Effect of caffeine and ephedrine ingestion on anaerobic exercise performance
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".