## 2 Materials and Methods
### Data Collection and Analysis  
An Optitrack motion capture system was used (NaturalPoint Inc., Corvallis, OR, USA) for the 3D kinematic analysis of oral processing. As shown in Figure 2, the system used 6 infrared cameras (100 Hz; Flex 3) arranged around the cycle ergometer and acquired data from the cameras through Motive tracker software (version 1.10, NaturalPoint Inc., OR, USA). A model employing 6 markers (that were 12 mm in diameter) was used, whereby 2 markers were placed on the jaw and 4 markers on the forehead [28]. During the recording, the cyclists had to look straight ahead and could not speak; the recording time was from the introduction of the piece of the bar into the cyclist's mouth until the end of chewing, as indicated by the participants raising their right hand (excluding mouth sweep movements). Although two recordings were made for each bar, one for each half, the mean of both was used in this study.  
Signal processing was carried out using Matlab software (version 9.9, R2018b, The Math Works Inc., Natick, MA, USA). The data were filtered by a Chebyshev-type II low-pass filter with 8 and 40 dB attenuation in the attenuated band, with a cut-off frequency of 3 Hz that was obtained experimentally by trial and error [38]. The distance between the forehead and jaw was calculated separately for each chewing cycle by identifying the local maximum and minimum points. Table 2 shows the definition and unit of measurement for each extracted parameter, which was based on the study by [PERSON] et al. [28].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Description** \\ \hline Duration (s) & Time from when the food was placed in the mouth and chewing began until jaw movement was no longer detected. \\ Number of chews (n) & Number of complete chews counted during the chewing duration. \\ Mean time (cs) & Average time for each chew. \\ Minimum time (cs) & Minimum time for each chew. \\ Maximum time (cs) & Maximum time for each chew. \\ Average opening (mm) & Mean displacement of the jaw during the phases of opening the mouth. \\ Minimum opening (mm) & Minimum displacement of the jaw during the phases of opening the mouth. \\ Maximum opening (mm) & Maximum displacement of the jaw during the phases of opening the mouth. \\ Average closing (mm) & Mean displacement of the jaw during the phases of closing the mouth. \\ Minimum closing (mm) & Minimum displacement of the jaw during the phases of closing the mouth. \\ Maximum closing (mm) & Maximum displacement of the jaw during the phases of closing the mouth. \\ Speed (mm/s) & Average jaw speed. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Parameters analysed during the kinematics of oral processing.  
Figure 2: Cyclist with markers placed on his jaw and forehead during the test.  
The average pedalling intensity of each 15 min section was recorded with the cycle ergometer software, taking the average value for each section for the following parameters: torque (Nm), speed (km/h), average power (W), and average cadence (pedalling * min). To evaluate the perception of satisfaction of each bar, a Likert scale with 7 items and a score of 1 to 5 was used, where 1 corresponded to \"very bad/a little\" and 5 meant \"very good/a lot\". The 7 items were dictated in the following order: (1) _What score would you give the bar in general?_ (2) _Was it difficult for you to chev?_ (3) _Was it hard for you to swallow?_ (4) _Did you need to drink water to help you swallow?_ (5) _Do you like the texture?_ (6) _Did you like the taste?_ and (7) _Would you use this particular bar as an ergogenic aid in a competition knowing that it will provide you with the nutrients required to help you complete the trial?_ In addition, a final item was added in which the cyclists were asked to identify the textures of the bar in terms of pastiness, softness, lumpiness, stickiness, hardness, and juiciness.