THE EFFECT OF PRE-EXERCISE GLUCOSE INGESTION ON PERFORMANCE DURING PROLONGED SWIMMING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if pre-exercise glucose ingestion (at 5 min and 35 min) would improve 4000m swimming performance. Ten male triathletes (Mean ± SD: age 29.5 ± 5.0 yrs, VO2max 3.74 ± 0.10 L.min−1) swam 4000m on three occasions following the consumption of either; 1. A 10% glucose solution 5-min prior to exercise (G5), 2. A 10% glucose solution 35-min prior to exercise (G35), 3. A similar volume of placebo (PL). Dietary intake and exercise were regulated for 48 hours prior to each trial. Despite a significant difference (p < 0.01) in blood glucose concentration prior to exercise (Mean ± SD in mmol.L−1: G35 8.4 ± 1.1, G5 5.2 ± 0.5, PL 5.3 ± 0.4), no significant differences were observed in total time (Mean ± SD in minutes: G35 70.7 ± 7.6, G5 70.1 ± 7.6, PL 71.9 ± 8.4), post-exercise blood glucose (Mean ± SD in mmol.L−1: G35 5.1 ± 1.1, G5 5.1 ± 0.9, PL 5.3 ± 0.4), and average heart rate (Mean ± SD in bpm: G35 155.8 ± 10.8, G5 153.6 ± 12.6, PL 152.0 ± 12.5) (p > 0.05). The results of this study indicate that despite a greater reliance on carbohydrate with this mode of exercise, there was no significant improvement in performance following glucose ingestion. The data further indicates that no decrements to performance were observed following the ingestion of a high glycemic solution thirty-five minutes prior to exercise, despite significant differences in blood glucose between trials immediately prior to exercise.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".