4.4 Review

Acute effects of sodium bicarbonate ingestion on cycling time-trial performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 943-954

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2022.2071171

关键词

performance; buffer capacity; muscle energetics; alkalosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the isolated effects of NaHCO3 on cycling time-trial performance, and explores whether the timing of NaHCO3 ingestion can be optimized to improve performance. The findings reveal that NaHCO3 ingestion significantly enhances mean power output and performance time in cycling time trials.
This study aimed to investigate the isolated effects of NaHCO3 on cycling time-trial performance. Furthermore, we investigated whether the ingestion time of NaHCO3, standardized or individualized based on time to peak, could be effective in improving cycling time-trial performance. A systematic review was carried out on randomized placebo-controlled studies. A random-effects meta-analysis assessed the standardized mean difference (SMD) between NaHCO3 and placebo conditions. Eighteen studies were qualitatively (systematic review) and quantitatively (meta-analysis) analysed concerning mean power output (W-mean) (n = 182) and time performance (n = 201). The reviewed studies showed a low risk of bias and homogenous results for W-mean (I-2 = 0%) and performance time (I-2 = 0%). Overall, when compared to placebo, the NaHCO3 ingestion improved the W-mean (SMD: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.21-0.63; P = 0.001) and performance time (SMD: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.02-0.43; P = 0.03). Similarly, the NaHCO3 ingestion using a time-to-peak strategy improved the W-mean (SMD: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.03-0.75; P = 0.04; I-2 = 15%) and performance time (SMD: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.07-0.61, P = 0.01, I-2 = 0%). The present findings reveal that NaHCO3 ingestion has the potential to increase the overall performance time and W-mean in cycling time trials.

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

4.4
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