Comparison of the Effects of Glucose and Fructose on Exercise Metabolism, Perceived Exertion, and Recovery in Untrained Females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This double-blinded, crossover randomized controlled trial study was designed to establish if combined ingestion of glucose and fructose (GLU + FRU) at the moderate rate 0.5 g·min −1 would result in higher rates of carbohydrate (CHO) oxidation compared with glucose (GLU) alone. Eight untrained females (VO 2max : 25.8 ± 3.2 mL·kg −1 ·min −1 ) cycled on two different occasions for 60 min at 50% of maximal power output (60% ± 1 % VO 2max ) and consumed 12% CHO solution of either providing 0.33 g·min −1 glucose + 0.17 g·min −1 fructose (GLU + FRUC) or 0.5 g·min −1 of glucose (GLU) alone. Heart rate (HR) and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were assessed during exercise and subjective exercise experience assessed two days after each trial. CHO oxidation was not significantly different (<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>></mml:mo><mml:mn>0.05</mml:mn></mml:math>) between GLU + FRU and GLU (0.8 ± 0.06 g·min −1 and 0.78 ± 0.05 g·min −1 , resp.). CHO oxidation rates during the final 30 min of the recovery period were not significantly different between GLU + FRU and GLU (0.17 ± 0.04 g·min −1 and 0.14 ± 0.05 g·min −1 , resp.). Experience of distress was significantly higher (<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo><</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.05</mml:mn></mml:math>) for GLU compared to GLU + FRU. The results reveal that consuming modest amounts of glucose plus fructose does not boost CHO oxidation above that of glucose alone during submaximal 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".