Ingesting a high-dose carbohydrate solution during the cycle section of a simulated Olympic-distance triathlon improves subsequent run performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The well-established ergogenic benefit of ingesting carbohydrates during single-discipline endurance sports has only been tested once within an Olympic-distance (OD) triathlon. The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of ingesting a 2:1 maltodextrin/fructose solution with a placebo on simulated OD triathlon performance. Six male and 4 female amateur triathletes (age, 25 ± 7 years; body mass, 66.8 ± 9.2 kg; peak oxygen uptake, 4.2 ± 0.6 L·min(-1)) completed a 1500-m swim time-trial and an incremental cycle test to determine peak oxygen uptake before performing 2 simulated OD triathlons. The swim and cycle sections of the main trials were of fixed intensities, while the run section was completed as a time-trial. Two minutes prior to completing every quarter of the cycle participants consumed 202 ± 20 mL of either a solution containing 1.2 g·min(-1) of maltodextrin plus 0.6 g·min(-1) of fructose at 14.4% concentration (CHO) or a sugar-free, fruit-flavored drink (PLA). The time-trial was 4.0% ± 1.3% faster during the CHO versus PLA trial, with run times of 38:43 ± 1:10 min:s and 40:22 ± 1:18 min:s, respectively (p = 0.010). Blood glucose concentrations were higher in the CHO versus PLA trial (p < 0.001), while perceived stomach upset did not differ between trials (p = 0.555). The current findings show that a 2:1 maltodextrin/fructose solution (1.8 g·min(-1) at 14.4%) ingested throughout the cycle section of a simulated OD triathlon enhances subsequent 10-km run performance in triathletes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".