Early metabolic response after resistance exercise with blood flow restriction in well-trained men: a metabolomics approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to compare the early metabolic response between high-load resistance exercise (HL-RE) and low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction (LL-BFR). Nine young, well-trained men participated in a randomized crossover design in which each subject completed LL-BFR, HL-RE, or condition control (no exercise) with a 1-week interval between them. Blood samples were taken immediately before and 5 min after the exercise sessions. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy identified and quantified 48 metabolites, 6 of which presented significant changes among the exercise protocols. The HL-RE promoted a higher increase in pyruvate, lactate, and alanine compared with the LL-BFR and the control. HL-RE and LL-BFR promoted a higher increase in succinate compared with the control; however, there was no difference between HL-RE and LL-BFR. Also, while there was no difference in acetoacetate between HL-RE and LL-BFR, a greater decrease was observed in both compared with the control. Finally, LL-BFR promoted a greater decrease in choline compared with the control. In conclusion, this study provides by metabolomics a new insight in metabolic response between LL-BFR and HL-RE by demonstrating a distinct response to some metabolites that are not commonly analyzed.
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 | 0.001 | 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".