A Study on the Feasibility and Utility of Continuous Glucose Monitors in Elite Football
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physiological performance may be limited by reduced systemic glucose availability to working muscles. Continuous glucose monitors (CGM) measure interstitial glucose every 1-15 minutes, offering a practical way to assess glucose during sporting activity. However, empirical research has predominantly focused on endurance-based sports, whereas glucose responses during professional competitive football matches remain unknown. This study evaluated the feasibility and utility of CGM in professional football. Eight professional, male outfield footballers from the English third tier participated in the study. Participants completed a 14-day food diary control period, followed by a 28-day observation period wearing CGM devices during six matches and sixteen training sessions. CGM devices remained in situ for 98% of training sessions and matches. Mean glucose concentrations were 6.5 ± 1.2 mmol/L during training sessions, 7.5 ± 2.1 mmol/L during match play, and 5.4 ± 0.3 mmol/L overnight. No significant differences were found between glucose concentrations during match play (p = 0.060) or training (p = 0.510), compared to overnight fasted glucose concentrations. There was also no difference between training and match-play glucose concentrations (p = 0.788). Glucose concentrations were highly individualised, with one player displaying minimal change throughout match play (-0.2 mmol/L) whereas another experienced increases of up to 5.8 mmol/L. Non-nutritional factors appeared to influence glucose concentrations; participants (n=3) who used nicotine pouches displayed an transient increase in blood glucose in the 10-55 minutes after administration. This study concludes that CGM use in professional football is feasible for assessing individual glucose responses to training and match-play.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".