The Efficacy of SPORT<sup>TM</sup> as a Dietary Supplement on Performance and Recovery in Trained Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the efficacy of SPORT (a popular dietary supplement) in improving performance and assisting recovery in 9 trained athletes. In a double-blind, crossover experiment, subjects ran at workloads of 60 and 80% of peak oxygen uptake (Peak VO2) for 5 min each with 5 min recovery after each bout and at 100% Peak VO2 until exhaustion. Two capsules of either SPORT or a gelatin placebo were administered 1 hr prior to exercise and immediately after each workload. Heart rate (HR) and blood lactate (BLa) were measured at 1 hr prior to exercise, immediately after the 100% exercise bout and at 5, 10, 20, and 45 min during recovery. No significant differences between treatments on HR and BLa measures at any of the 6 time periods, or on subjects' time to exhaustion were found. Under the conditions of this experimental design, SPORT had no beneficial effects on performance or recovery in trained athletes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".