Pyruvate ingestion for 7 days does not improve aerobic performance in well-trained individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of the present studies were to test the hypotheses that lower dosages of oral pyruvate ingestion would increase blood pyruvate concentration and that the ingestion of a commonly recommended dosage of pyruvate (7 g) for 7 days would enhance performance during intense aerobic exercise in well-trained individuals. Nine recreationally active subjects (8 women, 1 man) consumed 7, 15, and 25 g of pyruvate and were monitored for a 4-h period to determine whether blood metabolites were altered. Pyruvate consumption failed to significantly elevate blood pyruvate, and it had no effect on indexes of carbohydrate (blood glucose, lactate) or lipid metabolism (blood glycerol, plasma free fatty acids). As a follow-up, we administered 7 g/day of either placebo or pyruvate, for a 1-wk period to seven, well-trained male cyclists (maximal oxygen consumption, 62.3 +/- 3.0 ml. kg(-1). min(-1)) in a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial. Subjects cycled at 74-80% of their maximal oxygen consumption until exhaustion. There was no difference in performance times between the two trials (placebo, 91 +/- 9 min; pyruvate, 88 +/- 8 min). Measured blood parameters (insulin, peptide C, glucose, lactate, glycerol, free fatty acids) were also unaffected. Our results indicate that oral pyruvate supplementation does not increase blood pyruvate content and does not enhance performance during intense exercise in well-trained cyclists.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".