Assessment of the Effectiveness of a Sublingual, Ergogenic Spray on Muscle Strength and Power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutrients, chemicals, and drugs may be applied sublingually to provide faster absorption. Sublingual absorption occurs when a substance comes in contact with the buccal mucosa, where it diffuses through a membrane of the dense capillaries. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a sublingual, ergogenic product containing vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and a coenzyme on muscle performance. National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I linemen (n = 23) voluntarily participated in the study. All participants (20.11 +/- 1.45 years, 132.1 +/- 9.85 kg, 191.19 +/- 3.85 cm) were tested on 102.1 kg (225 lb) bench press repetitions, vertical jump, and grip strength. One week later, participants were either a placebo or the experimental treatment before they were tested again. Repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) yielded a significant (p = 0.046) gain for the bench press. A Newman-Keuls post hoc test revealed a significant change in the treatment group but not in the placebo group. While the treatment group demonstrated greater improvement over the placebo group for each of the remaining variables, none were significant: vertical jump (p = 0.65) and grip strength (p = 0.74). The inconsistency of the results may be due to several factors. First, the spray may not be an ergogenic agent; second, the standardized dose may be too small for those weighing >or=290 lb and should be administered based on weight. Furthermore, the coenzyme and amino acids may not possess the molecular size, solubility, chemical stability, or hydrophilic character to be easily absorbed. Lastly, the data were generated by field tests and may not be sensitive enough to elicit subtle responses.
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".