Acute effects of chocolate milk and a commercial recovery beverage on postexercise recovery indices and endurance cycling performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To maximize training quality, athletes have sought nutritional supplements that optimize recovery. This study compared chocolate milk (CHOC) with a carbohydrate replacement beverage (CRB) as a recovery aid after intense exercise, regarding performance and muscle damage markers in trained cyclists. Ten regional-level cyclists and triathletes (maximal oxygen uptake 55.2 +/- 7.2 mL.kg(-1).min(-1)) completed a high-intensity intermittent exercise protocol, then 15-18 h later performed a performance trial at 85% of maximal oxygen uptake to exhaustion. Participants consumed 1.0 g carbohydrate.kg-1.h-1 of a randomly assigned isocaloric beverage (CHOC or CRB) after the first high-intensity intermittent exercise session. The same protocol was repeated 1 week later with the other beverage. A 1-way repeated measures analysis of variance revealed no significant difference (p = 0.91) between trials for time to exhaustion at 85% of maximal oxygen uptake (CHOC 13 +/- 10.2 min, CRB 13.5 +/- 8.9 min). The change in creatine kinase (CK) was significantly (p < 0.05) greater in the CRB trial than in the CHOC trial (increase CHOC 27.9 +/- 134.8 U.L(-1), CRB 211.9 +/- 192.5 U.L(-1)), with differences not significant for CK levels before the second exercise session (CHOC 394.8 +/- 166.1 U.L(-1), CRB 489.1 +/- 264.4 U.L(-1)) between the 2 trials. These findings indicate no difference between CHOC and this commercial beverage as potential recovery aids for cyclists between intense workouts.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".