Physical performance and training response during Ramadan observance, with particular reference to protein metabolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review examines information on the effects of Ramadan observance upon the metabolism, training and performance of athletes, with particular reference to proteins and amino acids. Increased gluconeogenesis and/or a reduced intake of protein could lead to a decrease of lean tissue, with adverse effects on muscular performance, and the lack of immediate protein ingestion could compromise responses to strength training. Actual responses vary quite widely, depending on culture and the individual's level and type of athletic involvement. In elite competitors, there is typically an increased fractional ingestion of protein with a small reduction in overall energy intake, and this may lead to small reductions of body and lean tissue mass. There are often small decreases of performance, particularly in activities requiring vigorous and/or repetitive muscular contraction. More information is needed on responses in situations where protein intake is likely to be inadequate (adolescent growth, those maintaining vegetarian diets or from poor countries and disciplines with very high overall energy needs) and when vigorous muscle training is in progress. However, in most of the situations studied to date, Ramadan observance has had only limited adverse consequences for either training or competitive performance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".