Kerksick, Chad M

Carbohydrate availability and caffeine ingestion have been shown to elicit improvements in performance independently of one another. The purpose of the study was to examine the effect of a carbohydrate + caffeine beverage on performance and perceived effort in soccer players. Forty-three collegiate women’s soccer athletes were recruited to participate during a single day of simulated match play, in which each team played once. Athletes consumed either a carbohydrate + caffeine (Experimental) beverage or a control (Control) beverage (flavored water) during half-time in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized control trial design. Prior to and after each game, Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE) and blood glucose levels were assessed. Heart rate, training impulse (TRIMP), total distance covered, high-speed distance, and velocity were recorded. Blood glucose levels after the match simulation were positively associated with total distance (r = 0.434; p = 0.01), distance per minute (r = 0.439; p < 0.01), average velocity (r = 0.438; p = 0.01), and TRIMP (r = 0.404; p = 0.018) during the second half. There was a significant main effect for half regarding blood glucose (p < 0.001), total distance (p < 0.001), high-speed distance (p < 0.001), and TRIMP (p = 0.046). There was a significant half × condition effect for blood glucose (p = 0.05). Pairwise comparisons indicated the Experimental beverage condition resulted in a +27 mg/dL (95% CI: −3.6, 58.8) difference compared to the Control beverage following the 2nd Half. In the current study, consumption of the carbohydrate + caffeine beverage during half-time resulted in higher blood glucose levels post-game compared to placebo; however, the experimental beverage did not influence the total distance covered, average velocities, average heart rate, or TRIMP values during the second half of simulated match play.

Energy drinks are a commonly consumed beverage, and studies suggest a possible performance-enhancing effect. A Google Scholar search using the keywords “energy drinks” and “exercise” yields numerous results, underscoring the voluminous research on this topic. However, there are questions regarding the effectiveness and safety of energy drinks. These questions include, but are not limited to: (1) What are the main active ingredients in energy drinks? (2) Do energy drinks assist in weight management? (3) Do energy drinks enhance aerobic performance? (4) Do energy drinks enhance athletic speed? (5) Do energy drinks improve reaction time? (6) Do energy drinks enhance lean tissue mass? (7) Can energy drinks improve cognitive performance? (8) Does the acute consumption of energy drinks elevate resting energy expenditure? (9) Is there any evidence to suggest that energy drinks are more effective than an identical serving of caffeine alone? (10) Are there sex differences in the response to energy drink consumption? (11) Do energy drinks affect sleep or sleepiness? (12) Should pregnant women avoid energy drinks? (13) Do energy drinks adversely affect cardiovascular function? (14) Does consuming energy drinks cause brain damage? (15) What are other safety considerations regarding energy drinks? (16) Is there any evidence to suggest that energy drinks are more effective than an identical serving of caffeine alone? (17) If caffeine is the main active ingredient in energy drinks and coffee, why is there a discrepancy in the adverse events reported for each? To address these questions, we performed an evidence-based scientific evaluation of the literature on energy drink supplementation.

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of protein and carbohydrate supplementation, with and without creatine, on occupational performance in firefighters. Methods: Using a randomized, double-blind approach, thirty male firefighters (age: 34.4 ± 8.4 yrs., height: 1.82 ± 0.07 m; weight: 88.6 ± 12.5 kg; BF%: 17.2 ± 5.8%) were randomized to receive either (A.) 25 g of whey protein isolate + 25 g of carbohydrate powder (ProCarb group); or (B.) ProCarb + 5 g of creatine (Creatine group) in a double-blind fashion over a period of 21–26 days (depending on shift rotations) to evaluate the impact of supplementation on occupation-specific performance. At baseline and following supplementation, firefighters completed a battery of tests. These tests included an aerobic speed test on an air-braked cycle ergometer followed by the hose carry, body drag, stair climb, and Keiser sled hammer for time. Results: No significant differences in measures of performance were observed at baseline (p > 0.05). There was a significant main effect for time observed for rescue, stair climb, total time to completion, and time trial performance (p < 0.05). There was a significant group × time (p < 0.05) interaction for rescue and forcible entry. Independent sample t-tests indicated that the Creatine group experienced a greater reduction (from baseline) in completion time for the rescue (1.78 ± 0.57 s, 95% CI: 0.61, 2.95 s, p = 0.004) and forcible entry (2.66 ± 0.97 s, 95% CI: 0.68, 4.65 s, p = 0.01) tests compared to the ProCarb group. No significant group × time interactions were observed for the hose line advance, stair climb, total time to completion, and time trial performance (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The addition of supplemental creatine to a protein and carbohydrate supplement to the diet of career firefighters throughout a three week period improves occupational performance in firefighters in specific areas of high-intensity, repetitive actions.

The purpose of this study was to examine sex differences in resting metabolic rate (RMR) and associations between measured RMR and body composition parameters in athletes. One-hundred and ninety collegiate men (n = 98; age: 20.1 ± 1.6 yr.; body mass: 92.7 ± 17.5 kg; height: 181.6 ± 6.2 cm, body mass index: 28.0 ± 4.7 kg/m2) and women (n = 92; age: 19.4 ± 1.1 yr.; body mass: 65.2 ± 11.0 kg; height: 168.0 ± 6.6 cm, body mass index: 23.0 ± 3.6 kg/m2) athletes volunteered to participate in this study. Athletes completed a body composition assessment using air displacement plethysmography and RMR using indirect calorimetry. Assessments were completed in a fasted state and after refraining from intense physical activity > 24 h prior to testing. Data were collected during the 2016–2019 seasons. Men had a higher RMR compared to women (2595 ± 433 vs. 1709 ± 308 kcals; p < 0.001); however, when adjusted for body mass (p = 0.064) and fat-free mass (p = 0.084), the observed differences were not significant. Height, body mass, body mass index, fat-free mass, and fat mass were positively associated with RMR in both men and women athletes (r = 0.4–0.8; p < 0.001). Body mass (men: β = 0.784; women: β = 0.832)) was the strongest predictor of RMR. Men athletes have a higher absolute RMR compared to their women counterparts, which is influenced by greater body mass and fat-free mass. Body mass is the strongest predictor of RMR in both men and women athletes.

Background: Energy drinks are one of the most popular packaged beverage products consumed within the United States (US). Energy drinks are considered a functional beverage, a category that also includes sports drinks and nutraceutical beverages. Purpose: The focus of the current study was to examine the nutrition fact panels of the top selling commercially available energy drink and energy shot products within the US to characterize common ingredient profiles to help establish a standard definition and ingredient profile of energy drinks and energy shots for consumers, health care practitioners, and researchers. Methods: The top 75 commercially available energy drinks and shots were identified and compiled from multiple commercial retail websites as of September 2021. For the purpose of this study, an energy drink must have met the following criteria: (A) marketed as an energy drink; (B) purported to improve energy, focus, or alertness; (C) not sold as a dietary supplement (no supplement fact panels); (D) manufactured as a pre-packaged and ready-to-drink beverage; and (E) contains at least three of (1) caffeine, (2) B-vitamins, (3) sugar, (4) taurine, (5) creatine, (6) quercetin, (7) guarana, (8) ginseng, (9) coenzyme Q10, or (10) branched chain amino acids. Energy shots must have met similar criteria to be included: (A) marketed as an energy shot; (B) purported to improve energy, focus, or alertness; (C) sold as a dietary supplement; (D) manufactured as a pre-packaged beverage with a small volume (<3.5 mL); and (E) contains at least three of the ingredients stated above. Results: Twenty energy shots and fifty-five energy drinks were included in this analysis. The number of ingredients per product (mean ± SD) was 18.2 ± 5.7, with 15 products containing proprietary blends with undisclosed ingredient amounts. The relative prevalence and average amounts of the top ingredients were as follows: caffeine (100%; 174.4 ± 81.1 mg), vitamin B6 (72%; 366.9 ± 648.1 percent daily value (%DV)), vitamin B3 (67%; 121.44 ± 69.9% DV), vitamin B12 (67%; 5244.5 ± 10,474.6% DV), vitamin B5 (37.3%; 113.6 ± 76.6% DV), and taurine (37.3%; amounts undisclosed). Conclusions: Our findings suggest a high prevalence of caffeine and B-vitamins in these energy products, with many of the formulations containing well above the recommended daily value of B-vitamins.

Sport nutrition knowledge has been shown to influence dietary habits of athletes. The purpose of the current study was to examine relationships between sport nutrition knowledge and body composition and examine potential predictors of body weight goals in collegiate athletes. Participants included National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III women (n = 42, height: 169.9 ± 6.9 cm; body mass: 67.1 ± 8.6 kg; fat-free mass: 51.3 ± 6.6 kg; body fat percent: 24.2 ± 5.3%) and men (n = 25, height: 180.8 ± 7.2 cm; body mass: 89.2 ± 20.5 kg; fat-free mass: 75.9 ± 12.2 kg; body fat percent: 13.5 ± 8.9%) athletes. Body composition was assessed via air displacement plethysmography. Athletes completed a validated questionnaire designed to assess sport nutrition knowledge and were asked questions about their perceived dietary energy and macronutrient requirements, as well as their body weight goal (i.e., lose, maintain, gain weight). Athletes answered 47.98 ± 11.29% of questions correctly on the nutrition questionnaire with no differences observed between sexes (men: 49.52 ± 11.76% vs. women: 47.03 ± 11.04%; p = 0.40). An inverse relationship between sport nutrition knowledge scores and body fat percentage (BF%) (r = −0.330; p = 0.008), and fat mass (r = −0.268; p = 0.032) was observed for all athletes. Fat mass (β = 0.224), BF% (β = 0.217), and body mass index (BMI) (β = 0.421) were all significant (p < 0.05) predictors of body weight goal in women. All athletes significantly (p < 0.001) underestimated daily energy (−1360 ± 610.2 kcal/day), carbohydrate (−301.6 ± 149.2 grams/day [g/day]), and fat (−41.4 ± 34.5 g/day) requirements. Division III collegiate athletes have a low level of sport nutrition knowledge, which was associated with a higher BF%. Women athletes with a higher body weight, BF% and BMI were more likely to select weight loss as a body weight goal. Athletes also significantly underestimated their energy and carbohydrate requirements based upon the demands of their sport, independent of sex.

Adequate dietary protein is important for many aspects of health with current evidence suggesting that exercising individuals need greater amounts of protein. When assessing protein quality, animal sources of protein routinely rank amongst the highest in quality, largely due to the higher levels of essential amino acids they possess in addition to exhibiting more favorable levels of digestibility and absorption patterns of the amino acids. In recent years, the inclusion of plant protein sources in the diet has grown and evidence continues to accumulate on the comparison of various plant protein sources and animal protein sources in their ability to stimulate muscle protein synthesis (MPS), heighten exercise training adaptations, and facilitate recovery from exercise. Without question, the most robust changes in MPS come from efficacious doses of a whey protein isolate, but several studies have highlighted the successful ability of different plant sources to significantly elevate resting rates of MPS. In terms of facilitating prolonged adaptations to exercise training, multiple studies have indicated that a dose of plant protein that offers enough essential amino acids, especially leucine, consumed over 8–12 weeks can stimulate similar adaptations as seen with animal protein sources. More research is needed to see if longer supplementation periods maintain equivalence between the protein sources. Several practices exist whereby the anabolic potential of a plant protein source can be improved and generally, more research is needed to best understand which practice (if any) offers notable advantages. In conclusion, as one considers the favorable health implications of increasing plant intake as well as environmental sustainability, the interest in consuming more plant proteins will continue to be present. The evidence base for plant proteins in exercising individuals has seen impressive growth with many of these findings now indicating that consumption of a plant protein source in an efficacious dose (typically larger than an animal protein) can instigate similar and favorable changes in amino acid update, MPS rates, and exercise training adaptations such as strength and body composition as well as recovery.