Beta-Alanine Supplementation for CrossFit® Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate whether beta-alanine supplementation (BA) improves performance and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and reduces the respiratory exchange ratio (RER) during a CrossFit® workout. Fourteen participants were randomized in a double-blind design to either BA or placebo, with 12 participants (7 males, 5 females, 32 ± 9.2 y) completing the study. Participants performed two tests, separated by three weeks of supplementing with either 6.4 g/day of BA or placebo. Performance tests involved time to complete an adapted CrossFit® “Fran” Workout of the Day: 21-15-9 repetition scheme alternating between dumbbell thrusters and kipping pull-ups. No significant differences between the BA group and the placebo group were observed for performance time improvement (−13.4 s vs. −12.9 s, p = 0.97), change in mean RER (0.06 vs. 0.05, p = 0.84), or change in RPE (10-point scale) (−0.4 vs. −0.07, p = 0.56). There was a group × time × time during test interaction for RER (p = 0.021). Compared to pre-testing, post-testing RER was higher at the 25% time point of the test for the BA group and at the 75% and 100% time points in the placebo group (p < 0.05). Beta-alanine did not show significant ergogenic effects during an adapted version of the CrossFit® workout “Fran”, although it might have helped with the buffering of acidity later in the test, based on RER.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".