Single and combined effects of beetroot juice and caffeine supplementation on cycling time trial performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both caffeine and beetroot juice have ergogenic effects on endurance cycling performance. We investigated whether there is an additive effect of these supplements on the performance of a cycling time trial (TT) simulating the 2012 London Olympic Games course. Twelve male and 12 female competitive cyclists each completed 4 experimental trials in a double-blind Latin square design. Trials were undertaken with a caffeinated gum (CAFF) (3 mg·kg(-1) body mass (BM), 40 min prior to the TT), concentrated beetroot juice supplementation (BJ) (8.4 mmol of nitrate (NO3(-)), 2 h prior to the TT), caffeine plus beetroot juice (CAFF+BJ), or a control (CONT). Subjects completed the TT (females: 29.35 km; males: 43.83 km) on a laboratory cycle ergometer under conditions of best practice nutrition: following a carbohydrate-rich pre-event meal, with the ingestion of a carbohydrate-electrolyte drink and regular oral carbohydrate contact during the TT. Compared with CONT, power output was significantly enhanced after CAFF+BJ and CAFF (3.0% and 3.9%, respectively, p < 0.01). There was no effect of BJ supplementation when used alone (-0.4%, p = 0.6 compared with CONT) or when combined with caffeine (-0.9%, p = 0.4 compared with CAFF). We conclude that caffeine (3 mg·kg(-1) BM) administered in the form of a caffeinated gum increased cycling TT performance lasting ∼50-60 min by ∼3%-4% in both males and females. Beetroot juice supplementation was not ergogenic under the conditions of this study.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".