Effect of caffeine and ephedrine ingestion on anaerobic exercise performance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ingestion of a combination of caffeine (C) and ephedrine (E) prolongs time to exhaustion during high-intensity aerobic exercise. CNS stimulation by C and E was proposed as part of the mechanism for the improvement. It was thought that this arousal might also be of benefit during anaerobic exercise. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of C, E, and C+E ingestion on performance of anaerobic exercise. METHODS: Two groups were used to evaluate the effect of C and E on anaerobic performance. Group 1 (WIN) consisted of 16 healthy untrained male subjects who performed a 30-s Wingate test. Group 2 (MAOD) consisted of 8 healthy untrained male subjects who performed a supramaximal (125%VO(2peak)) cycle exercise trial to exhaustion to determine maximum accumulated oxygen deficit. The trials commenced 1.5 h after ingesting either C (5 mg x kg(-1)), E (1 mg x kg(-1)), a combination of C+E, or a placebo (P). All trials were randomized and double blind. Blood samples were assayed for lactate and glucose post drug ingestion just before exercise, and again 3, 5, and 10 min post exercise. Catecholamines were measured in the preexercise and 10-min postexercise blood samples. RESULTS: Ephedrine increased power output during the early phase of the Wingate test, whereas C increased time to exhaustion and O(2) deficit during the MAOD test. C, E, and C+E increased blood lactate, glucose, and catecholamine levels. CONCLUSION: The improvement in anaerobic exercise performance is likely a result of both stimulation of the CNS by E and skeletal muscle by C.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it