Nitrate Supplementation Combined with a Running Training Program Improved Time-Trial Performance in Recreationally Trained Runners
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our purpose was to verify the effects of inorganic nitrate combined to a short training program on 10-km running time-trial (TT) performance, maximum and average power on a Wingate test, and lactate concentration ([La−]) in recreational runners. Sixteen healthy participants were divided randomly into two groups: Nitrate (n = 8) and placebo (n = 8). The experimental group ingested 750 mg/day (~12 mmol) of nitrate plus 5 g of resistant starch, and the control group ingested 6 g of resistant starch, for 30 days. All variables were assessed at baseline and weekly over 30 days. Training took place 3x/week. The time on a 10-km TT decreased significantly (p < 0.001) in all timepoints compared to baseline in both groups, but only the nitrate group was faster in week 2 compared to 1. There was a significant group × time interaction (p < 0.001) with lower [La] in the nitrate group at week 2 (p = 0.032), week 3 (p = 0.002), and week 4 (p = 0.003). There was a significant group time interaction (p = 0.028) for Wingate average power and a main effect of time for maximum power (p < 0.001) and [La−] for the 60-s Wingate test. In conclusion, nitrate ingestion during a four-week running program improved 10-km TT performance and kept blood [La−] steady when compared to placebo in recreational runners.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it