Electrical Muscle Stimulation With or Without Blood Flow Restriction Does Not Prevent the Impairment in Glycemic Control After 1 Week of Physical Inactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Physical inactivity depresses glycemic control, an impairment that can be prevented with exercise. We investigated whether electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) with blood flow restriction (BFR) could similarly prevent the impairments in glycemic control associated with physical inactivity and whether this was effective for attenuating the loss of physical function after inactivity. Thirty‐two participants underwent 1 week of step reduction (≤ 3000 steps/day) randomized to either no intervention (Control), twice daily EMS, or twice daily EMS with BFR (EMS + BFR). Oral glucose tolerance and tests of physical function (neuromuscular function, and cardiorespiratory fitness) were assessed before and after step reduction. Blood glucose incremental area under the curve (iAUC) during the oral glucose tolerance test increased after step reduction (Control: ∆71 ± 133 mM⋅min, EMS: ∆56 ± 65 mM⋅min, EMS + BFR: ∆103 ± 78 mM⋅min, p = 0.0002), as was the insulin iAUC (Control: ∆3580 ± 3245μIU⋅min/mL, EMS: ∆2266 ± 5043μIU⋅min/mL, EMS + BFR: ∆1534 ± 1246μIU⋅min/mL, p = 0.001). A relationship between the change in blood glucose and insulin response was observed after Control ( r 2 = 0.71, p = 0.002), but not after EMS + BFR ( r 2 < 0.01, p = 0.93), despite all groups demonstrating a reduction in whole‐body insulin sensitivity (Matsuda index; Control: ∆‐1.4 ± 2.5, EMS: ∆‐1.3 ± 1.5, EMS + BFR: ∆‐1.5 ± 1.5, p < 0.0001). Maximal oxygen uptake was not reduced after 1 week of inactivity; however, maximal isometric force production and exercise thresholds were reduced across groups. In summary, EMS + BFR did not prevent the decrease in insulin sensitivity nor attenuate measurements of physical function with 1 week of physical inactivity. The relevance of the dissociated insulin and glucose response with EMS + BFR remains to be determined.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".