4.5 Article

Gastrointestinal function during exercise: comparison of water, sports drink, and sports drink with caffeine

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 89, Issue 3, Pages 1079-1085

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jappl.2000.89.3.1079

Keywords

carbohydrate; gastric emptying; glucose absorption; orocecal transit time; permeability

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Caffeine is suspected to affect gastrointestinal function. We therefore investigated whether supplementation of a carbohydrate-electrolyte solution (CES) sports drink with 150 mg/l caffeine leads to alterations in gastrointestinal variables compared with a normal CES and water using a standardized rest-exercise-rest protocol. Ten well-trained subjects underwent a rest-cycling-rest protocol three times. Esophageal motility, gastroesophageal reflux, and intragastric pH were measured by use of a transnasal catheter. Orocecal transit time was measured using breath-H-2 measurements. A sugar absorption test was applied to determine intestinal permeability and glucose absorption. Gastric emptying was measured via the C-13-acetate breath test. In the postexercise episode, midesophageal pressure was significantly lower in the CES + caffeine trial compared with the water trial (P = 0.017). There were no significant differences between the three drinks for gastric pH and reflux during the preexercise, the cycling, and the postexercise episode, respectively. Gastric emptying, orocecal transit time, and intestinal permeability showed no significant differences between the three trials. However, glucose absorption was significantly increased in the CES + caffeine trial compared with the CES trial (P = 0.017). No significant differences in gastroesophageal reflux, gastric pH, or gastrointestinal transit could be observed between the CES, the CES + caffeine, and the water trials. However, intestinal glucose uptake was increased in the CES + caffeine trial.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available