| Literature DB >> 32679728 |
Aritz Urdampilleta1, Soledad Arribalzaga2, Aitor Viribay3, Arkaitz Castañeda-Babarro4, Jesús Seco-Calvo5, Juan Mielgo-Ayuso6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current carbohydrate (CHO) intake recommendations for ultra-trail activities lasting more than 2.5 h is 90 g/h. However, the benefits of ingesting 120 g/h during a mountain marathon in terms of post-exercise muscle damage have been recently demonstrated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze and compare the effects of 120 g/h CHO intake with the recommendations (90 g/h) and the usual intake for ultra-endurance athletes (60 g/h) during a mountain marathon on internal exercise load, and post-exercise neuromuscular function and recovery of high intensity run capacity.Entities:
Keywords: absorption; carbohydrates; fatigue; gastrointestinal discomfort; gut training; performance; recovery; resistance
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32679728 PMCID: PMC7400827 DOI: 10.3390/nu12072094
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Experimental design of study including pre- and post- tests and race fueling protocol and timing. CHO: Carbohydrate.
Race time, age, anthropometric characteristics and body composition in low (LOW), medium (MED) and high (HIGH) groups at baseline (T1).
| Variables | LOW | MED | HIGH |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race Time (min) | 278.2 ± 43.6 | 284.1 ± 40.0 | 271.7 ± 41.7 | 0.063 |
| Age (years) | 37.8 ± 9.4 | 37.2 ± 5.4 | 38.0 ± 6.8 | 0.639 |
| Height (cm) | 175.6 ± 10.3 | 172.3 ± 7.0 | 174.2 ± 3.5 | 0.361 |
| Weight (kg) | 71.8 ± 10.3 | 66.6 ± 10.1 | 67.4 ± 11.1 | 0.607 |
| BMI | 23.3 ± 2.9 | 22.4 ± 2.6 | 22.1 ± 3.0 | 0.747 |
| ∑6S (mm) | 58.8 ± 21.5 | 55.4 ± 21.6 | 43.7 ± 21.6 | 0.467 |
| Muscle Mass (kg) | 29.8 ± 4.7 | 28.4 ± 5.1 | 30.4 ± 3.2 | 0.412 |
Results of the Abalakov jump and half-squad test in low (LOW), medium (MED) and high (HIGH) groups at T1 and T2.
| Study Time | LOW | MED | HIGH |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABKJT (s) | ||||
| T1 | 0.54 ± 0.05 | 0.53 ± 0.06 | 0.53 ± 0.05 | 0.867 |
| T2 | 0.51 ± 0.05 * | 0.50 ± 0.04 * | 0.53 ± 0.04 | 0.867 |
| ABKH (cm) | ||||
| T1 | 36.57 ± 6.36 | 34.86 ± 7.37 | 34.46 ± 6.55 | 0.861 |
| T2 | 32.42 ± 6.52 * | 31.06 ± 4.97 * | 34.47 ± 4.78 | 0.584 |
| HST1-RM (kg) | ||||
| T1 | 103.32 ± 35.67 | 109.07 ± 33.62 | 97.17 ± 8.60 | 0.991 |
| T2 | 81.66 ± 32.42 | 91.91 ± 25.54 | 90.09 ± 14.20 | 0.659 |
| HSTSpeed (m/s) | ||||
| T1 | 0.65 ± 0.06 | 0.63 ± 0.10 | 0.57 ± 0.14 | 0.728 |
| T2 | 0.60 ± 0.11 | 0.50 ± 0.09 * | 0.55 ± 0.18 | 0.370 |
Data are indicated as mean ± standard deviation. p: Statistical differences among groups in each time point by Kruskal–Wallis test. * Significant differences (p < 0.05) between time points (T1 vs. T2) within the same group as determined by Wilcoxon signed rank test.
Results of the aerobic power-capacity test in low (LOW), medium (MED) and high (HIGH) groups before (T1) and after (T2) completing the competition.
| Study Time | LOW | MED | HIGH |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time (s) | ||||
| T1 | 102.8 ± 38.3 | 104.0 ± 48.1 | 108.0 ± 46.5 | 0.962 |
| T2 | 89.8 ± 37.1 | 87.9 ± 39.4 * | 110.1 ± 48.4 | 0.537 |
| Lactate (mmol/L) | ||||
| T1 | 7.45 ± 1.42 | 5.80 ± 0.91 | 6.79 ± 2.30 | 0.200 |
| T2 | 5.65 ± 1.27 * | 4.79 ± 1.35 | 6.70 ± 2.07 | 0.131 |
| HR max (bpm) | ||||
| T1 | 184.8 ± 14.2 | 186.0 ± 11.0 | 179.6 ± 9.0 | 0.791 |
| T2 | 174.7 ± 11.0 * | 173.7 ± 8.1 * | 174.9 ± 7.7 | 0.970 |
| BORG | ||||
| T1 | 18.83 ± 1.17 | 18.43 ± 1.40 | 18.29 ± 0.76 | 0.008 |
| T2 | 18.83 ± 0.98 & | 18.71 ± 1.38 & | 17.00 ± 1.00 * | 0.028 |
Data are indicated as mean ± standard deviation. p: Statistical differences among groups in each time point by Kruskal–Wallis test. * Significant differences (p < 0.05) between time points (T1 vs. T2) within the same group as determined by Wilcoxon signed rank. & Significant differences regarding HIGH group by Mann Whitney u test.
Figure 2Internal exercise load by training impulse (TRIMP) for each group during trail marathon. * Significant differences in terms of HIGH using Mann Whitney u test (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Percentage of changes of neuromuscular function using the Abalakov jump test and half squat test between T1 and T2. * Significant differences compared to HIGH using Mann Whitney u test (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Percentage difference of high intensity run capacity parameters between T1 and T2. * Significant differences compared to HIGH using Mann Whitney u test (p < 0.05).