Bolus L‐arginine supplementation in the fed state at rest and following resistance exercise does not effect bulk muscle blood flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The release of nitric oxide from the vascular endothelium results in vasodilation, which in turn increases local blood flow. Although it is known that L‐arginine is the primary substrate for nitric oxide synthase (the enzyme responsible for nitric oxide production) the effect of a bolus oral dose of L‐arginine on blood flow has not previously been studied. The present study was designed to elucidate the effects of post‐exercise L‐arginine intake on femoral artery blood flow. Eight healthy, recreationally active male subjects (22.0±2.1 yr, BMI=24.0±2.6 kg/m 2 ) participated in two trials in a randomized, double‐blind manner. Each trial consisted of a bout of leg resistance exercise followed by the consumption of a drink containing 10g of essential amino acids and either 10g L‐arginine (ARG) or an isonitrogenous amount of glycine as a control (CON). Femoral artery blood flow was measured at rest and for 3 h post‐exercise using Doppler ultrasonography at the femoral artery. Despite a 4‐5‐fold increase in blood L‐arginine concentration in the ARG condition (P<0.01), no differences in blood flow were observed between the ARG and CON conditions. Hence, we conclude that exogenous L‐arginine intake does not influence bulk post‐resistance exercise hyperemia. Supported by NSERC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".