4.3 Article

Effects of an overnight high-carbohydrate meal on muscle glycogen after rapid weight loss in male collegiate wrestlers

Journal

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13102-021-00325-w

Keywords

Wrestling; Weight management; Recovery; Rapid weight loss; Rapid weight gain; Carbohydrate

Funding

  1. Japan Institute of Sports Science

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that consuming a high-carbohydrate recovery meal after rapid weight loss was not sufficient to restore muscle glycogen concentration, resulting in incomplete body weight recovery and muscle glycogen levels below normal.
Background Severe rapid weight loss (RWL) induces a decrease in muscle glycogen (mGly). Nevertheless, adequate carbohydrate intake after RWL has not been reported to optimize muscle glycogen following a weigh-in the evening until a wrestling tournament morning. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of an overnight high-carbohydrate recovery meal of 7.1 g kg(-1) following RWL on mGly concentration. Methods Ten male elite wrestlers lost 6% of their body mass within 53 h and then subsequently ate three meals, within 5 h, containing total of 7.1 g kg(-1) of carbohydrates. mGly was measured by C-13-magnetic resonance spectroscopy before (BL) and after RWL (R0) at 2 h (R2), 4 h (R4), and 13 h (R13) after initiating the meal. Body composition, muscle cross-sectional area, and blood and urine samples were collected at BL, R0, and R13. Results Body mass decreased by 4.6 +/- 0.6 kg (p < 0.05) and did not recover to BL levels in R13 (- 1.7 +/- 0.6 kg, p < 0.05). Likewise, mGly by 36.5% +/- 10.0% (p < 0.05) and then did not reach BL levels by R13 (p < 0.05). Conclusion A high-carbohydrate meal of 7.1 g kg(-1) after 6% RWL was not sufficient to recover mGly during a 13 h recovery phase. Participating in high-intensity wrestling matches with an mGly concentration below normal levels is maybe undesirable.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available