| Literature DB >> 27657117 |
Nicholas D Luden1, Michael J Saunders2, Andrew C D'Lugos3, Mark W Pataky4, Daniel A Baur5, Caitlin B Vining6, Adam B Schroer7.
Abstract
There is good evidence that mouth rinsing with carbohydrate (CHO) solutions can enhance endurance performance (≥30 min). The impact of a CHO mouth rinse on sprint performance has been less consistent, suggesting that CHO may confer benefits in conditions of 'metabolic strain'. To test this hypothesis, the current study examined the impact of late-exercise mouth rinsing on sprint performance. Secondly, we investigated the effects of a protein mouth rinse (PRO) on performance. Eight trained male cyclists participated in three trials consisting of 120 min of constant-load cycling (55% Wmax) followed by a 30 km computer-simulated time trial, during which only water was provided. Following 15 min of muscle function assessment, 10 min of constant-load cycling (3 min at 35% Wmax, 7 min at 55% Wmax) was performed. This was immediately followed by a 2 km time trial. Subjects rinsed with 25 mL of CHO, PRO, or placebo (PLA) at min 5:00 and 14:30 of the 15 min muscle function phase, and min 8:00 of the 10-min constant-load cycling. Magnitude-based inferential statistics were used to analyze the effects of the mouth rinse on 2-km time trial performance and the following physiological parameters: Maximum Voluntary Contract (MVC), Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE), Heart Rate (HR), and blood glucose levels. The primary finding was that CHO 'likely' enhanced performance vs. PLA (3.8%), whereas differences between PRO and PLA were unclear (0.4%). These data demonstrate that late-race performance is enhanced by a CHO rinse, but not PRO, under challenging metabolic conditions. More data should be acquired before this strategy is recommended for the later stages of cycling competition under more practical conditions, such as when carbohydrates are supplemented throughout the preceding minutes/hours of exercise.Entities:
Keywords: cycling; endurance performance; maltodextrin; mouth wash; oralpharyngeal receptor; whey protein
Year: 2016 PMID: 27657117 PMCID: PMC5037560 DOI: 10.3390/nu8090576
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Experimental trial design with dependent measures. Water intake bracket indicates when only water was provided; HR+ with short arrow indicates heart rate (HR), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and glucose measurements taken midway through the 30 km time trial (TT) prior to the mouth rinse (MR) intervention; HR+ with tall arrow indicates HR, RPE, and glucose measurements taken to determine the effects of the MR intervention; MVC, maximum voluntary.
The 30 km time trial prior to mouth rinse intervention.
| Condition | Heart Rate (bpm) | RPE | Blood Glucose (mg/dL) | Finishing Time (min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 150 ± 14 | 16 ± 1 | 68 ± 80 | 57.02 ± 5.21 |
|
| 148 ± 14 | 16 ± 1 | 68 ± 70 | 57.04 ± 2.75 |
|
| 144 ± 15 | 16 ± 1 | 66 ± 10 | 57.89 ± 7.38 |
Values are expressed as means ± SD. Data were obtained midway (15 km) through the 30 km TT. RPE = rating of perceived exertion. Data demonstrates that similar workloads were performed prior to the mouth rinse intervention.
The 2 km performance, peak strength, and heart rate, rating of perceived exertion, and glucose.
| Condition | ∆ MVC (N) | Constant-Load—55% Wmax | 2 km TT Finishing Time (s) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heart Rate (bpm) | RPE | Blood Glucose (mg/dL) | |||
|
| 34 ± 40 | 150 ± 13 | 14 ± 20 | 59 ± 8 | 200.1 ± 10.8 |
|
| 25 ± 25 | 156 ± 10 * | 14 ± 20 | 63 ± 7 ** | 192.4 ± 8.2 †† |
|
| 10 ± 26 ‡ | 152 ± 60 | 14 ± 3 | 56 ± 10 † | 199.9 ± 18.4 |
Values are expressed as means ± SD. ∆ MVC, change in MVC from beginning to end of 15 min muscle function phase. RPE = rating of perceived exertion, MVC = maximum voluntary contraction. Statistics were used to separately compare PLA to CHO and PRO. Magnitude-based inferences for treatment comparisons are notated as follows: ‡ PRO vs. PLA, Possible (57%); * CHO vs. PLA, Likely (77%); ** CHO vs. PLA, Likely (92%); † PRO vs. PLA, Likely (77%); †† CHO vs. PLA, Likely (89%).
Figure 2Effect of CHO and PRO mouth rinses on 2 km time trial (TT) Performance. Circles represent mean treatment difference compared to placebo. Bars depict 90% confidence interval. Shaded area notates threshold value for smallest meaningful effect. * ‘Likely’ faster than PLA.