Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor-in-Chief, We would like to thank Dr. Coggan for a positive and succinct summary of our findings, and for concurring with our main assertion that protein modifications, and not protein expression, likely contribute to the ergogenic effects of nitrate consumption within skeletal muscle. Nevertheless, Dr. Coggan has taken exception to the statement in our published work that “future studies should also include an assessment of changes in function after acute ingestion.” However, the following sentence in that work gets at the main point we were trying to highlight, namely, that to our knowledge, mechanistic work has not been performed after a single bolus of nitrate consumption. Specifically, previous work examining calcium handling (1,2), mitochondrial coupling (3–5), and mitochondrial reactive oxygen species emission (4) have all been conducted after repeated intake (i.e., ≥3 d) of oral nitrate. Therefore, although there are numerous examples showing that a single intake of oral nitrates can improve human exercise performance (only some of these seminal articles are referenced within our manuscript [6,7], because of the journal’s restriction on the number of references), we stand by our assertion that future research is required to delineate the specific mechanisms associated with an acute intake of nitrate. In our recent work, we hypothesized that changes in human skeletal muscle contractile function after nitrate supplementation could be explained by structural and/or redox-mediated changes, but we were unable to detect a change in the redox status of skeletal muscle (2). However, we acknowledge that the measurements made represent a snapshot of cellular oxidative stress and may therefore lack the sensitivity to accurately determine redox signaling. As such, future research is required in all potential aspects of signaling after nitrate supplementation, and the utilization of advanced techniques and -omics strategies may prove beneficial in delineating the physiological significance of the previously observed increase in H2O2 emission (4). Furthermore, given the similarities in muscle function with acute and chronic nitrate consumption, the logical progression in our minds would be to use an experimental design focused on the changes seen after an acute bolus of nitrate. We feel that the findings of such a study would be important, because it may further our understanding of the mechanistic underpinnings of nitrate supplementation, as well as help inform researchers and practitioners how to appropriately tailor supplementation protocols across different populations. Jamie Whitfield Mary Mackillop Institute for Health Research Australian Catholic University Melbourne, VIC AUSTRALIA George J. F. Heigenhauser Department of Medicine McMaster University Hamilton, ON CANADA Luc J. C. van Loon Department of Human Movement Sciences Nutrition and Toxicology Research Institute Maastricht University Maastricht, the NETHERLANDS Lawrence L. Spriet Department of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences University of Guelph Guelph, ON CANADA A. Russell Tupling Department of Kinesiology University of Waterloo Waterloo, ON CANADA Graham P. Holloway Department of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences University of Guelph Guelph, ON 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".