Effects of two workload-matched high intensity interval training protocols on regulatory factors associated with mitochondrial biogenesis in the soleus muscle of diabetic rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: High intensity interval training (HIIT) improves mitochondrial characteristics. This study compared the impact of two workload-matched high intensity interval training (HIIT) protocols with different work:recovery ratios on regulatory factors related to mitochondrial biogenesis in the soleus muscle of diabetic rats. Materials and methods: Twenty-four Wistar rats were randomly divided into four equal-sized groups: non-diabetic control, diabetic control (DC), diabetic with long recovery exercise [4–5 × 2-min running at 80%–90% of the maximum speed reached with 2-min of recovery at 40% of the maximum speed reached (DHIIT1:1)], and diabetic with short recovery exercise (5–6 × 2-min running at 80%–90% of the maximum speed reached with 1-min of recovery at 30% of the maximum speed reached [DHIIT2:1]). Both HIIT protocols were completed five times/week for 4 weeks while maintaining equal running distances in each session. Results: Gene and protein expressions of PGC-1α, p53, and citrate synthase of the muscles increased significantly following DHIIT1:1 and DHIIT2:1 compared to DC (p ˂ 0.05). Most parameters, except for PGC-1α protein (p = 0.597), were significantly higher in DHIIT2:1 than in DHIIT1:1 (p ˂ 0.05). Both DHIIT groups showed significant increases in maximum speed with larger increases in DHIIT2:1 compared with DHIIT1:1. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that both HIIT protocols can potently up-regulate gene and protein expression of PGC-1α, p53, and CS. However, DHIIT2:1 has superior effects compared with DHIIT1:1 in improving mitochondrial adaptive responses in diabetic rats.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".