The effects of magnesium supplementation on exercise performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the effects of magnesium (Mg2+) supplementation on performance and recovery in physically active women using the sensitive and recently advanced measure of ionic Mg2+ (iMg). METHODS: Participants (N = 121) were screened for [iMg] in plasma, with 44 (36.4%) exhibiting [iMg] below the normal range of 0.53-0.67 mmol.L-1 (4). Thirty-two subjects (21 +/- 3 yr) representing a broad range of [iMg] (0.54 +/- 0.04 mmol.L-1) completed the main 14-wk study. At baseline, participants submitted to a resting blood pressure measurement, and they completed both an anaerobic treadmill test and an incremental (aerobic) treadmill test. For the latter, values for workload, oxygen uptake, and heart rate were obtained at both anaerobic threshold and maximal effort. Blood samples for iMg, total serum Mg2+ (TMg), erythrocyte Mg2+ (EMg), Ca2+, K+, Na+, hemoglobin, hematocrit, lactate, and glucose were also collected pretest, and 4, 10, 30 min, and 24 h posttest. Subjects received 212 mg.d-1 Mg oxide or placebo in a double-blind fashion and were retested after 4 wk. After a 6-wk washout period, the testing was repeated with a treatment crossover. RESULTS: Ionic Mg2+ increased with Mg2+ treatment versus placebo (P < 0.05); however, performance and recovery indices were not significantly affected. CONCLUSION: Four weeks of 212 mg.d-1 Mg oxide supplementation improves resting [iMg] levels but not performance or recovery in physically active women.
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 | 0.001 | 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".