Title |
Ingestion of oxygenated water enhances lactate clearance kinetics in trained runners
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, April 2022
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12970-017-0166-y |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Neil Fleming, Jeremiah Vaughan, Matthew Feeback |
Abstract |
Drinks with higher dissolved oxygen concentrations have in recent times gained popularity as a potential ergogenic aid, despite a lack of evidence regarding their efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess effects of ingestion of an oxygen supplement (OS) on exercise performance and post-exercise recovery in a group of trained runners. Trained male runners (n = 25, mean ± SD; age 23 ± 6 years, mass 70 ± 9 kg, BMI 21.9 ± 2.7 kg.m(-2) VO2max 64 ± 6mL.kg(-1).min(-1)), completed a randomised double blinded, crossover study to assess the effect of ingestion of OS solution on exercise performance and recovery. Trials consisted of a 30min rest period, 5min warm-up, a 5000m treadmill time-trial, and a 30min passive recovery. Participants ingested 6x15mL of either OS or a taste matched placebo during the trials (3 during the rest phase, 1 during exercise and 2 during the recovery). Muscle tissue O2 saturation was measured via near infrared spectroscopy. Blood lactate concentrations were measured prior to, mid-way and directly after the finish of the 5000m time trials and every 3-min during the post-exercise recovery. Ingestion of OS did not improve exercise performance. No significant differences were observed for muscle tissue O2 saturation at any time-points. However, lactate clearance was significantly improved during recovery in the OS trials. Both AUC (109 ± 32 vs. 123 ± 38 mmol.min, P < 0.05, d = 0.40) and lactate half-life (λ) (1127 ± 272 vs. 1223 ± 334 s, P < 0.05, d = 0.32) were significantly reduced. Despite no evidence of improved exercise performance, ingestion of OS did enhance post-exercise recovery via increased lactate clearance. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 6 | 13% |
United Kingdom | 3 | 7% |
Canada | 2 | 4% |
Sweden | 1 | 2% |
Kenya | 1 | 2% |
Germany | 1 | 2% |
Austria | 1 | 2% |
Australia | 1 | 2% |
Mauritius | 1 | 2% |
Other | 5 | 11% |
Unknown | 24 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 28 | 61% |
Scientists | 16 | 35% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 102 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 19 | 19% |
Student > Master | 14 | 14% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 12% |
Researcher | 9 | 9% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
Other | 19 | 19% |
Unknown | 22 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Sports and Recreations | 18 | 18% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 13% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 11% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 6% |
Neuroscience | 4 | 4% |
Other | 22 | 22% |
Unknown | 28 | 27% |