Nutritional intake and gastrointestinal problems during competitive endurance events

-


Pfeiffer, B., Stellingwerff, T., Hodgson, A. B., Randell, R., Pöttgen, K., Res, P., & Jeukendrup, A. E. (2012). Nutritional intake and gastrointestinal problems during competitive endurance events. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 44(2), 344-351.


       “The purpose of the present study were 1) to quantify and characterize the food and fluid intake of athletes during marathon running, road cycling, and long-distance triathlon using a large subject pool with the same GI questionnaire based method and 2) to investigate whether nutrient (especially CHO) intake, fluid consumption, training status, and race distance is correlated with the incidence of GI distress and/or performance outcomes” (Pfeiffer, Stellingwerff, Hodgson, Randell, Pöttgen, Res, & Jeukendrup, p. 345, 2012).

        All recruited athletes where informed about the risks associated with the procedures of this study and gave written consent. The athletes were recruited from event exhibitions and contacted via email. The subjects consented to participate in this study consisted of, amateur runners, amateur and pro triathletes, and amateur and pro cyclists. The sample for this study consisted of both male and females and totaled 221 endurance athletes.

        Did carbohydrate (CHO) and fluid intake rates vary among the three events of a marathon, triathlon, cycling? One way ANOVA was used to compare the mean values between the different endurance events and between the three triathlons. Mean CHO intake rates were not significant between the Iron Man Hawaii, Iron Man Germany, and Iron Man, yet there was a significant effect of the event on CHO intake rate between the marathon, cycling, and triathlons. Fluid intake rates were also not significant among the three triathlons, but were significantly different between the marathon, cycling, and triathlon races.

       This study represented three different endurance events that require different fueling and hydration plans. The reported correlation between finishing time and CHO intake is worth mentioning. CHO intake was negatively associated with finishing times and was not associated with higher scores for upper and lower GI distress. However, CHO intake reported to be a risk factor for flatulence and nausea. “The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) and the American Dietetic Association (ADA) advises athletes to consume CHO at rates of 0.7 g/kg body weight per hour (30-60 g/h) during endurance events” (Pfeiffer, et al., p. 344, 2012). CHO intake and GI distress varied greatly between events and individual. This study supports previous research and provides a foundation for future research studies. In addition, the current study proves that practitioners need to focus on athlete’s individual nutritional needs specific to their event and previous history of GI distress.

MA


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Are All Sugars Created Equal?

-
Image
Are All Sugars Created Equal?  I think one of the most confusing nutrition topics for people is sugar. With so many conflicting stories out there, it’s difficult to separate the facts from the fiction. Not to mention, the types of sugars are endless. How do we know what’s best for our bodies? White or brown sugar? Cane or raw? Should we just go with Stevia instead? Is it even okay to consume artificial sweeteners? Should we avoid foods with high amounts of natural sugar in them? Each answer only seems to lead to another question!  Let’s start off with distinguishing the purpose of sugar in the first place. Do our bodies even need it? The short answer is yes! Sugars are carbohydrates (what we commonly call “carbs”), one of the three main macronutrients that our bodies need for fuel to function and survive. One of the major ways to categorize sugar is by separating the “natural” sugars from the “added” sugars. Natural sugars are, well, naturally found in foods. They give us the energy th
Read more

Milk Mythbusters

-
Image
Just like with any nutrition topic, the facts about milk can become convoluted pretty quickly. Whether you drink milk for the protein, the nutrients, the flavor, or just like to switch it up, there are pros and cons to every kind. Here are some quick nutritional facts about each type to help you decide which is best for you. Animal-Based Milks  Whole Milk: The original diary drink. It gets a bad rap, but what whole milk has going for it, is that it’s in its proper nutritional form. Whole milk contains all of its original fat-soluble vitamins, A, E, D, & K, along with the fat to help you absorb them all. It also has the proper concentrations and ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids, or your omega-3s and omega-6s, so that they are metabolized as they should be. The downside is that whole milk is calorically dense, meaning that a little goes a long way. You don’t need much to get what you need, so just don’t overdo it!  2% Milk: The fat content of 2% milk is about half of that in who
Read more