Energy drinks do not alter aerobic fitness assessment using field tests in healthy adults regardless of physical fitness status
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
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of energy drink ingestion on the performance of running performance in amateur runners with different levels of physical fitness. Material: Sixty healthy subjects were selected and randomized according to the level of physical fitness (Low: <29.9 ml.kg -1 .min - ; Moderate: 30-37.9 ml.kg -1 .min - ; and High: > 38 ml.kg -1 .min - ). Thereafter, they were further distributed in Placebo (27g glucose) and Energy Drink (27g glucose, 30g sodium, 1000mg taurine, 600mg glucuronolactone, 80mg caffeine, 50mg inositol, 16mg vitamin B3, 5mg vitamin B5, 1,3mg vitamin B2, 3 mg vitamin B6 and 2.4 mg vitamin B12), resulting in six groups according to physical fitness level such Placebo (P, Low: L, Moderate: M, High: H) and Energy Drink (ED, Low: L, Moderate: M, High: H). The drinks were administered 60 minutes prior to the cooper test. Results: Energy drink ingestion did not elicit performance improvement despite physical fitness level. However, the L group running distance was longer (P:3168 167; ED: 3228 218, meters) than M (P:1962 75; ED: 2035 105, meters) and L (P: 1422 74; ED: 1440 62, meters) (p<0.01). The same result was found following the use of the equation for calculating oxygen consumption (L group P: 201.4; BE: 231.4; ml.kg -1 .min - ; M group P: 351.0; BE: 340.9 ml.kg -1 .min - ; and H group P: 543.7; ED: 604.8 ml.kg - 1 .min - ). Conclusion: Data from the present study demonstrated that the use of energy drinks does not enhance performance of amateur runners regardless of the level of physical fitness.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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