Training Load Measures and Biomarker Responses during a 7-Day Training Camp in Young Cyclists-A Pilot Study.

Background and Objectives: During intense training periods, there is a high need to monitor the external and especially the internal training load in order to fine-tune the training process and to avoid overreaching or overtraining. However, data on stress reactions, especially of biomarkers, to high training loads in children and youth are rare. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to investigate the training load of youth athletes during a training camp using a multilevel approach. Materials and Methods: Six trained youth male cyclists performed a 7-day preseason training camp. To investigate the internal training load, every morning, minimally invasive "point-of-care testing" (POCT) devices were used to analyze the following biomarkers: creatine kinase (CK), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), albumin (Alb), bilirubin (Bil), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and total protein (TP). Additionally, data of training load measures (HR: heart rate, RPE: rating of perceived exertion, sRPE: session-RPE, TRIMP: training impulse, intensity (RPE:HR), and load (sRPE:TRIMP) ratios), self-perception (person's perceived physical state, questionnaires on muscle soreness, and sleep quality), and measures of the autonomic nervous system (resting heart rate, heart rate variability) were collected. Two days before and after the training camp, subjects performed performance tests (Graded Exercise Test, Wingate Anaerobic Test, Counter Movement Jump). Results: Primarily, the biomarkers CK, BUN, and Alb, as well as the self-perception showed moderate to large load-dependent reactions during the 7-day training camp. The biomarkers returned to baseline values two days after the last training session. Power output at lactate threshold showed a small increase, and no changes were found for other performance parameters. Conclusions: The study suggests that a multilevel approach is suitable to quantify the internal training load and that different parameters can be used to control the training process. The biomarkers CK, BUN, and Alb are suitable for objectively quantifying the internal training load. The self-perception provides additional subjective information about the internal training load.

No Influence of Nonivamide-nicoboxil on the Peak Power Output in Competitive Sportsmen.

Recent studies have shown that the oxygenated hemoglobin level can be enhanced during rest through the application of nonivamide-nicoboxil cream. However, the effect of nonivamide-nicoboxil cream on oxygenation and endurance performance under hypoxic conditions is unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of nonivamide-nicoboxil cream on local muscle oxygenation and endurance performance under normoxic and hypoxic conditions. In a cross-over design, 13 athletes (experienced cyclists or triathletes [age: 25.2±3.5 years; VO2max 62.1±7.3 mL·min-1·kg-1]) performed four incremental exercise tests on the cycle ergometer under normoxic or hypoxic conditions, either with nonivamide-nicoboxil or placebo cream. Muscle oxygenation was recorded with near-infrared spectroscopy. Capillary blood samples were taken after each step, and spirometric data were recorded continuously. The application of nonivamide-nicoboxil cream increased muscle oxygenation at rest and during different submaximal workloads as well as during physical exhaustion, irrespective of normoxic or hypoxic conditions. Overall, there were no significant effects of nonivamide-nicoboxil on peak power output, maximal oxygen uptake or lactate concentrations. Muscle oxygenation is significantly higher with the application of nonivamide-nicoboxil cream. However, its application does not increase endurance performance.

Criterion-Validity of Commercially Available Physical Activity Tracker to Estimate Step Count, Covered Distance and Energy Expenditure during Sports Conditions.

Background: In the past years, there was an increasing development of physical activity tracker (Wearables). For recreational people, testing of these devices under walking or light jogging conditions might be sufficient. For (elite) athletes, however, scientific trustworthiness needs to be given for a broad spectrum of velocities or even fast changes in velocities reflecting the demands of the sport. Therefore, the aim was to evaluate the validity of eleven Wearables for monitoring step count, covered distance and energy expenditure (EE) under laboratory conditions with different constant and varying velocities. Methods: Twenty healthy sport students (10 men, 10 women) performed a running protocol consisting of four 5 min stages of different constant velocities (4.3; 7.2; 10.1; 13.0 km·h-1), a 5 min period of intermittent velocity, and a 2.4 km outdoor run (10.1 km·h-1) while wearing eleven different Wearables (Bodymedia Sensewear, Beurer AS 80, Polar Loop, Garmin Vivofit, Garmin Vivosmart, Garmin Vivoactive, Garmin Forerunner 920XT, Fitbit Charge, Fitbit Charge HR, Xaomi MiBand, Withings Pulse Ox). Step count, covered distance, and EE were evaluated by comparing each Wearable with a criterion method (Optogait system and manual counting for step count, treadmill for covered distance and indirect calorimetry for EE). Results: All Wearables, except Bodymedia Sensewear, Polar Loop, and Beurer AS80, revealed good validity (small MAPE, good ICC) for all constant and varying velocities for monitoring step count. For covered distance, all Wearables showed a very low ICC (<0.1) and high MAPE (up to 50%), revealing no good validity. The measurement of EE was acceptable for the Garmin, Fitbit and Withings Wearables (small to moderate MAPE), while Bodymedia Sensewear, Polar Loop, and Beurer AS80 showed a high MAPE up to 56% for all test conditions. Conclusion: In our study, most Wearables provide an acceptable level of validity for step counts at different constant and intermittent running velocities reflecting sports conditions. However, the covered distance, as well as the EE could not be assessed validly with the investigated Wearables. Consequently, covered distance and EE should not be monitored with the presented Wearables, in sport specific conditions.