Effect of Ramadan Observance on Maximal Muscular Performance of Trained Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of Ramadan fasting on maximal performance of moderately trained young men using various tests of muscle performance. DESIGN: Comparison of Ramadan fasting (n = 10) versus control group (n = 10) over 3 test sessions, before Ramadan (B), at the end of the first week of Ramadan (R-1), and during the fourth week of Ramadan (R-4). SETTING: At each 2-day test session, 4 tests were performed in the same order: measurement of vertical jump height (VJH) and a force-velocity test using the arms on day 1, and measurement of handgrip force (HGF), and a force-velocity test using the legs on day 2. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty trained men. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maximal power of the arms and of the legs (force-velocity testing), vertical jump performance, HGF, anthropometric data, dietary intake, hemoglobin, and hematocrit. RESULTS: Two-way analyses of variance (group × time) showed Ramadan fasters with decreased maximal anaerobic power of the arms (Wmax-A) and legs (Wmax-L) at R-1, with a partial return of arm data to initial values at R-4. Vertical jump height and HGF remained unchanged throughout. Other changes in Ramadan observers were a decreased energy intake and a decrease of plasma volume at R-1. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that Ramadan observance initially had detrimental effects on Wmax-A, and Wmax-L, with a tendency to recovery by week 4 of Ramadan. Reductions of total energy intake and intramuscular glycogen may contribute to the reduced Wmax-A and Wmax-L during Ramadan fasting.
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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".