Impact of <scp>l</scp>-citrulline supplementation on oxygen uptake kinetics during walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supplementation with l-citrulline (Cit) has been shown to improve muscle oxygenation and oxygen uptake kinetics during moderate- to high-intensity cycling in young men. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that Cit would improve oxygen uptake kinetics during walking in older and young adults. In a randomized, double-blind study, 26 (15 women, 11 men) adults between the ages of 20-35 years (n = 15) and 64-86 years (n = 11) completed 7-day periods of taking placebo and Cit (6 g/day) in a crossover manner. Participants walked on a treadmill at 40% heart rate reserve while pulmonary oxygen uptake was measured using indirect calorimetry. Net oxygen cost, mean response time (MRT), and the oxygen deficit were calculated before and after each supplement period. There was no significant change (P > 0.05) in net oxygen cost, MRT, or the oxygen deficit after Cit in older adults, while young adults showed a decrease (P = 0.05) in the oxygen deficit after Cit that tended (P = 0.053) to be different than the change after placebo. Sex-stratified analysis revealed that Cit decreased MRT (P = 0.04, Cohen's d = 0.41) and the oxygen deficit (P < 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.56) in men with the change after Cit being greater than the change after placebo (MRT: -4.5 ± 2.1 vs. 3.4 ± 2.1 s, P = 0.01; deficit: -0.15 ± 0.05 vs. 0.01 ± 0.05 L, P = 0.02). All oxygen uptake parameters were unchanged (P > 0.05) following Cit and placebo in women. Cit does not alter the oxygen cost of moderate-intensity walking in young or older adults, but Cit improved the rate of rise in oxygen uptake at exercise onset in men.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".