No individual or combined effects of caffeine and beetroot-juice supplementation during submaximal or maximal running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dietary supplements such as caffeine and beetroot juice are used by athletes in an attempt to optimize performance and therefore gain an advantage in competition. The aim of this study was to investigate the individual and combined effects of caffeine and beetroot-juice supplementation during submaximal and maximal treadmill running. Seven males (maximal oxygen uptake: 59.0 ± 2.9 mL·kg–1·min–1) and 2 females (maximal oxygen uptake: 53.1 ± 11.4 mL·kg–1·min–1) performed a preliminary trial followed by 4 experimental test sessions. Each test session consisted of two 5-min submaximal running bouts (at ∼70% and 80% of maximal oxygen uptake) and a maximal 1-km time trial (TT) in a laboratory. Participants ingested 70 mL of concentrated beetroot juice containing either 7.3 mmol of nitrate (BR) or no nitrate (PBR) 2.5 h prior to each test session, then either caffeine (C) at 4.8 ± 0.4 (4.3–5.6) mg/kg of body mass or a caffeine placebo (PC) 45 min before each test session. The 4 test sessions (BR-C, BR-PC, PBR-C, and PBR-PC) were presented in a counterbalanced and double-blind manner. No significant differences were identified between the 4 interventions regarding relative oxygen uptake, running economy, respiratory exchange ratio, heart rate (HR), or rating of perceived exertion (RPE) at the 2 submaximal intensities (P > 0.05). Moreover, there were no significant differences in performance, maximum HR, peak blood lactate concentration, or RPE during the maximal TT when comparing the interventions (P > 0.05). In conclusion, no beneficial effects of supplementing with typical doses of caffeine, beetroot juice, or a combination of the two were observed for physiological, perceptual, or performance responses during submaximal or maximal treadmill running exercise.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".