Effects of 7-day quercetin intervention on motor unit activity and muscle contractile properties before and after resistance exercise in young adults randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated whether the alteration of the motor unit recruitment threshold (MURT) caused by quercetin ingestion intervention for 7 days modifies motor unit activation patterns before and after a single session of resistance exercise. Twenty young male and female adults were divided into two groups: ingestion of placebo (PLA) or quercetin glycosides at 200 mg/day (QUE). High-density surface electromyography during submaximal contractions was measured to assess the motor unit firing rate (MUFR) and MURT of the vastus lateralis muscle before (PRE) and after (POST) resistance exercise (DAY1). The same measurements were repeated after 7 days of placebo or quercetin glycoside ingestion (DAY8). In QUE, MURT decreased more from DAY1-PRE to DAY8-PRE (29.1 ± 9.1 to 27.1 ± 9.5% MVC, p < 0.001) but not in PLA (29.8 ± 10.4 to 28.9 ± 9.7% MVC, p < 0.167). For percentage change in MUFR following resistance exercise, there was a significant interaction (day × group, p < 0.001). The degree of changes in MURT from DAY1-PRE to DAY8-PRE was significantly correlated with the percentage change of MUFR from DAY8-PRE to DAY8-POST in QUE ( p = 0.014, r = −0.363) but not in PLA ( p = 0.518). The study suggests that 7-day quercetin ingestion alters the motor unit recruitment pattern, and this may induce changes in motor unit firing patterns during a single session of resistance training (Trial registration: UMIN000052255, R000059650).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".