Treadmill training does not prevent loss of muscle mass or contractile properties in senescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With aging there is a decline in muscle mass and strength. This study was designed to examine the impact of treadmill training, beginning in late‐middle age and continuing across a 7 mo period when muscle atrophy and functional decline markedly accelerates. 29 mo old rats were divided into 2 groups: half of the animals were exercised on a treadmill for 5 (34T) or 7 mo (36T), while the others maintained normal cage activity (34C and 36C). In situ contractile properties were measured in the Gastrocnemius/plantaris (GAS) and Soleus (SOL) muscles via sciatic nerve stimulation. Mass of the GAS and SOL was lower than young adult (YA) in 34C and 36C. Training had no affect on mass in 34T but decreased mass in 36T vs 36C. GAS tetanic force was lower than YA (12.1 ± 0.9 N/g) in 34T (8.8 ± 0.9 N/g) and 34C (7.1± 1.0 N/g), with no further decline with aging. SOL tetanic force was lower than YA (14.9 ± 0.8 N/g) in 34T (5.4 ± 0.7 N/g) and 34C (5.8 ± 1.0 N/g), with no further decline at 36 mo. In addition, training did not prevent the increase in time to peak force and time to half relaxation seen with aging in controls. In conclusion, treadmill training did not attenuate declining muscle contractile function with aging and may even exacerbate muscle mass decline in senescence. Supported by CIHR and NSERC (Canada).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".