Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Gastrointestinal (GI) distress in endurance athletes is prevalent and detrimental to performance. Adverse GI symptomatology can be analogous with irritable bowel syndrome, where fermentable oligosaccharide, disaccharide, monosaccharide, and polyols (FODMAP) reduction has demonstrated efficacy. This study investigated the effects of low FODMAP (LFOD) diet on GI distress parameters in runners with a history of nonclinical exercise-associated GI symptoms. METHODS: Eleven recreationally competitive runners (five men, six women; 5-km personal best 23:00 ± 4:02 min:s) participated in the study. Runners were allocated to a randomized 6-d LFOD or high FODMAP (HFOD) diet separated by a 1-d wash-out in a controlled, single-blinded cross-over study. In each period participants completed two strenuous running sessions consisting of 5 × 1000 m and a 7-km threshold run. GI symptoms (during-exercise and daily) and the Daily Analysis of Life Demand for Athletes questionnaires were completed. Area under the curve was calculated for daily GI symptoms across each dietary period and analysis was conducted using multilevel mixed-effects linear regression for comparison between the two diets. RESULTS: A significantly smaller area under the curve for daily GI symptoms 6 d during the LFOD compared with HFOD (mean difference, -13.4; 95% confidence interval, -22 to -4.60; P = 0.003) was observed. The daily GI symptoms that were significantly lower during LFOD were flatulence (P < 0.001), urge to defecate (P = 0.04), loose stool (P = 0.03), and diarrhea (P = 0.004). No significant differences in during exercise symptoms or Daily Analysis of Life Demand for Athletes responses were observed between diets (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings suggest that short-term FODMAP reduction may be a beneficial intervention to minimize daily GI symptoms in runners with exercise-related GI distress.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".