A Sucrose Mouth Rinse Does Not Improve 1-hr Cycle Time Trial Performance When Performed in the Fasted or Fed State
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbohydrate mouth rinsing during exercise has been suggested to enhance performance of short (45-60 min) bouts of high-intensity (>75% VO2peak) exercise. Recent studies indicate that this performance enhancing effect may be dependent on the prandial state of the athlete. The purpose of this study was to define the impact of a carbohydrate mouth rinse on ~1-hr time trial performance in both the fasted and fed states. Using a double-blind, crossover design, 14 trained male cyclists (27 ± 6 years; 5.0 ± 0.5 W · kg(-1)) were selected to perform 4 time trials of ~1 hr (1,032 ± 127 kJ) on a cycle ergometer while rinsing their mouths with a 6.4% sucrose solution (SUC) or a noncaloric sweetened placebo (PLA) for 5 s at the start and at every 12.5% of their set amount of work completed. Two trials were performed in an overnight fasted state and two trials were performed 2 h after consuming a standardized breakfast. Performance time did not differ between any of the trials (fasted-PLA: 68.6 ± 7.2; fasted-SUC: 69.6 ± 7.5; fed-PLA: 67.6 ± 6.6; and fed-SUC: 69.0 ± 6.3 min; Prandial State × Mouth Rinse Solution p = .839; main effect prandial state p = .095; main effect mouth rinse solution p = .277). In line, mean power output and heart rate during exercise did not differ between trials. In conclusion, a sucrose mouth rinse does not improve ~1-hr time trial performance in well-trained cyclists when performed in either the fasted or the fed state.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".