Baguley Brenton, Zilujko Jessica, Leveritt Michael D, Desbrow Ben, Irwin Christopher
School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2016 Aug;26(4):347-55. doi: 10.1123/ijsnem.2015-0229. Epub 2015 Dec 16.
The aim of this study was to compare the effect of ad libitum intake of a milk-based liquid meal supplement against a carbohydrate-electrolyte sports drink following exercise induced fluid loss. Seven male participants (age 22.3 ± 3.4 years, height 179.3 ± 7.9 cm, body mass 74.3 ± 7.3 kg; mean ± SD) completed 4 separate trials and lost 1.89 ± 0.44% body mass through moderate intensity exercise in the laboratory. After exercise, participants consumed ad libitum over 2 h a milk-based liquid meal supplement (Sustagen Sport) on two of the trials (S1, S2) or a carbohydrate-electrolyte sports drink (Powerade) on two of the trials (P1, P2), with an additional 1 hr observational period. Measures of body mass, urine output, gastrointestinal tolerance and palatability were collected throughout the recovery period. Participants consumed significantly more Powerade than Sustagen Sport over the 2 h rehydration period (P1 = 2225 ± 888 ml, P2 = 2602 ± 1119 mL, S1 = 1375 ± 711 mL, S2 = 1447 ± 857 ml). Total urine output on both Sustagen trails was significantly lower than the second Powerade trial (P2 = 1447 ± 656 ml, S1 = 153 ± 62 ml, S2 = 182 ± 118 mL; p < .05) and trended toward being lower compared with the first Powerade trial (P1 = 1057 ± 699 ml vs. S1, p = .067 and vs. S2, p = .061). No significant differences in net fluid balance were observed between any of the drinks at the conclusion of each trial (P1 = -0.50 ±0. 46 kg, P2 = -0.40 ± 0.35 kg, S1 = -0.61 ± 0.74 kg, S2 = -0.45 ± 0.58 kg). Gastrointestinal tolerance and beverage palatability measures indicated Powerade to be preferred as a rehydration beverage. Ad libitum milk-based liquid meal supplement results in similar net fluid balance as a carbohydrate-electrolyte sports drink after exercise induced fluid loss.
本研究的目的是比较在运动引起体液流失后,随意摄入以牛奶为基础的流质膳食补充剂与碳水化合物 - 电解质运动饮料的效果。七名男性参与者(年龄22.3±3.4岁,身高179.3±7.9厘米,体重74.3±7.3千克;平均值±标准差)完成了4项独立试验,并通过在实验室进行中等强度运动,体重减轻了1.89±0.44%。运动后,在其中两项试验(S1、S2)中,参与者在2小时内随意饮用以牛奶为基础的流质膳食补充剂(Sustagen Sport),在另外两项试验(P1、P2)中,饮用碳水化合物 - 电解质运动饮料(Powerade),并额外观察1小时。在整个恢复期间收集体重、尿量、胃肠道耐受性和适口性的测量数据。在2小时的补液期内,参与者饮用的Powerade明显多于Sustagen Sport(P1 = 2225±888毫升,P2 = 2602±1119毫升,S1 = 1375±711毫升,S2 = 1447±857毫升)。Sustagen两项试验的总尿量均显著低于Powerade的第二项试验(P2 = 1447±656毫升,S1 = 153±62毫升,S2 = 182±118毫升;p <.05),与Powerade的第一项试验相比有降低趋势(P1 = 1057±699毫升 vs. S1,p =.067;vs. S2,p =.061)。在每项试验结束时,各饮料之间的净水平衡均未观察到显著差异(P1 = -0.50±0.46千克,P2 = -0.40±0.35千克,S1 = -0.61±0.74千克,S2 = -0.45±0.58千克)。胃肠道耐受性和饮料适口性测量表明,Powerade更适合作为补液饮料。在运动引起体液流失后,随意摄入以牛奶为基础的流质膳食补充剂与碳水化合物 - 电解质运动饮料的净水平衡相似。