4.7 Article

Impact of Carbohydrate Ingestion on Cognitive Flexibility and Cerebral Oxygenation during High-Intensity Intermittent Exercise: A Comparison between Maple Products and Usual Carbohydrate Solutions

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu11092019

关键词

maple products; cognitive performance; switching task; cerebral oxygenation

资金

  1. Quebec Maple Syrup Producers (Quebec, Canada)
  2. Agriculture Canada's Agri-Innovation program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of carbohydrate (CHO) drinks (6% per volume) sweetened with maple (syrup or sap) to a commercial sports drink, glucose, and a control solution (water) on cognitive flexibility during high-intensity intermittent exercise. Methods: Eighty-five active men completed six 3-min bouts at 95% of their maximal aerobic power on a stationary bike, with 3 min of passive rest between efforts. Subjects were randomly allocated to an ingestion condition. Following each exercise bout, subjects ingested 166 mL of the experimental solution, drinking a total of 1 L of the same solution throughout the experimentation. Cognitive flexibility was measured using reaction time and accuracy on the Stroop task. The cognitive task was performed a total of 10 times, including 15 and 30 min post-exercise. Glycemia and cerebral oxygenation were also measured at each time point. Statistical analyses were performed using a two-way ANOVA (Condition x Time) with repeated measures. Results: The ingestion of maple products and the commercial sports drink led to a lesser increase in glycemia than glucose ingestion. CHO ingestion, when compared to water, induced a slight reduction in reaction times on the cognitive task, especially in the switching trials. CHO ingestion had no impact on cerebral oxygenation. Conclusions: This study shows that CHO ingestion, regardless of its type, tends to improve cognitive performance throughout exercise, especially during difficult cognitive tasks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据