EFFECT OF CARNOSINE CONCENTRATION IN MUSCLE AND IMPROVEMENT OF EXERCISE PERFORMANCES DUE TO LONG-TERM INTAKE OF CHICKEN BREAST EXTRACT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the effect of the long-term intake of chicken breast extract (CBEX), which contains carnosine and anserine, on carnosine content in skeletal muscles of humans and on short-period exercise performance with high intensity.Before and after CBEX was orally given to 13 healthy male subjects for 30 days, pieces of their muscle (M. vastus lateralis) were excised and carnosine concentration in the muscle was measured. Before and after the test period, the subjects exercise performance (mean and peak power body weight) was determined by pedaling for 30 sec. On the basis of baseline concentrations of carnosine, the subjects were classified into two groups: low (n=8) and high (n=5) carnosine-baseline groups. In the former group, intake of CBEX increased carnosine concentration in the muscle (p<0.05), resulting in significant correlation between increased rate of carnosine concentration and mean power. These results suggest that exercise performance depends on carnosine concentration in the muscle, and that taking carnosine-containing foods may improve exercise performance.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".