Effects of acute and 2‐week administration of oral salbutamol on exercise performance and muscle strength in athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to investigate effects of acute and 2-week administration of oral salbutamol on repeated sprint ability, exercise performance, and muscle strength in elite endurance athletes. Twenty male elite athletes [VO2max: 69.4 ± 1.8 (Mean ± SE) mL/min/kg], aged 25.9 ± 1.4 years, were included in a randomized, double-blinded and placebo-controlled parallel study. At baseline, after acute administration, and again after 2-week administration of the study drugs (8 mg salbutamol or placebo), subjects' maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) of m. quadriceps and isometric endurance of m. deltoideus were measured, followed by three repeated Wingate tests. Exercise performance at 110% of VO2max was determined on a bike ergometer. Acute administration of salbutamol increased peak power during first Wingate test by 4.1 ± 1.7% (P < 0.05). Two-week administration of salbutamol increased (P < 0.05) peak power during first and second Wingate test by 6.4 ± 2.0 and 4.2 ± 1.0%. Neither acute nor 2-week administration of salbutamol had any effect on MVC, exercise performance at 110% of VO2max or on isometric endurance. No differences were observed in the placebo group. In conclusion, salbutamol benefits athletes' sprint ability. Thus, the present study supports the restriction of oral salbutamol in competitive sports.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".