Carbohydrate Mouth-Rinsing Improves Overtime Physical Performance in Male Ice Hockey Players During On-Ice Scrimmages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This randomized, double-blind, crossover study examined the effects of mouth-rinsing (MR) with a carbohydrate (CHO) vs. a placebo (PLA) solution on external and internal loads in hydrated ice hockey players during regulation and overtime (OT) periods of an on-ice scrimmage. Methods Twelve skilled male hockey players (22.6 [3.4] years, 178.9 [4.7] cm, 84.0 [6.5] kg) played three 20-min regulation periods and one 12-min OT period of small-sided 3-on-3 scrimmage. Skaters repeated 2 min shift and rest intervals. Participants mouth rinsed with 25 mL of CHO or PLA solution approximately every 10 min for a total of 7 rinses. A local positioning system (LPS) tracked external load variables including speed, distance, acceleration, and deceleration. Internal load was monitored with heart rate (HR) sensors and a rating of perceived exertion (RPE). Results During regulation play, both the conditions developed similar fatigue, with significantly decreased high-intensity distance, average speed and decelerations, and increased RPE, from period 1 to 2 and 3. In OT, CHO MR increased the distance skated at high-intensity (224 [77], 185 [66] m, p = 0.042), peak speed (24.6 [1.6], 23.7 [1.3] km·h−1, p = 0.016), number of sprints (1.9 [1.2], 1.2 [0.9], p = 0.011), and decreased distance skated at slow speed (300 [33], 336 [47], p = 0.034) vs. PLA MR. OT RPE was similar between the two conditions in spite of more work done in CHO MR. Conclusions CHO MR may be a valuable practice to protect against decrements in external load with increased playing time in ice hockey, and possibly allows athletes to perform more work relative to perceived levels of exertion.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".