The impact of 48 h high carbohydrate diets with high and low FODMAP content on gastrointestinal status and symptoms in response to endurance exercise, and subsequent endurance performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of a high carbohydrate diet, with varied fermentable oligo-, di-, and mono-saccharide and polyol (FODMAP) content, before endurance exercise on gastrointestinal integrity, motility, and symptoms; and subsequent exercise performance. Twelve endurance athletes were provided with a 48 h high carbohydrate (mean ± SD: 12.1 ± 1.8 g kg day −1 ) diet on two separate occasions, composed of high (54.8 ± 10.5 g day −1 ) and low FODMAP (3.0 ± 0.2 g day −1 ) content. Thereafter, participants completed a 2 h steady-state running exercise at 60% of [Formula: see text] (22.9 ± 1.2 °C, 46.4 ± 7.9% RH), followed by a 1 h distance performance test. Pre-exercise and every 20 min during steady-state exercise, 100 mL maltodextrin (10% w/ v) solution was consumed. A 150 mL lactulose (20 g) solution was consumed 30 min into the distance performance test to determine orocecal transit time (OCTT) during exercise. Blood was collected pre- and post exercise to determine gastrointestinal integrity biomarkers (i.e., I-FABP, sCD14, and CRP). Breath hydrogen (H 2 ) and gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS) were determined pre-exercise, every 15 min, during and throughout recovery. No differences in gastrointestinal integrity biomarkers, OCTT, or distance completed were observed between trials. Pre-exercise total-GIS (1.3 ± 2.9 vs. 4.3 ± 4.4), gut discomfort (9.9 ± 8.1 vs. 15.8 ± 9.0), and upper-GIS (2.8 ± 2.6 vs. 5.7 ± 4.8) during exercise were less severe on high carbohydrate low FODMAP (HC-LFOD) versus high carbohydrate high FODMAP (HC-HFOD) ( p < 0.05). Gut discomfort (3.4 ± 4.4 vs. 0.2 ± 0.6) and total-GIS (4.9 ± 6.8 vs. 0.2 ± 0.6) were higher during recovery on HC-LFOD versus HC-HFOD ( p < 0.05). The FODMAP content of a 48 h high carbohydrate diet does not impact gastrointestinal integrity or motility in response to endurance exercise. However, a high FODMAP content exacerbates GIS before and during exercise, but this does not impact performance outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".