Study note • PMID 10846030
Dietary carbohydrate, muscle glycogen content, and endurance performance in well-trained women.
How to use this page
This note summarizes one study record. Check the participants, methods, results, and limitations before applying it to training.
- • Design signal: randomized trial.
- • Population relevance: athlete/trained context.
- • Consistency: single-study evidence.
- • Practical recommendation depends on tolerance, context, and whether it protects training consistency.
ELI5
In plain language
This study examined the ability of well-trained eumenorrheic women to increase muscle glycogen content and endurance performance in response to a high-carbohydrate diet (HCD; approximately 78% carbohydrate) compared with… (randomized trial; well-trained participants).
The abstract suggests a positive effect on Time-trial performance under the tested conditions. Treat this as a signal, not a guarantee; confirm methods and context in the full paper.
Takeaways
What the abstract suggests
- • Study question: This study examined the ability of well-trained eumenorrheic women to increase muscle glycogen content and endurance performance in response to a high-carbohydrate diet (HCD; approximately 78% carbohydrate) compared with…
- • The abstract suggests a positive effect on Time-trial performance under the tested conditions.
- • Population: well-trained participants.
- • Protocol cues (title/abstract): 36 min.
Protocol
Protocol (as reported)
- • Intervention/exposure: taper, tapering (vs comparison group).
- • Dose/time/duration cues in abstract/title: 36 min.
- • Outcomes: Time-trial performance.
- • Replication note: abstracts often omit adherence and timing; confirm details before changing training or supplementation.
Fit
Who it may help, and who should be cautious
Who it helps
- • Athletes similar to the study population (well-trained participants) working on tapering.
- • Athletes who can measure Time-trial performance with a repeatable workout or time-trial effort.
Who should be cautious
- • If you have symptoms or conditions that make the intervention risky, get professional guidance.
- • If you’re near race day and can’t safely test, defer the experiment.
Methods
What the study actually did
- • Design: randomized trial.
- • Population: well-trained participants.
- • Comparator: comparison group.
- • Outcomes measured: Time-trial performance.
- • Protocol cues mentioned: 36 min.
- • Source: PubMed PMID 10846030 (2000) — Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985).
Results excerpt
What the abstract reports
“The subjects also cycled longer at approximately 80% VO(2 max) after the HCD vs.”
Note: excerpts are short; for full context, read the paper.
Limits
Limitations and bias
- • Abstract-only summaries can miss critical details (population, protocol, adherence, and context).
- • Single studies often don’t generalize to your event, history, and training load; treat results as a starting point.
- • If your context differs (elite vs recreational; cycling vs running), adjust expectations and be conservative.
- • This is performance information, not medical advice.
Adaptive AI coach for iPhone
Meet your adaptive AI coach.
Tell your coach what you are training for. It builds the plan, follows the work you complete, and adapts upcoming training when recovery, your schedule, or real life changes.
Keep going
Performance Science Lab
Research summaries for endurance athletes, with study context, practical protocols, and clear limitations.
Tapering performance research
Tapering is how you cash your fitness check — without getting stale or anxious.
Caffeine for endurance performance: a practical protocol
Evidence-informed protocol: Caffeine for endurance performance: a practical protocol. Practical steps, who it helps, and what to watch out for.