Eight weeks of fish oil supplementation does not prevent sitting-induced leg endothelial dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prolonged sitting impairs leg endothelial function and this impairment is thought to be mediated by a sustained reduction in blood flow-induced shear stress. However, whether nutritional strategies can be used to prevent sitting-induced leg endothelial dysfunction remains unknown. Herein, we tested the hypothesis that 8 weeks of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplementation would prevent endothelial dysfunction associated with sitting. Nineteen healthy men were randomly assigned to a placebo group or EPA+DHA group in a double-blind fashion. The EPA+DHA group was administered EPA-rich fish oil, containing 600 mg EPA and 260 mg DHA per day for 8 weeks. The placebo group received matching capsules for the same duration of time. Popliteal artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD) was measured at baseline and before and after a 3-h sitting period. During sitting, blood pressure, popliteal artery diameter, and blood velocity were measured every hour. Throughout the sitting period, popliteal artery blood flow and shear rate were markedly and similarly reduced in both groups (P < 0.05). However, counter to the hypothesis, 3 h of sitting impaired popliteal artery FMD to the same extent in both groups (P < 0.05). In conclusion, daily EPA and DHA supplementation is not effective at preventing the detrimental effects of prolonged sitting on leg endothelial function. Novelty We provide evidence that sitting-induced leg endothelial dysfunction in young healthy subjects cannot be remediated by a nutritional strategy known to produce cardiovascular benefits. This could be partially due to the low total dose of EPA and DHA administered.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".