Sucrose-Enriched and Carbohydrate-Free High-Fat Diets Distinctly Affect Substrate Metabolism in Oxidative and Glycolytic Muscles of Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skeletal muscle substrate preference for fuel is largely influenced by dietary macronutrient availability. The abundance of dietary carbohydrates promotes the utilization of glucose as a substrate for energy production, whereas an abundant dietary fat supply elevates rates of fatty acid (FA) oxidation. The objective of this study was to determine whether an obesogenic, high-fat, sucrose-enriched (HFS) diet or a carbohydrate-free ketogenic diet (KD) exert distinct effects on fat, glucose, and ketone metabolism in oxidative and glycolytic skeletal muscles. Male Wistar rats were fed either a HFS diet or a KD for 16 weeks. Subsequently, the soleus (Sol), extensor digitorum longus (EDL), and epitrochlearis (Epit) muscles were extracted to measure palmitate oxidation, insulin-stimulated glucose metabolism, and markers of mitochondrial biogenesis, ketolytic capacity, and cataplerotic and anaplerotic machinery. Sol, EDL, and Epit muscles from KD-fed rats preserved their ability to elevate glycogen synthesis and lactate production in response to insulin, whereas all muscles from rats fed with the HFS diet displayed blunted responses to insulin. The maintenance of metabolic flexibility with the KD was accompanied by muscle-fiber-type-specific adaptive responses. This was characterized by the Sol muscle in KD-fed rats enhancing mitochondrial biogenesis and ketolytic capacity without elevating its rates of FA oxidation in comparison with that in HFS feeding. Conversely, in the Epit muscle, rates of FA oxidation were increased, whereas the ketolytic capacity was markedly reduced by the KD in comparison with that by HFS feeding. In the EDL muscle, the KD also increased rates of FA oxidation, although it did so without altering its ketolytic capacity when compared to HFS feeding. In conclusion, even though obesogenic and ketogenic diets have elevated contents of fat and alter whole-body substrate partitioning, these two dietary interventions are associated with opposite outcomes with respect to skeletal muscle metabolic flexibility.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".