Systematic review: Carbohydrate supplementation on exercise performance or capacity of varying durations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review examines the efficacy of carbohydrate (CHO) supplementation on exercise performance of varying durations. Included studies utilized an all-out or endurance-based exercise protocol (no team-based performance studies) and featured randomized interventions and placebo (water-only) trial for comparison against exclusively CHO trials (no other ingredients). Of the 61 included published performance studies (n = 679 subjects), 82% showed statistically significant performance benefits (n = 50 studies), with 18% showing no change compared with placebo. There was a significant (p = 0.0036) correlative relationship between increasing total exercise time and the subsequent percent increase in performance with CHO intake versus placebo. While not mutually exclusive, the primary mechanism(s) for performance enhancement likely differs depending on the duration of the exercise. In short duration exercise situations (∼1 h), oral receptor exposure to CHO, via either mouthwash or oral consumption (with enough oral contact time), which then stimulates the pleasure and reward centers of the brain, provide a central nervous system-based mechanism for enhanced performance. Thus, the type and (or) amount of CHO and its ability to be absorbed and oxidized appear completely irrelevant to enhancing performance in short duration exercise situations. For longer duration exercise (>2 h), where muscle glycogen stores are stressed, the primary mechanism by which carbohydrate supplementation enhances performance is via high rates of CHO delivery (>90 g/h), resulting in high rates of CHO oxidation. Use of multiple transportable carbohydrates (glucose:fructose) are beneficial in prolonged exercise, although individual recommendations for athletes should be tailored according to each athlete's individual tolerance.
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".