Ammonia Inhalation Does Not Increase Deadlift 1-Repetition Maximum in College-Aged Male and Female Weight Lifters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vigil, JN, Sabatini, PL, Hill, LC, Swain, DP, and Branch, JD. Ammonia inhalation does not increase deadlift 1-repetition maximum in college-aged male and female weight lifters. J Strength Cond Res 32(12): 3392-3397, 2018-Ammonia inhalant use by powerlifters and weight lifters is a prevalent practice with little research support for improved performance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of ammonia as a stimulant on athletic performance during a deadlift 1-repetition maximum (1RM) absolute strength test. Subjects (men: n = 10, mean ± SD age = 21 ± 1 year, mass = 72.5 ± 6.8 kg; and women: n = 10, age = 22 ± 5 years, mass = 66.2 ± 8.1 kg) were required to have at least 2 years of resistance training experience while lacking a history of asthma, lightheadedness, fainting, anaphylaxis, sickle cell traits, and other respiratory disorders. After a baseline 1RM test, subjects were paired by 1RM performance and gender, then randomly assigned in a counterbalanced treatment order to control (water) or ammonia trials after a minimum 72-hour recovery period for another 1RM test involving attempts at 100.0, 102.5, 105.0, and 107.5% of the established 1RM value. Testing was then repeated after the minimum rest period for the remaining trial. Results revealed the expected gender main effect for absolute deadlift 1RM (93.0 ± 29.5 [women]; 152.0 ± 29.5 kg [men]; p < 0.001), but no trial main effect (p = 0.874) or gender by trial interaction effect (baseline = 93.0 ± 15.3, 151.8 ± 42.3 kg; water = 92.0 ± 12.5, 150.9 ± 37.8 kg; ammonia = 92.5 ± 16.4, 153.4 ± 37.9 kg) for women and men, respectively (p = 0.559). Within the limitations of this study, there is no support for the practice of ammonia inhalation to improve deadlift 1RM in training or competition.
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 | 0.001 |
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".