MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Endurance Exercise Potentially influenced by a Novel Functional Beverage

2016· article· en· W2520975953 on OpenAlexaff
Martine Mallette, Christian Soto-Catalan, Vincent Gosselin Boucher, Sandra Morales, Andrée‐Anne Parent, Jean P. Boucher, Alain Steve Comtois

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood scienceChemistryPhysical activityAnimal scienceIngredientMedicineTraditional medicinePhysical therapyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A variety of products are available on the market with the aim to improve physical performance. Recently, a new product (JustBIO Inc, CA) allows in vitro ATP resynthesis, preserves mitochondria structure and protect cells against cell death. PURPOSE: To measure the effect of three different beverages on Endurance Exercise (EE). METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to 3 groups: group A (n = 7; 3F 4H; 27 ± 4 years), group B (n = 7; 3F 4H; 28 ± 7 years) and group C (n = 6; 2F 4H, 27 ± 5 years). They were instructed to consume beverages (JustBIO Inc, CA) respective to their group four days, one per day, preceding the EE and the fifth beverage consumption one hour before the test. The beverage A, B and C contained respectively: blueberry extract; blueberry extract with a biological active ingredient; and juice (without blueberry) with a biological extract that accelerated ATP release. The study was double blind. The participants, after a warm-up on ergocycle, performed an EE on ergocycle, where the participant had to achieve the greatest distance to 300kJ at 150 W. RESULTS: A tendency of increased distance (km) in group C (15.35 ± 3.7, 15.99 ± 3.07) was observed compared to group A (16.54 ± 2.87, 15.83 ± 2.82) and group B (15.53 ± 2.67; 15.86 ± 2.30), but not significant (p = 0.395; p = 0.950 respectively). Group C was distinct for average pedaling cadence (85.4 ± 20.52, 89.09 ± 17.16 rpm) with the other two groups (A: 91.91 ± 15.86, 87.96 ± 15.65; B: 86.47 ± 14.94, 87.47 ± 13.65), but it was not significant (p = 0.425, p = 0.901 respectively). Also, the average speed (km/h) on the EE test of the group C (31.98 ± 6.14) was higher during the second session compared to group A (31.66 ± 5.65) and group B (31.72 ± 4.6), but is not significant (p = 0.395; p = 0.950 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The additive juice (C) appeared to have a tendency towards improving cycling performance (distance, average pedaling cadence and speed). It is possible that the variability of our data is too high to observe a significant difference between the groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicMuscle metabolism and nutrition→French-language works237,207→