Mouth rinsing with a carbohydrate solution does not influence cycle time trial performance in the heat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ten endurance-trained males were recruited to examine the possible role of carbohydrate (CHO) receptors in the mouth influencing exercise performance in the heat. Volunteers completed an incremental test to exhaustion to determine peak oxygen uptake, a familiarisation trial, followed by 2 experimental trials. Trials consisted of a 1-h time trial undertaken in a climatic chamber maintained at 30 °C, 60% relative humidity. Immediately before, and at regular intervals throughout exercise, subjects ingested a bolus of water and then were provided with either a placebo (PLA) or a 6.4% glucose (CHO) solution to rinse in the mouth for 10 s before being expectorated. There was no difference in total work done between the PLA and CHO trials (758.8 ± 149.0 kJ; 762.6 ± 141.1 kJ; P = 0.951). Pacing was also similar, with no differences in power output apparent during the experimental trials (P = 0.546). Core temperature (P = 0.615), heart rate (P = 0.505), ratings of perceived exertion (P = 0.181), and perceived thermal stress (P = 0.416) were not influenced by the nature of the intervention. Blood glucose concentrations were similar during the CHO and PLA trials (P = 0.117). In contrast to the findings of several studies undertaken in temperate conditions, the present investigation failed to support role of oral sensing of CHO in influencing performance during prolonged exercise in warm conditions.
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) | 0.002 | 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".