Effect of one‐week oral or inhaled salbutamol treatment with washout on repeated sprint performance in trained subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Acute and chronic supratherapeutic treatment with the commonly used beta2-agonist salbutamol has the potential to enhance sprint performance and muscle strength. However, little is known about the performance effects of short-term daily permitted inhaled treatment vs oral prohibited treatment in accordance with the 2020 Prohibited List issued by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Methods Herein, we investigated the effect of twice-daily treatment with 400 μg inhaled or 4 mg oral salbutamol for 1 week on repeated sprint performance in 19 healthy well-trained men and women utilizing a randomized open-label crossover design. Before and after each treatment period, and a 12-16 hours washout to avoid an acute effect of salbutamol, subjects performed a repeated sprint test (3 × 30-second Wingate). Results Neither oral nor inhaled salbutamol enhanced peak power (oral; 3.0 W; 95% CI −6.8 to 12.8 W; and inhaled; −3.8 W; 95% CI −14.3 to 6.8 W) or mean power (oral; −2.1 W; 95% CI −4.7 to 8.9 W and inhaled; −1.6 W; 95% CI −5.6 to 8.9 W) during the repeated sprint test irrespective of gender. Conclusions These findings indicate that 1 week is insufficient for salbutamol to induce any relevant effect on repeated sprint performance in trained individuals.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".