Effects of pre-exercise intake of plant- and animal-based foods on arterial function and aerobic exercise capacity in healthy young men: a randomized cross-over trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of plant- versus animal-based food intake before exercise on arterial function and subsequent aerobic exercise capacity. Eleven healthy adult males (mean age, 22.6 ± 1.8 years) participated in this study. A plant- or animal-based randomized meal type crossover comparison was conducted on separate days with a uniform protein, fat, and carbohydrate balance. Both carotid–femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV), femoral–ankle pulse wave velocity (faPWV), and brachial artery flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) were measured as indexes of aortic and peripheral arterial stiffness and vascular endothelial function, respectively, before and at 120 min after the meal. After these measurements, maximal oxygen uptake was assessed using a graded power test on an electronically braked cycle ergometer. The results revealed that cfPWV was significantly lower, whereas FMD was significantly higher, at 120 min after compared with before the plant-based meal ( p = 0.01 and 0.02, respectively). By contrast, cfPWV and FMD did not change at 120 min after compared with before the animal-based meal. In addition, faPWV did not change at 120 min after compared with before the meal for either meal type. Maximal oxygen uptake was higher in the plant- than in the animal-based meal type ( p = 0.02). These results suggest that pre-exercise plant-based food intake may improve central arterial stiffness and vascular endothelial function, which may have favorable implications for aerobic exercise capacity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".