MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Menthol Mouth Rinsing Does Not Improve Cycling Performance In Thermoneutral Conditions

2021· article· en· W3179929114 on OpenAlexaffabout
Erica H. Gavel, Kierstyn V. Hawke, Heather M. Logan-Sprenger

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicExercise and Physiological Responses
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceCyclingMentholThermal sensationMedicineThermoregulationPerceived exertionTime trialSkin temperatureAnesthesiaHeart rateChemistryInternal medicineBlood pressureThermal comfortBiologyPhysicsBiomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Menthol Mouth Rinsing Does Not Improve Cycling Performance in Thermoneutral Conditions E.H. Gavel, 1, K.V. Hawke 1, H.M. Logan-Sprenger 1, 1Faculty of Health Sciences, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa ON, L1G 0C5, Canada PURPOSE: To determine if menthol mouth rinsing canis can improve independent time trial (TT) performance in male cyclists under thermoneutral conditions. METHODS: Participants (n = 9) cycled for 6 kilojoules(kJ)/kilogram of body mass in thermoneutral conditions (22 ± 0.6 °C, 36 ± 6% relative humidity) on two test occasions: with a cold water (CW) mouth rinse (MR) and with a CW plus menthol (MEN) MR (CW + MEN). The MR occurred immediately before the TT, and at 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90% of kJ completed. Capillary blood lactate (BLa) was collected pre-and post-TT, whereas Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE, Borg 6-20) and thermal sensation (TS) were recorded every 15% of work completed and at the end of the TT. RESULTS: TT performance did not significantly improve with CW + MEN MR compared to CW (3.1 ± 6.7%, p = 0.27, d = 0.39, 95% CI = -81.57 to 251.4 sec). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in time splits at 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90% of kJ completed (p > 0.05). Mean power output (Watts(W)ave) was not significantly different in the CW + MEN trial (2.9 ± 6.7%, p = 0.21, d = 0.45, 95% CI = -3.87 to 15.2 W), and there was no significant difference at 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90% of kJ completed (p > 0.05). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in maximal end BLa accumulation (p = 0.913), or BLa pre-post differences (p = 0.852). There was a significant difference in mean RPE (CW + MEN, 15.3 ± 4.1 vs. CW, 14.9 ± 4.0, p = <0.0001, d = 0.49, 95% CI = -0.62 to -0.22) between the trials. TS did not significantly differ (CW + MEN, 2.0 ± 0.4 vs. CW, 1.9 ± 0.3, p = 0.280, d = 0.13, 95% CI = -0.2 to 0.06). CONCLUSION: These results suggest a non-thermal cooling agent does not improve TT performance or alter thermal sensation during endurance exercise in thermoneutral conditions in male cyclists. Instead, however, the menthol mouth rinseMR appears to increase RPE for an equivalent effort when exercising in thermoneutral 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicExercise and Physiological ResponsesFrench-language works237,207