Load carriage physiology in normoxia and hypoxia.

PURPOSE: To determine the effects of load carriage in normoxia and normobaric hypoxia on ventilatory responses, hemodynamics, tissue oxygenation, and metabolism. METHODS: Healthy males (n = 12) completed 3 randomly ordered baseline graded exercise tests in the following conditions: (1) unloaded normoxic (U: FIO2 = 20.93%), (2) loaded (~ 30 kg) normoxic (LN), and (3) loaded hypoxic simulating ~ 3650 m (LH: FIO2 = ~ 13%). Thereafter, experimental exercise trials were completed in quasi-randomized order (i.e., U completed first) consisting of 3 × 10 min of walking (separated by 5 min seated rest) with stages matched with the U condition (in ascending order) for relative intensity, absolute oxygen consumption ([VO2]; 1.7 L min-1), and walking speed (1.45 ± 0.15 m s-1). RESULTS: Load carriage increased perceived exertion and reduced VO2max (LN: - 7%; LH: - 32%; p < 0.05). At matched VO2, stroke volume and tidal volume were reduced and maintained with LN and LH vs. U, respectively (p < 0.05). Increases in cardiac output and minute ventilation at matched VO2 (with LH) and speed (with LN and LH), were primarily accomplished via increases in heart rate and breathing frequency (p < 0.05). Cerebral oxygenated hemoglobin (O2HHb) was increased at all intensities with LN, but deoxygenated hemoglobin and total hemoglobin were increased with LH (p < 0.05). Muscle oxygen kinetics and substrate utilization were similar between LN and U, but LH increased CHO dependence and reduced muscle O2HHb at matched speed (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Load carriage reduces cardiorespiratory efficiency and increases physiological strain, particularly in hypoxic environments. Potential load carriage-induced alterations in cerebral blood flow may increase the risk for altitude illnesses and requires further study.

Carbohydrate hydrogel beverage provides no additional cycling performance benefit versus carbohydrate alone.

PURPOSE: This study examined the effects of a novel maltodextrin-fructose hydrogel supplement (MF-H) on cycling performance and gastrointestinal distress symptoms. METHODS: Nine endurance-trained male cyclists (age = 26.1 ± 6.6, mass = 80.9 ± 10.4 kg, VO2max = 55.5 ± 3.6 mL·kg·min-1) completed three experimental trials consisting of a 98-min varied-intensity cycling protocol followed by a performance test of ten consecutive sprint intervals. In a cross-over design, subjects consumed 250 mL of a treatment beverage every 15 min of cycling. Treatments consisted of 78 g·hr-1 of either (a) MF-H, (b) isocaloric maltodextrin-fructose (ratio-matched 2:1; MF), and (c) isocaloric maltodextrin only (MD). RESULTS: There were no differences in average sprint power between treatments (MF-H, 284 ± 51 W; MF, 281 ± 46 W; and MD, 277 ± 48 W), or power output for any individual sprint. Subjective ratings of gastrointestinal distress symptoms (nausea, fullness, and abdominal cramping) increased significantly over time during the cycling trials, but few individuals exceeded moderate levels in any trial with no systematic differences in gastrointestinal discomfort symptoms observed between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, ingestion of a maltodextrin/fructose hydrogel beverage during high-intensity cycling does not improve gastrointestinal comfort or performance compared to MF or MD beverages.