University of Iowa, Integrative Laboratory of Applied Physiology and Lifestyle Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Dr. Chris Lockwood, LLC, Casper, WY, USA.
J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2024 Dec;21(1):2297988. doi: 10.1080/15502783.2023.2297988. Epub 2024 Jan 10.
The aim of this study was to examine the acute effects of a non-caloric energy drink (C4E) compared to a traditional sugar-containing energy drink (MED) and non-caloric placebo (PLA) on exercise performance and cardiovascular safety. Thirty healthy, physically active males (25 ± 4 y) completed three experimental visits under semi-fasted conditions (5-10 h) and in randomized order, during which they consumed C4E, MED, or PLA matched for volume, appearance, taste, and mouthfeel. One hour after drink consumption, participants completed a maximal, graded exercise test (GXT) with measurement of pulmonary gases, an isometric leg extension fatigue test (ISO), and had their cardiac electrical activity (ECG), leg blood flow (LBF), and blood pressure (BP) measured throughout the visit. Neither MED nor C4E had an ergogenic effect on maximal oxygen consumption, time to exhaustion, or peak power during the GXT ( > 0.05). Compared to PLA, MED reduced fat oxidation (respiratory exchange ratio (RER) +0.030 ± 0.01; = 0.026) during the GXT and did not influence ISO performance. Compared to PLA, C4E did not alter RER ( = 0.94) and improved impulse during the ISO (+0.658 ± 0.25 V·s; = 0.032). Relative to MED, C4E did not significantly improve gas exchange threshold ( = 0.05-0.07). Both MED and C4E increased systolic BP at rest (+7.1 ± 1.2 mmHg; < 0.001 and + 5.7 ± 1.0 mmHg; < 0.001, respectively), C4E increased SBP post-GXT (+13.3 ± 3.8 mmHg; < 0.001), and MED increased SBP during recovery (+3.2 ± 1.1 mmHg; < 0.001). Neither MED nor C4E influenced ECG measures ( ≥ 0.08) or LBF ( = 0.37) compared to PLA. C4E may be more efficacious for improving performance in resistance-type tasks without altering fat oxidation under semi-fasted conditions during fatiguing exercise bouts, but promotes similar changes in BP and HR to MED.
这项研究的目的是检验一种无热量能量饮料（C4E）与传统含糖能量饮料（MED）和无热量安慰剂（PLA）对运动表现和心血管安全性的急性影响。30 名健康、活跃的男性（25±4 岁）在半禁食条件下（5-10 小时）完成了三次实验，以随机顺序饮用 C4E、MED 或 PLA，这些饮料在体积、外观、口感和口感方面是匹配的。在饮用后 1 小时，参与者完成了最大、分级运动测试（GXT），测量肺气体、等长腿部伸展疲劳测试（ISO），并在整个访问过程中测量心脏电活动（ECG）、腿部血流量（LBF）和血压。与 PLA 相比，MED 在 GXT 期间对最大摄氧量、衰竭时间或峰值功率没有产生促进作用（>0.05）。与 PLA 相比，MED 在 GXT 期间降低了脂肪氧化（呼吸交换率（RER）+0.030±0.01；=0.026），但不影响 ISO 性能。与 PLA 相比，C4E 没有改变 RER（=0.94），并在 ISO 期间提高了冲动（+0.658±0.25 V·s；=0.032）。与 MED 相比，C4E 并没有显著提高气体交换阈值（=0.05-0.07）。MED 和 C4E 都增加了静息时的收缩压（分别增加 7.1±1.2mmHg；<0.001 和增加 5.7±1.0mmHg；<0.001），C4E 增加了 GXT 后的 SBP（增加 13.3±3.8mmHg；<0.001），而 MED 增加了恢复期间的 SBP（增加 3.2±1.1mmHg；<0.001）。与 PLA 相比，MED 和 C4E 均未影响 ECG 指标（≥0.08）或 LBF（=0.37）。在半禁食条件下进行疲劳运动时，C4E 可能更有效地提高阻力型任务的表现，而不会改变脂肪氧化，但会导致与 MED 相似的血压和 HR 变化。
