Exogenous ketone salts do not improve cognitive responses after a high-intensity exercise protocol in healthy college-aged males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effects of a d-β-hydroxybutyrate (βHB) containing beverage on cognitive and performance measures during a bout of repeated Wingates. Fifteen healthy, college-aged males (mean ± SD; age: 23.1 ± 2.4 years, height: 165.4 ± 2.0 cm, mass: 81.4 ± 9.2 kg) volunteered for the present study. Trial 1 consisted of baseline measures and familiarization for the protocol. During trials 2 and 3, subjects reported to the laboratory, after a 10-h fast, and ingested 11.38 g of βHB or a placebo (PLA) beverage 30 min before exercise. Participants then completed a cognitive challenge (CC), consisting of a 5-min FitLight response task while cycling. At the cessation of the test, participants then completed four 15-s repeated Wingates with 4 min of rest between, followed by another 5-min CC response task. Blood ketones, glucose, and lactate were measured pre-CC and post-Wingates. βHB levels were significantly higher compared with PLA (0.53 vs. 0.21 mmol/L), respectively. A significant order effect was observed across trials 2 and 3 for total FitLight misses and hits, regardless of treatment. Further, there were no significant differences among Wingate power output between treatments, although fatigue index was higher in the βHB group compared with PLA (32.3 vs. 29.4 W/s), respectively. In conclusion, βHB did not improve high-intensity cycling or cognitive performance measures; however, these findings might be partially explained by the absolute dosing protocol used for βHB in the present study as opposed to a relative (g/kg) dosing protocol used in previous research.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".