New Functional Beverage Influences Power during a 30s Wingate Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new product (JustBIO Inc, CA) has been shown to allow ATP resynthesis that may be promising to sustain exercise endurance. PURPOSE: Measure the effect of three different beverage formulations (JustBIO, Inc.) on power deployed during a 30s Wingate test. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to 3 groups: group A (n = 9; 4F 5H; 27±4 years), group B (n = 9; 4F 5H; 28±7 years) and group C (n = 9; 4F 5H, 27±5 years). The participants were asked to consume 5 beverages assigned to their group 1 per day beginning four days preceding the event and one hour before the 30s Wingate test. Beverages A, B and C contained, respectively: a blueberry concentrate; a blueberry concentrate with a biological extract; and a beverage (without blueberry) containing a biological extract that accelerated ATP release. The study was conducted as double blind. All participants performed a Wingate test without consuming the beverages. After one week and after consuming their respective beverages all participants performed two other Wingate tests with a one week interval between tests. One way ANOVA analysis was performed for the various measured parameters. RESULTS: The peak power (W/kg) obtained for the C group for three sessions (7.91±1.5, 7.45±1.86, 7.65±1.54) were significantly higher (p <0.05) than in group B (7.20±1.44, 7.1±1.32, 7.22±1.00), but no significant difference was observed for those in group A (7.22±1.2; 7.72±1.33, 7.3±0.73). The average power (W/kg) for group C (5.53±1.11, 5.64±1.44, 5.90±1.27) was significantly higher (p <0.05) than group A (5.24 ±0.97, 5.43±0.81, 5.24±0.65), but not for group B (5.38±0.96, 5.55±1.06, 5.51±0.84). In addition, a relative improvement (%) of the maximum power as a function of sessions 2 and 3 (consumption of juice) from the session 1 (without juice consumption) showed a significant difference (p <0.05 and p <0.01 respectively) with group C (93.3±11.77, 96.06±11.38), group A (102.63±9.77; 101.97±7.84) and B (104.21±21.21, 106.29±36.64). CONCLUSIONS: The blueberry Juice (A and B) seems to improve the average power (significantly different from C, group without blueberry) when the groups are normalised to their initial performance in the absence of a juice consumption. It seems that blueberry extract helps to maintain power.
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) | 0.003 | 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".