4.2 Article

The Effects of Chronic Sodium Bicarbonate Ingestion and Interval Training in Highly Trained Rowers

Publisher

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/ijsnem.23.1.40

Keywords

rowing; VO2max; performance; alkalosis; pH; NaHCO3

Funding

  1. Australian Institute of Sport

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent research has reported performance improvements after chronic NaHCO3 ingestion in conjunction with high-intensity interval training (HIT) in moderately trained athletes. The purpose of the current study was to determine the effects of altering plasma H+ concentration during HT through NaHCO3 ingestion over 4 wk (2 HIT sessions/wk) in 12 Australian representative rowers (M +/- SD; age 22 +/- 3 yr, mass 76.4 +/- 4.2 kg, VO2peak 65.50 +/- 2.74 ml . kg(-1) . min-(1)). Baseline testing included a 2,000-m time trial and an incremental exercise test. After baseline testing, rowers were allocated to either a chronic NaHCO3 (ALK) or placebo (PLA) group. Starting 90 min before each HIT session, subjects ingested a 0.3-g/kg body mass dose of NaHCO3 or a placebo substance. Fingertip blood samples were taken throughout the study to analyze bicarbonate and pH levels. The ALK group did not produce any additional improvements in 2,000-m rowing performance time compared with PLA (p > .05). Magnitude-based inferential analysis indicated an unclear or trivial effect on 2,000-m power, 2,000-m time, peak power output, and power at 4 mmol/L lactate threshold in the ALK group compared with the PLA group. Although there was no difference between groups, during the study there was a significant mean (+/- SD) 2,000-m power improvement in both the ALK and PLA groups of 17.8 +/- 14.5 and 15.2 +/- 18.3 W, respectively. In conclusion, despite overall improvements in rowing performance after 4 wk of HIT, the addition of chronic NaHCO3 supplementation during the training period did not significantly enhance performance further.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available