Browse

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 101 items for :

  • Physical Education and Coaching x
  • Sport and Exercise Science/Kinesiology x
  • User-accessible content x
Clear All
Open access

Emma L. Sweeney, Daniel J. Peart, Irene Kyza, Thomas Harkes, Jason G. Ellis and Ian H. Walshe

Experimental sleep restriction (SR) has demonstrated reduced insulin sensitivity in healthy individuals. Exercise is well-known to be beneficial for metabolic health. A single bout of exercise has the capacity to increase insulin sensitivity for up to 2 days. Therefore, the current study aimed to determine if sprint interval exercise could attenuate the impairment in insulin sensitivity after one night of SR in healthy males. Nineteen males were recruited for this randomized crossover study which consisted of four conditions—control, SR, control plus exercise, and sleep restriction plus exercise. Time in bed was 8 hr (2300–0700) in the control conditions and 4 hr (0300–0700) in the SR conditions. Conditions were separated by a 1-week entraining period. Participants slept at home, and compliance was assessed using wrist actigraphy. Following the night of experimental sleep, participants either conducted sprint interval exercise or rested for the equivalent duration. An oral glucose tolerance test was then conducted. Blood samples were obtained at regular intervals for measurement of glucose and insulin. Insulin concentrations were higher in SR than control (p = .022). Late-phase insulin area under the curve was significantly lower in sleep restriction plus exercise than SR (862 ± 589 and 1,267 ± 558; p = .004). Glucose area under the curve was not different between conditions (p = .207). These findings suggest that exercise improves the late postprandial response following a single night of SR.

Open access

Michal Botek, Jakub Krejčí, Andrew J. McKune and Barbora Sládečková

Purpose: Hydrogen-rich water (HRW) has been shown to have an antifatigue effect. This study assessed up-hill running performance, as well as physiological and perceptual responses after supplementation with 1680 mL HRW between 24 h and 40 min before running, in athletes of heterogeneous running ability. Methods: Sixteen males (mean [SD] age 31.6 [8.6] y, VO2max 57.2 [8.9] mL·kg−1·min−1, body fat 13.4% [4.4%]) participated in this study. Using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design, participants consumed either HRW or placebo prior to performing two 4.2-km up-hill races separated by a week. Race time (RT), average race heart rate, and immediately postrace rating of perceived exertion were assessed. Results: After analysis of data for all runners, HRW effect was unclear (−10 to 7 s, 90% confidence interval) for RT, likely trivial for heart rate (−2 to 3 beats·min−1), and likely trivial for postrace rating of perceived exertion (−0.1 to 1.0). A possible negative correlation was found between RT differences and average RT (r = −.79 to −.15). HRW for the 4 slowest runners (RT = 1490 [91] s) likely improved the RT (−36 to −3 s), whereas for the 4 fastest runners (RT = 1069 [53] s) the performance effect of HRW was unclear (−10 to 26 s). Conclusions: HRW intake had an unclear antifatigue effect on performance in terms of mean group values. However, it appears that the magnitude of the antifatigue effect of HRW on performance depends on individual running ability.

Open access

Nicole C.A. Strock, Kristen J. Koltun, Emily A. Southmayd, Nancy I. Williams and Mary Jane De Souza

Energy deficiency in exercising women can lead to physiological consequences. No gold standard exists to accurately estimate energy deficiency, but measured-to-predicted resting metabolic rate (RMR) ratio has been used to categorize women as energy deficient. The purpose of the study was to (a) evaluate the accuracy of RMR prediction methods, (b) determine the relationships with physiological consequences of energy deficiency, and (c) evaluate ratio thresholds in a cross-sectional comparison of ovulatory, amenorrheic, or subclinical menstrual disturbances in exercising women (n = 217). Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and indirect calorimetry provided data on anthropometrics and energy expenditure. Harris–Benedict, DXA, and Cunningham (1980 and 1991) equations were used to estimate RMR and RMR ratio. Group differences were assessed (analysis of variance and Kruskal–Wallis tests); logistic regression and Spearman correlations related ratios with consequences of energy deficiency (i.e., low total triiodothyronine; TT3). Sensitivity and specificity calculations evaluated ratio thresholds. Amenorrheic women had lower RMR (p < .05), DXA ratio (p < .01), Cunningham1980 (p < .05) and Cunningham1991 (p < .05) ratio, and TT3 (p < .01) compared with the ovulatory group. Each prediction equation overestimated measured RMR (p < .001), but predicted (p < .001) and positively correlated with TT3 (r = .329–.453). A 0.90 ratio threshold yielded highest sensitivity for Cunningham1980 (0.90) and Harris–Benedict (0.87) methods, but a higher ratio threshold was best for DXA (0.94) and Cunningham1991 (0.92) methods to yield a sensitivity of 0.80. In conclusion, each ratio predicted and correlated with TT3, supporting the use of RMR ratio as an alternative assessment of energetic status in exercising women. However, a 0.90 ratio cutoff is not universal across RMR estimation methods.

Open access

Seiichiro Takei, Kuniaki Hirayama and Junichi Okada

Purpose: The optimal load for maximal power output during hang power cleans (HPCs) from a mechanical perspective is the 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) load; however, previous research has reported otherwise. The present study thus aimed to investigate the underlying factors that determine optimal load during HPCs. Methods: Eight competitive Olympic weight lifters performed HPCs at 40%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 95%, and 100% of their 1RM while the ground-reaction force and bar/body kinematics were simultaneously recorded. The success criterion during HPC was set above parallel squat at the receiving position. Results: Both peak power and relative peak power were maximized at 80% 1RM (3975.7 [439.1] W, 50.4 [6.6] W/kg, respectively). Peak force, force at peak power, and relative values tended to increase with heavier loads (P < .001), while peak system velocity and system velocity at peak power decreased significantly above 80% 1RM (P = .005 and .011, respectively). There were also significant decreases in peak bar velocity (P < .001) and bar displacement (P < .001) toward heavier loads. There was a strong positive correlation between peak bar velocity and bar displacement in 7 of 8 subjects (r > .90, P < .01). The knee joint angle at the receiving position fell below the quarter-squat position above 70% 1RM. Conclusions: Submaximal loads were indeed optimal for maximal power output for HPC when the success criterion was set above the parallel-squat position. However, when the success criterion was defined as the quarter-squat position, the optimal load became the 1RM load.

Open access

Daniel Boullosa

Open access

James A. Betts, Javier T. Gonzalez, Louise M. Burke, Graeme L. Close, Ina Garthe, Lewis J. James, Asker E. Jeukendrup, James P. Morton, David C. Nieman, Peter Peeling, Stuart M. Phillips, Trent Stellingwerff, Luc J.C. van Loon, Clyde Williams, Kathleen Woolf, Ron Maughan and Greg Atkinson