Camic, Clayton L.

The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of a Garmin device for estimating heart rate, energy expenditure, and step count during incremental treadmill exercise. Eighteen physically active males (n = 12; mean ± SD age = 22.8 ± 4.7 years; body mass = 83.8 ± 13.4 kg) and females (n = 6; 24.2 ± 5.6 years; 65.2 ± 9.6 kg) completed an incremental treadmill test with the Garmin Vivoactive 4 and criterion methods measuring heart rate, energy expenditure, and step count. Mean absolute percent error (MAPE) and Bland–Altman plots were used to assess accuracy. Acceptable accuracy was defined as MAPE < 5% for heart rate and <10% for energy expenditure and step count. MAPE (±SD) values were 13.0 (±10.1), 19.1 (±15.0), and 4.6 (±5.3)% for heart rate, energy expenditure, and step count, respectively. The Bland–Altman regression analyses illustrated proportional bias was present for heart rate (r = 0.591, p < 0.001) and step count (r = 0.516, p = 0.028), but not energy expenditure (r = 0.351, p = 0.153). These findings indicated that the Garmin Vivoactive 4 provided acceptable accuracy for step count but unacceptable accuracy for heart rate and energy expenditure during incremental treadmill exercise.

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of a multi-ingredient preworkout supplement (MIPS) on isometric, concentric, and eccentric peak torque and electromyographic (EMG) responses of the leg extensors during a fatiguing isokinetic protocol. Thirteen male subjects (mean age ± SD = 22.9 ± 2.2 years) were assigned in crossover fashion to ingest an MIPS or placebo before an isokinetic protocol that consisted of 30 maximal, concentric and eccentric muscle actions with EMG signals recorded from the vastus lateralis, rectus femoris, and vastus medialis muscles. Immediately before (PRE) and after (POST) the isokinetic fatigue protocol, subjects were assessed for isometric peak torque. The MIPS condition resulted in greater isometric (205 ± 48 vs. 185 ± 44 N·m, p = 0.04) and concentric (121 ± 34 vs. 103 ± 27 N·m, p = 0.015) torque values versus placebo (collapsed across time). For eccentric peak torque as well as EMG amplitude and frequency values, there were no significant (p > 0.05) interactions or main effects for each condition. These findings indicated that acute ingestion of the MIPS enhanced isometric and concentric peak torque of the leg extensors, which was not explained by changes in the EMG signal.

ABSTRACTPredictive resting metabolic rate (RMR) equations are widely used to determine total daily energy expenditure (TDEE). However, it remains unclear whether these predictive RMR equations accurately predict TDEE in the athletic populations. The purpose of this study was to examine the accuracy of 10 commonly used RMR prediction equations (Cunningham, De Lorenzo, Freire, Harris‐Benedict, Mifflin St. Jeor, Nelson, Owen, Tinsley, Watson, Schofield) in collegiate men and women athletes. One‐hundred eighty‐seven National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III men (n = 97) and women (n = 90) athletes were recruited to participate in one day of metabolic testing. RMR was measured using indirect calorimetry and body composition was analyzed using air displacement plethysmography. A repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc analyses was selected to determine mean differences between measured and predicted RMR. Linear regression analysis was used to assess the accuracy of each RMR prediction method (p<0.05). All prediction equations significantly underestimated RMR (p<0.001), although there was no difference between the De Lorenzo and Watson equations and measured RMR (p = 1.00) for women, only. In men, the Tinsley and Freire equations were the most agreeable formulas with the lowest root‐mean‐square prediction error value of 404 and 412 kcals, respectively. In women, the De Lorenzo and Watson equations were the most agreeable equations with the lowest root‐mean‐squared error value of 171 and 211 kcals, respectively. The results demonstrate that such RMR equations may underestimate actual energy requirements of athletes and thus, practitioners should interpret such values with caution.

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.

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of a multi-ingredient (i.e., caffeine, green tea extract, Yohimbe extract, capsicum annum, coleus extract, L-carnitine, beta-alanine, tyrosine) preworkout supplement versus a dose of caffeine (6 mg·kg−1) on energy expenditure during low-intensity exercise. The effects of these treatments on substrate utilization, gas exchange, and psychological factors were also investigated. Twelve males (mean ± SD: age = 22.8 ± 2.4 years) completed three bouts of 60 min of treadmill exercise on separate days after consuming a preworkout supplement, 6 mg·kg−1 of caffeine, or placebo in a randomized fashion. The preworkout and caffeine supplements resulted in significantly greater energy expenditure (p < 0.001, p = 0.006, respectively), V˙O2 (p < 0.001, p = 0.007, respectively), V˙CO2 (p = 0.006, p = 0.049, respectively), and V˙E (p < 0.001, p = 0.007, respectively) compared to placebo (collapsed across condition). There were no differences among conditions, however, for rates of fat or carbohydrate oxidation or respiratory exchange ratio. In addition, the preworkout supplement increased feelings of alertness (p = 0.015) and focus (p = 0.005) 30-min postingestion and decreased feelings of fatigue (p = 0.014) during exercise compared to placebo. Thus, the preworkout supplement increased energy expenditure and measures of gas exchange to the same extent as 6 mg·kg−1 of caffeine with concomitant increased feelings of alertness and focus and decreased feelings of fatigue.

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of one versus two doses of a multi-ingredient pre-workout supplement on energy expenditure during moderate-intensity treadmill running. In addition, our second aim was to investigate the responses of associated metabolic factors (i.e., substrate utilization, measures of gas exchange), perceived exertion, and resting cardiovascular variables with one and two doses of the pre-workout supplement. Twelve females (mean ± SD: age = 25.3 ± 9.4 years; body mass = 61.2 ± 6.8 kg) completed three bouts of 30 min of treadmill running at 90% of their ventilatory threshold on separate days after consuming one dose of the pre-workout supplement (1-dose), two doses (2-dose), and a placebo. There were no differences among conditions for energy expenditure, fat or carbohydrate oxidation, respiratory exchange ratio, oxygen consumption, or heart rate across exercise time. The two-dose group, however, had lower (p = 0.036) ratings of perceived exertion (11.8 ± 1.7) than the one-dose (12.6 ± 1.7) and the placebo (12.3 ± 1.2) at the 20-min time point of exercise as well as greater resting systolic blood pressure (110 ± 10 mmHg) compared to the one-dose (106 ± 10 mmHg) and the placebo (104 ± 10 mmHg) conditions. Both the one-dose and two-dose conditions had greater increases in diastolic blood pressure compared to the placebo. Thus, our findings indicated that the present pre-workout supplement had no performance-enhancing benefits related to energy metabolism but did attenuate feelings of exertion.

The purpose of the present study was to examine characteristics of multi-ingredient pre-workout supplement (MIPS) users, their common patterns/habits of MIPS ingestion, and their associated feelings about the effectiveness and safety of this class of supplements. An online electronic survey was distributed through social media to assess self-reported supplementation practices and preferences among adult males and females who reported regular MIPS use. A total of 1045 individuals responded, with 872 of these individuals (males: n = 636, 72.9%; females: n = 233, 26.7%; mean ± SD; age = 27.7 ± 7.9 years; training age = 8.2 ± 7.3 years) completing the survey. The majority of respondents reported the length of current or past MIPS consumption as greater than one year (n = 630, 72.2%), with ingestion frequencies primarily of four (n = 210, 24.1%) or five (n = 212, 24.3%) days per week of training. In addition, the three most popular goals for ingesting MIPS were increased energy and focus (n = 776, 89.0%), muscular endurance (n = 325, 37.3%), and blood flow or “pump” (n = 322, 37.0%). Although most users reported ingesting one serving size with each use, 14% reported ingesting two or more, and 18% indicated they ingest MIPS more than once per day. Importantly, over half (54%) of the respondents reported experiencing side-effects following MIPS use, including skin reactions, heart abnormalities, and nausea. Females were more likely than males to experience these side effects, despite being less likely to consume two or more serving sizes per dose. Our findings also indicated that MIPS users should consume no more than the recommended serving size of a given supplement, as the potentially significant variability in the caffeine content of MIPS products is compounded as more doses are consumed. Furthermore, MIPS users should minimize the ingestion of other supplements which contain high levels of niacin and caffeine, as the concurrent consumption of such products may put users above the tolerable upper limits for these substances.