Effects of dietary fat modification on skeletal muscle fatty acid handling in the metabolic syndrome

Objective: In the metabolic syndrome (MetS), increased fat storage in ‘nonadipose’ tissues such as skeletal muscle may be related to insulin resistance (‘lipid overflow’ hypothesis). The objective of this study was to examine the effects of dietary fat modification on the capacity of skeletal muscle to handle dietary and endogenous fatty acids (FAs). Subjects and Methods: In total, 29 men with the MetS were randomly assigned to one of four diets for 12 weeks: a high-fat saturated fat diet (HSFA, n=6), a high-fat monounsaturated fat diet (HMUFA, n=7) and two low-fat high-complex carbohydrate diets supplemented with (LFHCCn−3, n=8) or without (LFHCC, n=8) 1.24 g per day docosahexaenoic and eicosapentaenoic acid. Fasting and postprandial skeletal muscle FA handling was examined by measuring arteriovenous concentration differences across the forearm muscle. [2H2]-palmitate was infused intravenously to label endogenous triacylglycerol (TAG) and free fatty acids in the circulation and subjects received a high-fat mixed meal (2.6 MJ, 61 energy% fat) containing [U-13C]-palmitate to label chylomicron-TAG. Results: Postprandial circulating TAG concentrations were significantly lower after dietary intervention in the LFHCCn−3 group compared to the HSFA group (ΔiAUC −139±67 vs 167±70 μmol l−1 min−1, P=0.009), together with decreased concentrations of [U-13C]-labeled TAG, representing dietary FA. Fasting TAG clearance across forearm muscle was decreased on the HSFA diet, whereas no differences were observed in postprandial forearm muscle FA handling between diets. Conclusion: Chronic manipulation of dietary fat quantity and quality did not affect forearm muscle FA handling in men with the MetS. Postprandial TAG concentrations decreased on the LFHCCn−3 diet, which could be (partly) explained by lower concentration of dietary FA in the circulation.

Whatever it takes: rivalry and unethical behavior

This research investigates the link between rivalry and unethical behavior. We propose that people will engage in greater unethical behavior when competing against their rivals than when competing against non-rival competitors. Across a series of experiments and an archival study, we find that rivalry is associated with increased use of deception, unsportsmanlike behavior, willingness to employ unethical negotiation tactics, and misreporting of performance. We also explore the psychological underpinnings of rivalry, which help to illuminate how it differs from general competition, and why it increases unethical behavior. Rivalry as compared to non-rival competition was associated with increased status concerns, contingency of self-worth, and performance goals; mediation analyses revealed that performance goals played the biggest role in explaining why rivalry promoted greater unethicality. Lastly, we find that merely thinking about a rival can be enough to promote greater unethical behavior, even in domains unrelated to the rivalry. These findings highlight the importance of rivalry as a widespread, powerful, yet largely unstudied phenomenon with significant organizational implications. Further, the results help to inform when and why unethical behavior occurs within organizations, and demonstrate that the effects of competition are dependent upon relationships and prior interactions.