Coingestion of carbohydrate and protein during training reduces training stress and enhances subsequent exercise performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers have focused primarily on investigating the effects of coingesting carbohydrate (CHO) and protein (PRO) during recovery and, as such, there is limited research investigating the benefits of CHO+PRO coingestion during exercise for enhancing subsequent exercise performance. The aim of this study was to investigate whether coingestion of CHO+PRO during endurance training would enhance recovery and subsequent exercise performance. Ten well-trained male cyclists (aged 29.7 ± 7.5 years; maximal oxygen uptake, 66.2 ± 6 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1)) took part in a randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial. Each trial consisted of a 2.5-h morning training bout during which the cyclists ingested a CHO+PRO or energy-matched CHO beverage followed by a 4-h recovery period and a subsequent performance time trial (total work, 7 kJ·kg(-1)). Blood was collected before and after exercise. Time-trial performance was 1.8% faster in the CHO+PRO trial compared with the CHO trial (p = 0.149; 95% CI, -13 to 87 s; 75.8% likelihood of benefit). The increase in myoglobin level from before the training bout to after the training bout was lower in the CHO+PRO trial (0.74 nmol·L(-1); 95% CI, 0.3-1.17 nmol·L(-1)) compared with the CHO trial (1.16 nmol·L(-1); 95% CI, 0.6-1.71 nmol·L(-1)) (p = 0.018). Additionally, the decrease in neutrophil count over the recovery period was greater in the CHO+PRO trial (p = 0.034), and heart rate (p < 0.022) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) (p < 0.01) were lower during training in the CHO+PRO trial compared with the CHO trial. Ingesting PRO, in addition to CHO, during strenuous training lowered exercise stress, as indicated by reduced heart rate, RPE, and muscle damage, when compared with CHO alone. CHO+PRO ingestion during training is also likely to enhance recovery, providing a worthwhile improvement in subsequent cycling time-trial 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".