4.7 Article

Antioxidant supplementation, redox deficiencies and exercise performance: A falsification design

期刊

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 158, 期 -, 页码 44-52

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2020.06.029

关键词

Antioxidants; Causality; Exercise; Falsification; Negative controls; Personalized nutrition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the present study was to validate the idea of personalized redox supplementation by subjecting individuals to targeted and non-targeted antioxidant supplementation schemes. Seventy-three volunteers were screened for plasma vitamin C and erythrocyte glutathione levels. Three groups were formed: i) the low vitamin C '' group (12 individuals with the lowest vitamin C levels; Low VitC), ii) the low glutathione group (12 individuals with the lowest glutathione levels; Low GSH) and iii) a control group (12 individuals with moderate vitamin C and glutathione levels). The three groups received 1 g of vitamin C or 1.2 g of NAC daily for 30 days in a crossover design with a wash-out period of 30 days. Both antioxidant treatments reduced the increased resting systemic oxidative stress levels, assessed via urine F2-isoprostanes, in the Low VitC and Low GSH groups (P < .05). A significant group x time interaction (P < .05) was found for VO2max and isometric peak torque after both treatments, with the Low VitC and Low GSH groups exhibiting improved performance only after the targeted treatment (vitamin C and NAC, respectively). A significant group x time interaction (P < .05) was found for fatigue index after NAC treatment, but not after vitamin C treatment. No interaction was found for the Wingate test after both treatments. Most of the evidence verifies the idea that antioxidant supplementation increases performance when a particular deficiency is reversed. This indicates that the presence of oxidative stress per se does not rationalize the use of antioxidants and emphasizes the need to identify responsive phenotypes.

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