Addition of pectin-alginate to a carbohydrate beverage does not maintain gastrointestinal barrier function during exercise in hot-humid conditions better than carbohydrate ingestion alone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the effects of consuming a 16% maltodextrin+fructose+pectin-alginate (MAL+FRU+PEC+ALG) drink against a nutrient-matched maltodextrin+fructose (MAL+FRU) drink on enterocyte damage and gastrointestinal permeability after cycling in hot and humid conditions. Fourteen recreational cyclists (7 men) completed 3 experimental trials in a randomized placebo-controlled design. Participants cycled for 90 min (45% maximal aerobic capacity) and completed a 15-min time-trial in hot (32 °C) humid (70% relative humidity) conditions. Every 15 min, cyclists consumed 143 mL of either (i) water; (ii) MAL+FRU+PEC+ALG (90 g·h−1 CHO/16% w/v); or (iii) a ratio-matched MAL+FRU drink (90 g·h−1 CHO/16% w/v). Blood was sampled before and after exercise and gastrointestinal (GI) permeability, which was determined by serum measurements of intestinal fatty acid binding protein (I-FABP) and the percent ratio of lactulose (5 g) to rhamnose (2 g) recovered in postexercise urine. Compared with water, I-FABP decreased by 349 ± 67pg·mL−1 with MAL+FRU+PEC+ALG (p = 0.007) and by 427 ± 56 pg·mL−1 with MAL+FRU (p = 0.02). GI permeability was reduced in both the MAL+FRU+PEC+ALG (by 0.019 ± 0.01, p = 0.0003) and MAL+FRU (by 0.014 ± 0.01, p = 0.002) conditions relative to water. In conclusion, both CHO beverages attenuated GI barrier damage to a similar extent relative to water. No metabolic, cardiovascular, thermoregulatory, or performance differences were observed between the CHO beverages. Novelty Consumption of multiple-transportable CHO, with or without hydrogel properties, preserves GI barrier integrity and reduces enterocyte damage during prolonged cycling in hot-humid conditions.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".