3.8 Article

A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study examining an Oxygen Nanobubble Beverage for 16.1-km Time Trial and Repeated Sprint Cycling Performance

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/19390211.2023.2203738

关键词

Competitive cycling; performance enhancement; sports nutrition; supplemental oxygen; wingates

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the effect of an oxygen-nanobubble beverage on submaximal and repeated sprint cycling, and finds that it improves performance in both types of exercise. This beverage may be a practical and effective ergogenic aid for competitive cyclists.
There is growing interest of ergogenic aids that deliver supplemental oxygen during exercise and recovery, however, breathing supplemental oxygen via specialist facemasks is often not feasible. Therefore, this study investigated the effect of an oxygen-nanobubble beverage during submaximal and repeated sprint cycling. In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, 10 male cyclists (peak aerobic capacity, 56.9 +/- 6.1 mL center dot kg(-1)center dot min(-1); maximal aerobic power, 385 +/- 25 W) completed submaximal or maximal exercise after consuming an oxygen-nanobubble (O-2) or placebo (PLA) beverage. Submaximal trials comprised 30-min of steady-state cycling at 60% peak aerobic capacity and 16.1-km time-trial (TT). Maximal trials involved 4 x 30 s Wingate tests interspersed by 4-min recovery. Time-to-completion during the 16.1-km TT was 2.4% faster after O-2 compared with PLA (95% CI = 0.7-4.0%, p = 0.010, d = 0.41). Average power for the 16.1-km TT was 4.1% higher for O-2 vs. PLA (95% CI = 2.1-7.3%, p = 0.006, d = 0.28). Average peak power during the repeated Wingate tests increased by 7.1% for O-2 compared with PLA (p = 0.002, d = 0.58). An oxygen-nanobubble beverage improves performance during submaximal and repeated sprint cycling, therefore may provide a practical and effective ergogenic aid for competitive cyclists.

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

3.8
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