Effects of vitamin E supplementation on exercise-induced oxidative stress: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tocopherols (commonly referred to as "vitamin E") are frequently studied antioxidants in exercise research. However, the studies are highly heterogeneous, which has resulted in contradicting opinions. The aim of this review is to identify similar studies investigating the effects of tocopherol supplementation on exercise performance and oxidative stress and to perform minimally biased qualitative comparisons and meta-analysis. The literature search and study selection were performed according to Cochrane guidelines. A 2-dimensional study execution process was developed to enable selection of similar and comparable studies. Twenty relevant studies were identified. The high variability of study designs resulted in final selection of 6 maximally relevant studies. Markers of lipid peroxidation (malondialdehyde) and muscle damage (creatine kinase) were the 2 most frequently and similarly measured variables. Meta comparison showed that tocopherol supplementation did not result in significant protection against either exercise-induced lipid peroxidation or muscle damage. The complex antioxidant nature of tocopherols and low accumulation rates in muscle tissues could underlie an absence of protective effects.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".