How Cool is That? The Effects of Menthol Mouth Rinsing on Exercise Capacity and Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Menthol (MEN) mouth rinsing (MR) has gained considerable interest in the athletic population for exercise performance; however, the overall magnitude of effect is unknown. Objective The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of menthol MEN MR and the impact it has on exercise capacity and performance. Methods Three databases were searched with articles screened according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Three-level meta-analyses were used to investigate the overall efficacy of MEN MR and the impact it has on exercise capacity and performance. Meta-regressions were then performed with 1) mean VO2peak, 2) MEN swilling duration; 3) the MEN concentration of MR solution, 4) the number of executed swills throughout a single experiment, 5) the use of flavoured sweetened, non-caloric, or non-flavoured neutral solutions as controls, 6) mean environmental temperature at the time of exercise tests, and 7) exercise type as fixed factors to evaluate their influence on the effects of MEN MR. Results Ten MEN MR studies included sufficient information pertaining to MEN MR and exercise performance and capacity. MR with MEN resulted in no significant change in capacity and performance (SMD = 0.12; 95% CI − 0.08, 0.31; p = 0.23, n = 1, tau21 < 0.0001, tau22 = < 0.0001, I2 = 0%). No significant influence was detected in meta-regressions for VO2peak, (estimate: 0.03; df = 8; 95% CI − 0.03, 0.09; p = 0.27), swilling duration (5 vs. 10 s: 0.00; df = 16; 95% CI − 0.41, 0.41; p = 1.0), MEN concentration (low [0.01%] vs. high [0.1%]: − 0.08; df = 15; 95% CI − 0.49, 0.32; p = 0.67), number of swills (estimate: 0.02; df = 13; 95% CI − 0.05, 0.09; p = 0.56), the use of flavoured sweetener or non-caloric as control (non-flavoured vs. flavoured: 0.12; df = 16; 95% CI − 0.30, 0.55; p = 0.55) or mean room temperature during exercise tests (estimate: 0.01; df = 16; 95% CI − 0.02, 0.04; p = 0.62). Conclusion MEN MR did not significantly improve overall exercise capacity and performance, though those involved in endurance exercise may see benefits.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".