MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The Effect of Consuming a Low‐Glycemic Index Lentil‐Based Sports Nutrition Bar on Recovery after a Soccer Match

2016· article· en· W2588128194 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mojtaba Kaviani, Philip D. Chilibeck, Jennifer Jochim, Gordon A. Zello

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycemic indexBar (unit)GlycemicIndex (typography)MedicineFood scienceComputer scienceInternal medicineBiologyInsulinGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High glycemic‐index (GI) carbohydrates are superior to low glycemic index carbohydrates following an exercise session for the replenishment of glycogen stores; however, studies assessing the effect of GI of foods on recovery of exercise performance are mixed. We compared the effects of post‐exercise feeding with a low GI lentil‐based sports nutrition bar and a commercially available high GI sports nutrition bar, with similar macronutrient content, on recovery of performance after a simulated soccer match. Using a randomized, counterbalanced, crossover design, soccer players (n=7) consumed 1.5 g/kg available carbohydrate from a lentil‐based bar or a high GI bar immediately after a 90 minute simulated soccer match. Participants were required to consume the sports bars within 30 minutes of the end of the simulated soccer match. Participants consumed similar diets for the remainder of the day in the high‐ and low‐GI conditions. Participants returned to the laboratory the following morning to repeat the first half of the simulated soccer match for recovery performance measurements. During this simulated soccer match performance was assessed by speed during an agility course, speed during a ball dribbling drill, sprint speed during a 20m shuttle‐run test, ability to jump at maximal height (to simulate heading a ball) and shooting accuracy. Tests involving agility, ball‐dribbling, and sprinting were analyzed by magnitude‐based inferences, assuming a smallest substantial change in sprint time of 0.8% Results During the recovery day simulated soccer match, the mean difference in time between low‐GI and high‐GI conditions for the sprint (0.10s, 90% CI −0.17 to 0.38s), agility (0.16s; 90% CI −0.32 to 0.64s), and ball dribbling (0.34s, 90% CI −1.28 to 1.96s) tests represented a 61–68% chance that the low‐GI condition enhanced performance over the high‐GI condition. There was no difference between conditions for jump height or shooting accuracy. Despite previous findings that high‐GI carbohydrates might allow faster glycogen re‐synthesis after exercise, our results indicate consumption of a low‐GI sport nutrition bar may allow better recovery of performance after a simulated soccer match. Athletes can therefore consume low‐GI carbohydrates as a healthier food choice during recovery after soccer matches. Support or Funding Information Supported by the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers and Agriculture Agri‐Food Canada

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designRandomized trial
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicMuscle metabolism and nutrition→French-language works237,207→