Mojgan Amiri1,2, Reza Ghiasvand3,4, Mojtaba Kaviani5, Scott C Forbes6, Amin Salehi-Abargouei7,8. 1. Nutrition and Food Security Research Center, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran. 2. Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran. 3. Food Security research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran. 4. Department of Community Nutrition, School of Nutrition and Food Science, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran. 5. Faculty of Pure & Applied Science, School of Nutrition and Dietetics, Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada. 6. Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Education, Brandon University, Brandon, MB, Canada. 7. Nutrition and Food Security Research Center, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran. abargouei@ssu.ac.ir. 8. Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran. abargouei@ssu.ac.ir.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Chocolate milk (CM) contains carbohydrates, proteins, and fat, as well as water and electrolytes, which may be ideal for post-exercise recovery. We systematically reviewed the evidence regarding the efficacy of CM compared to either water or other "sport drinks" on post-exercise recovery markers. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Google scholar were explored up to April 2017 for controlled trials investigating the effect of CM on markers of recovery in trained athletes. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in the systematic review (2, 9, and 1 with high, fair and low quality, respectively) and 11 had extractable data on at least one performance/recovery marker [7 on ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), 6 on time to exhaustion (TTE) and heart rate (HR), 4 on serum lactate, and serum creatine kinase (CK)]. The meta-analyses revealed that CM consumption had no effect on TTE, RPE, HR, serum lactate, and CK (P > 0.05) compared to placebo or other sport drinks. Subgroup analysis revealed that TTE significantly increases after consumption of CM compared to placebo [mean difference (MD) = 0.78 min, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27, 1.29, P = 0.003] and carbohydrate, protein, and fat-containing beverages (MD = 6.13 min, 95% CI: 0.11, 12.15, P = 0.046). Furthermore, a significant attenuation on serum lactate was observed when CM was compared with placebo (MD = -1.2 mmol/L, 95% CI: -2.06,-0.34, P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: CM provides either similar or superior results when compared to placebo or other recovery drinks. Overall, the evidence is limited and high-quality clinical trials with more well-controlled methodology and larger sample sizes are warranted.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Chocolate milk (CM) contains carbohydrates, proteins, and fat, as well as water and electrolytes, which may be ideal for post-exercise recovery. We systematically reviewed the evidence regarding the efficacy of CM compared to either water or other "sport drinks" on post-exercise recovery markers. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Google scholar were explored up to April 2017 for controlled trials investigating the effect of CM on markers of recovery in trained athletes. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in the systematic review (2, 9, and 1 with high, fair and low quality, respectively) and 11 had extractable data on at least one performance/recovery marker [7 on ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), 6 on time to exhaustion (TTE) and heart rate (HR), 4 on serum lactate, and serum creatine kinase (CK)]. The meta-analyses revealed that CM consumption had no effect on TTE, RPE, HR, serum lactate, and CK (P > 0.05) compared to placebo or other sport drinks. Subgroup analysis revealed that TTE significantly increases after consumption of CM compared to placebo [mean difference (MD) = 0.78 min, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27, 1.29, P = 0.003] and carbohydrate, protein, and fat-containing beverages (MD = 6.13 min, 95% CI: 0.11, 12.15, P = 0.046). Furthermore, a significant attenuation on serum lactate was observed when CM was compared with placebo (MD = -1.2 mmol/L, 95% CI: -2.06,-0.34, P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: CM provides either similar or superior results when compared to placebo or other recovery drinks. Overall, the evidence is limited and high-quality clinical trials with more well-controlled methodology and larger sample sizes are warranted.
Authors: Lisa Ferguson-Stegall; Erin L McCleave; Zhenping Ding; Phillip G Doerner; Bei Wang; Yi-Hung Liao; Lynne Kammer; Yang Liu; Jungyun Hwang; Benjamin M Dessard; John L Ivy Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: William R Lunn; Stefan M Pasiakos; Megan R Colletto; Kirstin E Karfonta; John W Carbone; Jeffrey M Anderson; Nancy R Rodriguez Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Grete Andersen; Mette C Ørngreen; Nicolai Preisler; Tina D Jeppesen; Thomas O Krag; Simon Hauerslev; Gerrit van Hall; John Vissing Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: Diego A Bonilla; Alexandra Pérez-Idárraga; Adrián Odriozola-Martínez; Richard B Kreider Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-25 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Maryam Molaeikhaletabadi; Reza Bagheri; Mohammad Hemmatinafar; Javad Nemati; Alexei Wong; Michael Nordvall; Maryam Namazifard; Katsuhiko Suzuki Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-19 Impact factor: 3.390