Acute formoterol administration has no ergogenic effect in nonasthmatic athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the effect of formoterol (formoterol fumarate dihydrate) on the aerobic and anaerobic capacities of highly trained athletes. METHODS: 10 male athletes (age = 26.2 +/- 0.9, VO(2max) = 65.6 +/- 2.4 mL x kg(-1) x min(-1)) with minimal bronchial reactivity to aerosols (i.e., negative methacholine challenge test) completed three identical exercise sessions differing only by the medication administered. Formoterol (F) a long-acting beta(2)-agonist, presently not approved for international competition by the I.O.C. Medical committee, was compared with salbutamol (S), an accepted bronchodilator, and a placebo (P). Formoterol (12 microg), salbutamol (400 microg), or placebo was administered by a Turbuhaler, 10 min before exercise testing in a double-blind, randomized, three-way crossover design. Testing sessions included a Wingate anaerobic test followed 15 min later by an incremental cycle ergometer test to exhaustion. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups in VO(2max) (F = 66.5 +/- 2.7; S = 67.8 +/- 2.5; P = 67.5 +/- 2.1 mL x kg(-1) x min(-1)) or Wingate peak power (F = 885 +/- 40; S = 877 +/- 40; P = 885 +/- 44 W) values. During the maximal aerobic test, no differences were observed in maximum minute ventilation, respiratory exchange ratio, heart rate, or work between the three experimental conditions. Also, there were no differences in the Wingate anaerobic test variables, total work, or fatigue index. CONCLUSION: Formoterol, administered in one aerosolized therapeutic dose, does not have an ergogenic effect in elite athletes without asthma.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".