Green tea extract does not affect exogenous glucose appearance but reduces insulinemia with glucose ingestion in exercise recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reported that supplementation with green tea extract (GTE) lowered the glycemic response to an oral glucose load following exercise, but via an unknown mechanism (Martin BJ, MacInnis MJ, Gillen JB, Skelly LE, Gibala MJ. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 41: 1057–1063, 2016. Here we examined the effect of supplementation with GTE on plasma glucose kinetics on ingestion of a glucose beverage during exercise recovery. Eleven healthy, sedentary men (21 ± 2 yr old; body mass index = 23 ± 4 kg/m 2 , peak O 2 uptake = 38 ± 7 ml·kg −1 ·min −1 ; means ± SD) ingested GTE (350 mg) or placebo (PLA) thrice daily for 7 days in a double-blind, crossover design. In the fasted state, a primed constant infusion of [U- 13 C 6 ]glucose was started, and 1 h later, subjects performed a graded exercise test (25 W/3 min) on a cycle ergometer. Immediately postexercise, subjects ingested a 75-g glucose beverage containing 2 g of [6,6- 2 H 2 ]glucose, and blood samples were collected every 10 min for 3 h of recovery. The rate of carbohydrate oxidation was lower during exercise after GTE vs. PLA (1.26 ± 0.34 vs. 1.48 ± 0.51 g/min, P = 0.04). Glucose area under the curve (AUC) was not different between treatments after drink ingestion (GTE = 1,067 ± 133 vs. PLA = 1,052 ± 91 mM/180 min, P = 0.91). Insulin AUC was lower after GTE vs. PLA (5,673 ± 2,153 vs. 7,039 ± 2,588 µIU/180 min, P = 0.05), despite similar rates of glucose appearance (GTE = 0.42 ± 0.16 vs. PLA = 0.43 ± 0.13 g/min, P = 0.74) and disappearance (GTE = 0.43 ± 0.14 vs. PLA = 0.44 ± 0.14 g/min, P = 0.57). We conclude that short-term GTE supplementation did not affect glucose kinetics following ingestion of an oral glucose load postexercise; however, GTE was associated with attenuated insulinemia. These findings suggest GTE lowers the insulin required for a given glucose load during postexercise recovery, which warrants further mechanistic studies in humans.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".