Phosphate Loading Does not Improve 30-km Cycling Time-Trial Performance in Trained Cyclists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phosphate is integral to numerous metabolic processes, several of which strongly predict exercise performance (i.e., cardiac function, oxygen transport, and oxidative metabolism). Evidence regarding phosphate loading is limited and equivocal, at least partly because studies have examined sodium phosphate supplements of varied molar mass (e.g., mono/di/tribasic, dodecahydrate), thus delivering highly variable absolute quantities of phosphate. Within a randomized cross-over design and in a single-blind manner, 16 well-trained cyclists (age 38 ± 16 years, mass 74.3 ± 10.8 kg, training 340 ± 171 min/week; mean ± SD) ingested either 3.5 g/day of dibasic sodium phosphate (Na2HPO4: 24.7 mmol/day phosphate; 49.4 mmol/day sodium) or a sodium chloride placebo (NaCl: 49.4 mmol/day sodium and chloride) for 4 days prior to each of two 30-km time trials, separated by a washout interval of 14 days. There was no evidence of any ergogenic benefit associated with phosphate loading. Time to complete the 30-km time trial did not differ following ingestion of sodium phosphate and sodium chloride (3,059 ± 531 s vs. 2,995 ± 467 s). Accordingly, neither absolute mean power output (221 ± 48 W vs. 226 ± 48 W) nor relative mean power output (3.02 ± 0.78 W/kg vs. 3.08 ± 0.71 W/kg) differed meaningfully between the respective intervention and placebo conditions. Measures of cardiovascular strain and ratings of perceived exertion were very closely matched between treatments (i.e., average heart rate 161 ± 11 beats per minute vs. 159 ± 12 beats per minute; Δ2 beats per minute; and ratings of perceived exertion 18 [14-20] units vs. 17 [14-20] units). In conclusion, supplementing with relatively high absolute doses of phosphate (i.e., >10 mmol daily for 4 days) exerted no ergogenic effects on trained cyclists completing 30-km time trials.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".