4.6 Article

The time to peak blood bicarbonate (HCO3-), pH, and the strong ion difference (SID) following sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) ingestion in highly trained adolescent swimmers

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248456

关键词

-

资金

  1. Birmingham City University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the mechanism of action and optimal timing of NaHCO3 ingestion on blood acid-base balance, and found differences in the peak time of HCO3- and SID in adolescent swimmers.
The timing of sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) supplementation has been suggested to be most optimal when coincided with a personal time that bicarbonate (HCO3-) or pH peaks in the blood following ingestion. However, the ergogenic mechanisms supporting this ingestion strategy are strongly contested. It is therefore plausible that NaHCO3 may be ergogenic by causing beneficial shifts in the strong ion difference (SID), though the time course of this blood acid base balance variable is yet to be investigated. Twelve highly trained, adolescent swimmers (age: 15.9 +/- 1.0 years, body mass: 65.3 +/- 9.6 kg) consumed their typical pre-competition nutrition 1-3 hours before ingesting 0.3 g center dot kg BM-1 NaHCO3 in gelatine capsules. Capillary blood samples were then taken during seated rest on nine occasions (0, 60, 75, 90, 105, 120, 135, 150, 165 min post-ingestion) to identify the time course changes in HCO3-, pH, and the SID. No significant differences were found in the time to peak of each blood measure (HCO3-: 130 +/- 35 min, pH: 120 +/- 38 min, SID: 98 +/- 37 min; p = 0.08); however, a large effect size was calculated between time to peak HCO3- and the SID (g = 0.88). Considering that a difference between time to peak blood HCO3- and the SID was identified in adolescents, future research should compare the ergogenic effects of these two individualized NaHCO3 ingestion strategies compared to a traditional, standardized approach.

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

4.6
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