4.5 Article

Exercise condition affects hedonic responses to sodium in a sport drink

期刊

APPETITE
卷 52, 期 3, 页码 561-567

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2009.01.008

关键词

Hydration; Sensory; Perception; Beverage; Palatability

资金

  1. Gatorade Sports Science Institute
  2. Gatorade Company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We Measured the dose-response effects of drink sodium content (treatments: 0 mmol/l, 18 mmol/l, 30 mmol/l, 40 mmol/l, and 60 mmol/l) on sensory perception and palatability in athletes at four time points: in a sedentary laboratory setting (non-exercise context), pre-exercise, and after 60 min and 120 min of aerobic-circuit exercise. Fifty-five triathletes and runners (30 males, 39.7 (8.0 S.D.) years; 25 females, 37.2 (9.2 S.D.) years) sip-tested chilled 6% carbohydrate drinks varying in sodium content during sedentary and pre-exercise conditions and had ad lib access to drinks during exercise conditions. There was a significant intensity discrimination among all sodium levels (p <= 0.001) except 0 mmol/l vs. 18 mmol/l, and 30 mmol/l vs. 40 mmol/l. There were no significant differences among time points for perceived salt intensity. However, overall drink acceptability and liking of saltiness of the 60 mmol/l drink was greater pre-exercise, after 60 min and after 120 min of exercise than during the sedentary condition. The environmental cues of the exercise context may be associated with an increase in palatability of the drink containing 60 mmol/l of sodium over the sedentary condition. Sensory measures provided better differentiation (were more sensitive to treatment effects) among salt concentrations than was fluid intake. Neither thirst nor sweat loss were related to drink palatability or liking of saltiness. Liking of saltiness but not thirst was related to fluid intake. There was a significant negative correlation between sodium ingested (mg/kg) and percent body mass loss. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Ail rights reserved.

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

4.5
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