e. an unpaired student t-test showed that IL-6 in EPA and ABT-888 mouse placebo groups was significantly different at B1, P = 0.012). Evaluation of any association between IL-6, strength measurements (isometric and isokinetic) and RPE Borg pain scale were analysed using correlations and a multiple linear regression. Data are presented as Selleck AR-13324 mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Differences

were considered significant at an alpha level of 0.05 (i.e. P ≤ 0.05). Results Mean coefficient of variance (CV) for repeated measurements (intra-day variability) ranged between 1.0-2.0% and 0.8-2.7% on days one and two respectively for isometric measurements. The intra-day CV for the isokinetic measurements ranged from 1.3-1.9% and 1.4-2.7% on days one and two respectively. The inter-day CVs for repeated measurements ranged between 1.5-1.75% for isometric measurements, and 1.6-2.1% for isokinetic measurements. Isometric Strength There was a reduction in torque (see Figure 2A)

of 13% (P = 0.007) between B1 (EPA 219 ± 34 Nm; placebo 211 ± 36 Nm) and S1 (EPA https://www.selleckchem.com/products/dabrafenib-gsk2118436.html 195 ± 46 Nm; placebo 181 ± 23 Nm), and a 14% (P = 0.004) reduction in torque between B2 (EPA 219 ± 36 Nm; placebo 212 ± 35 Nm) and S1 (EPA 195 ± 46 Nm; placebo 181 ± 23 Nm). However, there was a 15% (P = 0.001) increase in the torque generated between S1 (EPA 195 ± 46 Nm; placebo 181 ± 23 Nm) and S3 (EPA 223 ± 32 Nm; placebo 211 ± 39 Nm) for grouped data. The main effect for groups shows that when all of the isometric strength for the EPA group was compared with

the placebo group (EPA 214 ± 12 Nm vs. placebo 204 ± 15 Nm), they were not significantly different (P > 0.05). Thus, no interaction existed between treatment Atazanavir and time (P > 0.05). Figure 2 EPA and placebo group changes in isometric (A) concentric (B) eccentric torque (C) and RPE pain scale (D) at B1 (1 st baseline), B2 (2 nd baseline i.e. after three weeks of supplementation), S1 (after one bout of eccentric exercises) and S3 (after three bouts of eccentric exercises). Data are mean ± SEM. * indicates significant difference (P ≤ 0.05). Concentric & Eccentric Torque With concentric torque (see Figure 2B), there was a main effect of time for pooled data between B1 (100 ± 32 Nm) and S1 (94 ± 30 Nm) P = 0.008, B2 (101 ± 31 Nm) and S1 (94 ± 30 Nm) P = 0.018 and S1 (94 ± 30 Nm) and S3 (110 ± 34 Nm) P = 0.001. There was however no main effect of group (EPA 116 ± 7 Nm vs. placebo 91 ± 9 Nm, P > 0.05). There was no interaction between treatment and time in terms of concentric strength data (P > 0.05). Similarly for eccentric torque (see Figure 2C), there was a main effect of time for pooled data between B1 (205 ± 65 Nm) and S1 (167 ± 63 Nm) P = 0.001, B2 (206 ± 64 Nm) and S1 (167 ± 63 Nm) P = 0.001 and S1 (94 ± 30 Nm) and S3 (222 ± 78 Nm) P = 0.