Options
Comparison of ingesting Drip Drop solution, sports drink and water during post-exercise recovery on rehydration and subsequent pre-load time trial performance
Author
Fan, Priscilla Weiping
Supervisor
Burns, Stephen F.
Abstract
Background: Rehydration plays an important role in the recovery process after exercise especially in hot, humid conditions so that performance in subsequent training sessions or competition is not affected. Inclusion of sodium in drinks will assist in fluid retention and rehydration but most commercially available sports drinks only partially replace the sodium loss through sweating in humans during exercise. A recently developed rehydration solution called Drip Drop compensates for sodium sweat loss (20 – 80 mmol/L) without compromising the drink’s palatability but its efficacy in post-exercise rehydration or performance has not been evaluated.
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of ingesting the Drip Drop beverage, with a high electrolyte concentration, on post-exercise rehydration and subsequent pre- load time trial performance in comparison with a sports drink and water.
Methods: Nine healthy males aged 24 ± 2 years (mean ± SD), with peak oxygen uptake (V02 peak) 55.2 ± 5.9 mL/kg/min completed three experimental trials in a randomised manner ingesting water (WA), a carbohydrate-electrolyte drink (SD; carbohydrate: 62 g/L, sodium: 31 ± 3 mmol/L, potassium: 5.3 ± 0.3 mmol/L) or the Drip Drop solution (DD; carbohydrate: 33 g/L, sodium: 60 ± 3 mmol/L, potassium: 18.2 ± 0.4 mmol/L). A total fluid volume equivalent to 150% of sweat loss was ingested during the preceding 75 min cycle at 65% V02 peak (temperature: 30.4 ± 0.3°C, relative humidity: 76 ± 1%, simulated wind speed: 8.0 ± 0.6 m/s) and within the first 2 h of recovery (temperature: 23.0 ± 1.0°C, relative humidity: 67 ± 2%). A pre-load time trial consisting of a 45 min cycle at 65% V02 peak followed by a 20 km time trial was conducted after a further 3 h of recovery.
Results: Fluid retention was higher with Drip Drop (30 ± 15%) than with water (-4 ± 19%; p < 0.001) or sports drink (10 ± 15%; p = 0.002). Drip Drop (6.03, CI: 0.10 – 7.46; p = 0.008) and sports drink (4.71, CI: 0.04 – 6.32; p = 0.015) were rated saltier than water (0.10, CI: 0.02 – 2.06) but similar between Drip Drop and sports drink (p = 0.02). Mean ratings of palatability were similar among drinks (WA: 4.25 ± 2.60; SD: 5.61 ± 1.79; DD: 5.40 ± 1.58; p = 0.33). Although time trial performance was similar across all three trials (WA: 2365 ± 321 s; SD: 2252 ± 174 s; DD: 2268 ± 184 s; p = 0.65), completion time was faster in 8 participants with sports drink and 7 participants with Drip Drop than with water. Comparing sports drink with Drip Drop, completion time was reduced in 5 participants and increased in 4 participants.
Conclusion: The Drip Drop solution is more effective at restoring fluid deficit during recovery from exercise than a commercially available sports drink or water without compromising the drink’s palatability with increased sodium concentration. There is a trend towards better endurance exercise time trial performance with Drip Drop and sports drink than with water.
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of ingesting the Drip Drop beverage, with a high electrolyte concentration, on post-exercise rehydration and subsequent pre- load time trial performance in comparison with a sports drink and water.
Methods: Nine healthy males aged 24 ± 2 years (mean ± SD), with peak oxygen uptake (V02 peak) 55.2 ± 5.9 mL/kg/min completed three experimental trials in a randomised manner ingesting water (WA), a carbohydrate-electrolyte drink (SD; carbohydrate: 62 g/L, sodium: 31 ± 3 mmol/L, potassium: 5.3 ± 0.3 mmol/L) or the Drip Drop solution (DD; carbohydrate: 33 g/L, sodium: 60 ± 3 mmol/L, potassium: 18.2 ± 0.4 mmol/L). A total fluid volume equivalent to 150% of sweat loss was ingested during the preceding 75 min cycle at 65% V02 peak (temperature: 30.4 ± 0.3°C, relative humidity: 76 ± 1%, simulated wind speed: 8.0 ± 0.6 m/s) and within the first 2 h of recovery (temperature: 23.0 ± 1.0°C, relative humidity: 67 ± 2%). A pre-load time trial consisting of a 45 min cycle at 65% V02 peak followed by a 20 km time trial was conducted after a further 3 h of recovery.
Results: Fluid retention was higher with Drip Drop (30 ± 15%) than with water (-4 ± 19%; p < 0.001) or sports drink (10 ± 15%; p = 0.002). Drip Drop (6.03, CI: 0.10 – 7.46; p = 0.008) and sports drink (4.71, CI: 0.04 – 6.32; p = 0.015) were rated saltier than water (0.10, CI: 0.02 – 2.06) but similar between Drip Drop and sports drink (p = 0.02). Mean ratings of palatability were similar among drinks (WA: 4.25 ± 2.60; SD: 5.61 ± 1.79; DD: 5.40 ± 1.58; p = 0.33). Although time trial performance was similar across all three trials (WA: 2365 ± 321 s; SD: 2252 ± 174 s; DD: 2268 ± 184 s; p = 0.65), completion time was faster in 8 participants with sports drink and 7 participants with Drip Drop than with water. Comparing sports drink with Drip Drop, completion time was reduced in 5 participants and increased in 4 participants.
Conclusion: The Drip Drop solution is more effective at restoring fluid deficit during recovery from exercise than a commercially available sports drink or water without compromising the drink’s palatability with increased sodium concentration. There is a trend towards better endurance exercise time trial performance with Drip Drop and sports drink than with water.
Date Issued
2016
Call Number
QP301 Fan
Date Submitted
2016