Effects of post-exercise sodium bicarbonate ingestion on acid-base balance recovery and time-to-exhaustion running performance: a randomised crossover trial in recreational athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of post-exercise sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) ingestion on acid-base balance recovery and time-to-exhaustion (TTE) running performance. Eleven male runners (stature, 1.80 ± 0.05 m; body mass, 74.4 ± 6.5 kg; maximal oxygen consumption, 51.7 ± 5.4 mL·kg−1·min−1) participated in this randomised, single-blind, counterbalanced and crossover design study. Maximal running velocity (v-V̇O2max) was identified from a graded exercise test. During experimental trials, participants repeated 100% v-V̇O2max TTE protocols (TTE1, TTE2) separated by 40 min following the ingestion of either 0.3 g·kg−1 body mass NaHCO3 (SB) or 0.03 g·kg−1 body mass sodium chloride (PLA) at the start of TTE1 recovery. Acid-base balance (blood pH and bicarbonate, HCO3–) data were studied at baseline, post-TTE1, after 35 min recovery and post-TTE2. Blood pH and HCO3– concentration were unchanged at 35 min recovery (p > 0.05), but HCO3– concentration was elevated post-TTE2 for SB vs. PLA (+2.6 mmol·L−1; p = 0.005; g = 0.99). No significant differences were observed for TTE2 performance (p > 0.05), although a moderate effect size was present for SB vs. PLA (+14.3 s; g = 0.56). Post-exercise NaHCO3 ingestion is not an effective strategy for accelerating the restoration of acid-base balance or improving subsequent TTE performance when limited recovery is available. Novelty: Post-exercise sodium bicarbonate ingestion did not accelerate the restoration of blood pH or bicarbonate after 35 min. Performance enhancing effects of sodium bicarbonate ingestion may display a high degree of inter-individual variation. Small-to-moderate changes in performance were likely due to greater up-regulation of glycolytic activation during exercise.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".