Longer Nap Duration During Ramadan Observance Positively Impacts 5-m Shuttle Run Test Performance Performed in the Afternoon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well-documented that changes in the rhythm of life during Ramadan affect sleep schedules (i.e., interruption of night sleep patterns) and are likely to have negative effects on physical and cognitive performances. The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of different naps opportunities’ durations during Ramadan on performance of short-duration repetitive maximal exercise and perception of effort. Fifteen physically active men (age: 21 ± 3 years, height: 177 ± 6 cm, body-mass: 73 ± 10 kg) performed a 6 × 30-s shuttle run test after a 25-min nap (N25), a 45-min nap (N45), and in a no-nap condition (NN) during three experimental periods: ∼2 weeks before Ramadan (BR), the last ten days of Ramadan (ER), and ∼3 weeks after Ramadan (AR). During the shuttle run test performed in the late afternoon, the greatest distance (GD), the total distance (TD) and a fatigue index (FI) were assessed. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was determined after each 30-s effort. Dietary intake and sleep quality were assessed in each of the three periods. Compared to BR, GD and TD were lower in the ER testing period ( p = 0.005; d = 0.54) but returned to BR levels in the AR period. During ER, carbohydrate intake was lower ( p = 0.04; d = 0.2), and sleep duration and sleep quality were reduced ( d = 0.27 and 0.54, respectively), although other aspects of dietary intake and sleep pattern were not affected. Compared to NN, GD and TD were higher after N25 ( d = 0.57 and 0.34, respectively) and N45 ( d = 0.93 and 0.88 respectively). RPE was lower in N45 ( p = 0.035, d = 0.84). N45 resulted in higher TD ( p = 0.021, d = 0.13) and lower RPE ( p = 0.004; d = 0.57) compared to N25 during ER. Taking a daytime nap benefits subsequent performance in a shuttle run test, whether sleep the previous night was normal (as in BR) or compromised (as in ER). The benefits of napping were greater after a 45-min nap opportunity than after a 25-min nap opportunity.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".