Trial reportJournal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition2025
Comparative effects of continuous glucose monitoring-informed and traditional interval-based carbohydrate refueling protocols on endurance exercise responses: an exploratory study.
Trial report in Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diabetes Technologies in Ultra-Endurance Type 1 Diabetes: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Glucose dynamics during ultramarathon running: a multi-phase framework and implications for late-stage glucose elevations.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Review
- Case Report: Stage-by-stage fueling, glucose dynamics, and next-day metabolism and biomarker responses after baseline testing in an 18.5-hour Swedish classic tetrathlon.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent advancements in Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) technology provide a novel solution for monitoring dynamic glucose fluctuations during endurance exercise, enabling personalized carbohydrate refueling strategies. However, direct evidence demonstrating its superiority over traditional refueling guidelines has been lacking. This exploratory study compared a CGM-informed protocol with a traditional interval-based (TRAD) carbohydrate refueling protocol on endurance exercise responses.
methodsTwelve healthy, non-diabetic males (age = 32.3 ± 6.3 years) participated in two trials involving 75 minutes of continuous cycling at 50% peak power output, with the two carbohydrate refueling protocols implemented in a randomized, crossover order. In the TRAD protocol, participants received standard carbohydrate solutions at regular 15-min intervals, while replenishment timing in the CGM-informed protocol was guided by real-time glucose trends, particularly during declines.
resultsNo significant differences were observed in heart rate, blood lactate, or perceived exertion between conditions (all p > 0.05). However, CGM-informed protocol displayed a lower coefficient of variation of glucose levels (8.82 ± 4.68%) than the TRAD protocol (11.95 ± 3.41%, Cohen's d = 0.76, p = 0.013), indicating a steadier blood glucose trend. The mean 75-minute interstitial glucose total area under the curve was significantly lower for the CGM-informed protocol (423.4 ± 39.1 mmol·min·L-1), compared to the TRAD protocol (448.6 ± 38.2 mmol·min·L-1, Cohen's d = 0.65, p = 0.008).
conclusionWhile the CGM-informed protocol did not demonstrate beneficial effects on physiological responses over the TRAD protocol, it may aid in stabilizing glucose levels during prolonged endurance exercise. Further research is warranted to explore the applications of personalized carbohydrate refueling strategy based on CGM technology on athletic performance across various exercise protocols. .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.