Exercise endurance 1, 3, and 6 h after caffeine ingestion in caffeine users and nonusers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine the duration of caffeine's ergogenic effect and whether it differs between users and nonusers of the drug. Twenty-one subjects (13 caffeine users and 8 nonusers) completed six randomized exercise rides to exhaustion at 80% of maximal oxygen consumption after ingesting either a placebo or 5 mg/kg of caffeine. Exercise to exhaustion was completed once per week at either 1, 3, or 6 h after placebo or drug ingestion. Exercise time to exhaustion differed between users and nonusers with the ergogenic effect being greater and lasting longer in nonusers. For the nonusers, exercise times 1, 3, and 6 h after caffeine ingestion were 32.7 +/- 8.4, 32.1 +/- 8.6, and 31.7 +/- 12.0 min, respectively, and these values were each significantly greater than the corresponding placebo values of 24.2 +/- 6.4, 25.8 +/- 9.0, and 23.2 +/- 7.1 min. For caffeine users, exercise times 1, 3, and 6 h after caffeine ingestion were 27.4 +/- 7.2, 28.1 +/- 7.8, and 24.5 +/- 7.6 min, respectively. Only exercise times 1 and 3 h after drug ingestion were significantly greater than the respective placebo trials of 23.3 +/- 6.5, 23.2 +/- 7.1, and 23.5 +/- 5.7 min. In conclusion, both the duration and magnitude of the ergogenic effect that followed a 5 mg/kg dose of caffeine were greater in the nonusers compared with the users.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".