Well-Trained Endurance Athletes’ Knowledge, Insight, and Experience of Caffeine Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This descriptive cross-sectional study assessed the perceptions, knowledge, and experiences of caffeine use by athletes competing at the 2005 Ironman Triathlon World Championships. Questionnaires were distributed to 140 athletes (105 men and 35 women, 40.3 +/- 10.7 y old) representing 16 countries during prerace registration. A large proportion (73%) of these endurance athletes believe that caffeine is ergogenic to their endurance performance, and 84% believe it improves their concentration. The most commonly reported positive caffeine experiences related to in-competition use of cola drinks (65%) and caffeinated gels (24%). The athletes' ability to accurately quantify the caffeine content of common food items was limited. The most popular sources of caffeine information were self-experimentation (16%), fellow athletes (15%), magazines (13%), and journal articles (12%). Over half the athletes (53%) could not identify an amount of caffeine required to improve their triathlon performance. Mean (+/- standard deviation) suggested doses were 3.8 (+/- 3) mg/kg body weight. Few side effects associated with taking caffeine during exercise were reported.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".