Using mouth rinse (MR) with carbohydrate during exercise has been shown to act as an ergogenic aid. PURPOSE: To investigate if nutritive or nonnutritive sweetened MR affects exercise performance and to assess the influence of sweetness intensity on endurance performance during a time trial (TT). METHODS: This randomized, single-blinded study had 4 treatment conditions. Sixteen subjects (9 men, 7 women) completed a 12.8-km TT 4 different times. During each TT, subjects mouth-rinsed and expectorated a different solution at time 0 and every 12.5% of the TT. The 4 MR solutions were sucrose (S) (sweet taste and provides energy of 4 kcal/g), a lower-intensity sucralose (S1:1) (artificial sweetener that provides no energy but tastes sweet), a higher-intensity sucralose (S100:1), and water as control (C). Completion times for each TT, heart rate (HR), and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were also recorded. RESULTS:Completion time for S was faster than for C (1:03:47 ± 00:02:17 vs 1:06:56 ± 00:02:18, respectively; P < .001) and showed a trend to be faster vs S100:1 (1:03:47 ± 00:02:17 vs 1:05:38 ± 00:02:12, respectively; P = .07). No other TT differences were found. Average HR showed a trend to be higher for S vs C (P = .08). The only difference in average or maximum RPE was for higher maximum RPE in C vs S1:1 (P = .02). CONCLUSION: A sweet-tasting MR did improve endurance performance compared with water in a significant manner (mean 4.5% improvement; 3+ min.); however, the presence of energy in the sweet MR appeared necessary since the artificial sweeteners did not improve performance more than water alone.
RCT Entities:
Using mouth rinse (MR) with carbohydrate during exercise has been shown to act as an ergogenic aid. PURPOSE: To investigate if nutritive or nonnutritive sweetened MR affects exercise performance and to assess the influence of sweetness intensity on endurance performance during a time trial (TT). METHODS: This randomized, single-blinded study had 4 treatment conditions. Sixteen subjects (9 men, 7 women) completed a 12.8-km TT 4 different times. During each TT, subjects mouth-rinsed and expectorated a different solution at time 0 and every 12.5% of the TT. The 4 MR solutions were sucrose (S) (sweet taste and provides energy of 4 kcal/g), a lower-intensity sucralose (S1:1) (artificial sweetener that provides no energy but tastes sweet), a higher-intensity sucralose (S100:1), and water as control (C). Completion times for each TT, heart rate (HR), and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were also recorded. RESULTS: Completion time for S was faster than for C (1:03:47 ± 00:02:17 vs 1:06:56 ± 00:02:18, respectively; P < .001) and showed a trend to be faster vs S100:1 (1:03:47 ± 00:02:17 vs 1:05:38 ± 00:02:12, respectively; P = .07). No other TT differences were found. Average HR showed a trend to be higher for S vs C (P = .08). The only difference in average or maximum RPE was for higher maximum RPE in C vs S1:1 (P = .02). CONCLUSION: A sweet-tasting MR did improve endurance performance compared with water in a significant manner (mean 4.5% improvement; 3+ min.); however, the presence of energy in the sweet MR appeared necessary since the artificial sweeteners did not improve performance more than water alone.
Authors: Linda M Bartoshuk; Valerie B Duffy; John E Hayes; Howard R Moskowitz; Derek J Snyder Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2006-07-29 Impact factor: 6.237
Authors: Guido K W Frank; Tyson A Oberndorfer; Alan N Simmons; Martin P Paulus; Julie L Fudge; Tony T Yang; Walter H Kaye Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2007-11-19 Impact factor: 6.556