MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mitochondrial Adaptation To Training

2016· article· en· W2495480574 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martin J. MacInnis, Maria E. Haikalis, Brian J. Martin, Lauren E. Skelly, Jenna B. Gillen, Mark A. Tarnopolsky, Martin J. Gibala

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterval trainingHigh-intensity interval trainingCitrate synthaseSkeletal muscleMedicineCyclingInternal medicineEndocrinologyPhysical therapyCardiologyAnimal scienceChemistryBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skeletal muscle mitochondria are important for health and performance; however, the optimal exercise stimulus to increase mitochondrial content and function is equivocal. Counter-weighted single-leg (SL) cycling permits the comparison of training adaptations to two different protocols within the same subject, but in a manner that simulates the feeling of normal two-legged cycling. This approach provides greater statistical power to elucidate potential differences in the adaptive response to distinct training strategies. PURPOSE: To compare changes in skeletal muscle mitochondrial content and function in response to short-term high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT), matched for total work. METHODS: Ten active but untrained men (age = 23±4 y, VO2peak = 46±5 mL•kg-1•min-1) performed unilateral graded-exercise tests to measure SL VO2peak and SL peak power (Wpeak). Each leg was randomly assigned to complete either six sessions of MICT (30 min at 50% Wpeak) or HIIT (4 x [5 min at 65% Wpeak and 2.5 min at 20% Wpeak]) over 2 weeks. Citrate synthase (CS) maximal activity and mitochondrial respiration in permeabilized muscle fibres were measured before and after training to assess mitochondrial content and function, respectively. RESULTS: Mean work performed per session was 144±27 kJ, with no difference between legs (p=0.91). There was a time x group interaction (p≤0.05) for both CS maximal activity and mass-specific OXPHOS capacity, such that both were higher after HIIT vs. MICT (p ≤ 0.05). CS increased from 7.4±1.4 to 10.2±2.2 and 7.6±2.2 to 8.5±2.6 mmol•kg protein-1•hour-1 (n=10) after HIIT and MICT, respectively. Mass-specific OXPHOS increased from 48±15 to 58±21 and decreased from 47±17 to 42±15 pmol•s-1•mg ww-1 (n=8) after HIIT and MICT, respectively. Mitochondrial-specific OXPHOS capacity (6.4±2.9 to 5.3±1.4 pmol•s-1• CS-1; n = 8; p = 0.30) and SL VO2peak (34±3.2 to 34±4.1 mL•kg-1•min-1; n=8; p=0.75) were unchanged in both groups. CONCLUSION: Over a 2-week training period, HIIT elicited greater increases in skeletal muscle mitochondrial content and function compared to MICT. We conclude that the intensity and/or pattern of contraction is an important determinant of exercise-induced skeletal muscle remodeling in humans. Supported by NSERC of 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207