Effects of a Sports Nutrition Bar on Endurance Running Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Access bar claims to contain adenosine antagonists and a precise mixture of macronutrients that are purported to improve aerobic performance by increasing fat metabolism and providing sustained exogenous energy. The purpose of this research was to examine the effect of the Access bar on endurance running performance. Twelve active, healthy runners completed 5 sessions: a Vo2max test, a 30-minute familiarization session, and 3 experimental sessions. During each experimental session subjects ran a self-paced, simulated race on a treadmill (approximately 55 minutes) until they had completed a set energy expenditure target (0.8368 kJ × 60 minutes × body mass). Fifteen minutes before exercise subjects received either the Access bar and water, Uncle Tobys Peanut Butter Muesli Bar and water, or Crystal Light, using a randomized, double-blind design. Heart rate, oxygen consumption, respiratory exchange ratio, and running speed were measured every minute during testing. Blood lactate and rating of perceived exertion were assessed at selected intervals; time to finish was also recorded. Analysis of variance showed no significant difference between the 3 treatments in any of the measures. These results do not support the use of the Access Sports Nutrition Bar to enhance endurance running performance of approximately one hour.
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) | 0.004 | 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".