (p < 0.05). Total-body bone mineral density improved in the placebo group, with no change in the ALA group (p = 0.05). ALA supplementation lowers the IL-6 concentration in older men but not women, but had minimal effect on muscle mass and strength during resistance training.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".