Preexercise Carbohydrate Consumption and Repeated Anaerobic Performance in Pre- and Early-Pubertal Boys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effect of preexercise carbohydrate (CHO) feeding on performance on a Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT) in 11 boys (10.2 +/- 1.3 y old). Four WAnTs with 2 min recovery were performed 30 min after consuming a CHO (1 g CHO/kg) or placebo drink. Peak power (PP) and mean power (MP) were similar between trials. PP ranged from 241.1 +/- 82.2 to 223.1 +/- 57.9 W with carbohydrate and from 238.2 +/- 76.1 to 223.4 +/- 52.3 W with placebo. MP ranged from 176.3 +/- 58.4 to 151.1 +/- 37.5 W with carbohydrate versus 178.0 +/- 45.8 to 159.1 +/- 32.7 W with placebo. Preexercise glucose was significantly higher in CHO versus placebo (7.0 +/- 1.0 vs. 5.5 +/- 0.5 mmol/L), but postexercise values were not different. Blood lactate was similar between trials but increased over time. This study found that the ingestion of a CHO solution before exercise did not influence power output during repeated performances of the WAnT.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".