Effect of ingesting caffeine and ephedrine on 10-km run performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ingestion of either caffeine (C) or ephedrine (E) has been shown to improve performance during high-intensity aerobic activity lasting 10-20 min, with an additive effect being found when the combination (C + E) was ingested. It was the purpose of this study to determine if the addition of E to C would improve performance in activity lasting longer than 20 min. METHODS: One and one half hours after ingesting a placebo (P), C (4 mg/kg), E (0.8 mg/kg), or C + E, 12 subjects performed a 10-km run while wearing a helmet and backpack weighing 11 kg. The trials were performed in a climatic suite at 12-13 degrees C, on a treadmill where the speed was regulated by the subject. VO(2), VCO(2), V(E), heart rate (HR), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured during the run at 15 and 30 min, and again when the individual reached 9 km. Blood was sampled at 15 and 30 min and again at the end of the run and assayed for lactate, glucose, and catecholamines. RESULTS: Run times (mean +/- SD), in minutes, were for C (46.0 +/- 2.8), E (45.5 +/- 2.9), C + E (45.7 +/- 3.3), and P (46.8 +/- 3.2). The run times for the E trials (E and C + E) were significantly reduced compared with the non-E trials (C and P). Pace was increased for the E trials compared with the non-E trials over the last 5 km of the run. VO(2) was not affected by drug ingestion. HR was elevated for the ephedrine trials (E and C + E). RPE remained similar for all trails. Caffeine increased the epinephrine and norepinephrine response associated with exercise and also increased blood lactate, glucose, and glycerol levels. Ephedrine reduced the epinephrine response but increased dopamine and FFA levels. CONCLUSION: The previously seen additive nature of E and C was not evident in this study, with the primary ergogenic effect being attributed to E.
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) | 0.001 | 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".