The Effects Of Beetroot And Tart Cherry Supplementation On Repeated Sprint Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In recent years, sports supplements have been of interest to athletes as a possible way to increase performance. Two supplements of high interest are beetroot (BR) and tart cherry (TC) juice. BR is known to have an ergogenic effect due to its high nitrate contents, helping to vasodilate blood vessels in times of low oxygen availability. TC is known for its anti-oxidative and anti-inflammatory properties, which is shown to benefit athletes as well. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate whether beetroot and tart cherry supplementation would improve repeated sprint performance in healthy individuals. METHODS: Using a randomized cross-over, double-blind, placebo-controlled design, 12 healthy individuals ( 4 females and 8 males, 24.4 ± 2.7 years) were consumed BR, TC, and placebo capsules separately to determine the effects of these supplements on repeated sprint cycling performance. Participants completed a baseline sprint test, including a 5-minute warm-up, followed by six 10 second sprints (6x10) interspersed by a minute passive recovery. Participants received capsule contained 500mg of powder. In total, 2000mg of BR, TC, and placebo were separately consumed for four days prior to testing day. Peak power (W) and average power (W) were measured using Monark bike instrument data. Blood pressure was taken before and following the test. Lactate testing was done prior to the test, immediately after, as well as 10 minutes following the cycling sprint protocol. RESULTS: Results showed that the average power was significantly higher in BR (491.5±78 W) and TC (497±82 W) against PL (477±90 W), while no difference was found between BR and TC conditions. Furthermore, the lactate level at 10 minutes following the test was significantly lower in BR (10.3±0.67 mmol/l) versus TC (11.08±1.23 mmol/l) and PL (11.6±1.12 mmol/l) conditions. There was no significant difference among TC, BR, and PL on peak power. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that while BR and TC supplementation both improved performance at the 10-s repeated cycling sprint, this improvement was only accompanied by differences in lactate levels after the protocol in response to BR supplementation.
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 | 0.001 | 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".