Fish oil supplementation fails to modulate indices of muscle damage and muscle repair during acute recovery from eccentric exercise in trained young males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We aimed to investigate the influence of 4‐wk of fish oil (FO) supplementation on markers of muscle damage, inflammation, muscle soreness, and muscle function during acute recovery from eccentric exercise in moderately trained males. Sixteen moderately‐trained males ingested 5 g/d of FO ( n = 8) or soybean oil (placebo) capsules ( n = 8) for 4‐wk prior to‐ and 3‐d following an acute eccentric exercise bout. Eccentric exercise consisted of 12 sets of isokinetic knee extension and knee flexion. Indices of muscle damage, soreness, function and inflammation were measured at baseline and during exercise recovery. Eccentric exercise elicited an increase in muscle soreness ( p < 0.010) and thigh volume ( p < 0.001), and reduced peak isometric torque by 31.7 ± 6.9%, ( p < 0.05, 95% CI 10.6–52.8) during 3‐d of recovery. Blood omega‐3 polyunsaturated fatty acid concentration was 14.9 ± 2.4% higher in FO than PLA ( p < 0.01, 95% CI 9.8–20.1). However, FO did not ameliorate the cumulative creatine kinase response (expressed as AUC; p = 0.368), inflammation ( p = 0.400), muscle soreness ( p > 0.140), or muscle function ( p > 0.249) following eccentric exercise. FO supplementation confers no clear benefit in terms of ameliorating the degree of muscle damage, or facilitating the muscle repair process, during acute eccentric exercise recovery. These data suggest that FO supplementation does not provide an effective nutritional strategy to promote exercise recovery, at least in moderately‐trained young men. Abbreviations: ANOVA: Analysis of variance; AUC: Area under curve; CI: Confidence interval; CK: Creatine kinase; CMJ: Countermovement jump; COX: Cyclooxygenase; CRP: C‐reactive protein; DHA: Docosahexaenoic acid; DOMS: Delayed‐onset muscle soreness; EIMD: Exercise‐induced muscle damage; En%: Energy percent; EPA: Eicosapentaenoic acid; FO: Fish oil; IL‐6: Interleukin‐6; LDH: Lactate dehydrogenase; LOX: Lipoxygenase; Mb: Myoglobin; mTOR: Mechanistic target of rapamycin; PLA: Placebo; ROM: Range of motion; ROS: Reactive oxygen species; SD: Standard deviation; SEM: Standard error of the mean; TNF‐α: Tumour necrosis factor alpha; VAS: Visual analogue scale; Ω3‐PUFA: Omega‐3 polyunsaturated fatty acids; Ω6‐PUFA: Omega‐6 polyunsaturated fatty acids
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".