Shorter Duration Time Trial Performance and Recovery Is Not Improved by Inclusion of Protein in a Multiple Carbohydrate Supplement.

Wolfe, AS, Brandt, SA, Krause, IA, Mavison, RW, Aponte, JA, and Ferguson-Stegall, LM. Shorter duration time trial performance and recovery is not improved by inclusion of protein in a multiple carbohydrate supplement. J Strength Cond Res 31(9): 2509-2518, 2017-Ingesting multiple carbohydrate (CHO) types during exercise can improve endurance performance compared with single CHO only. Adding protein to a multiple CHO beverage has been shown to increase cycling time to exhaustion (TTE) compared with a single CHO beverage. However, it is unclear if improvements were due to multiple CHO or protein, and TTE protocols are not representative of typical race events. This study investigated whether adding protein to a multiple CHO beverage improved performance and recovery in 2 same-day cycling time trials (TTs) compared with isocaloric multiple CHO only. Ten cyclists (37.4 ± 8.9 years; V[Combining Dot Above]O2max 54.6 ± 6.5 ml·kg·min) performed a familiarization and 2 randomized, crossover, double-blinded experimental trials consisting of pretrial leg strength testing, 40-km TT, 30-min recovery, 10-km TT, and posttrial leg strength testing. Seven 275 ml doses of multiple CHO (MCO) or multiple CHO+protein (MCP) were ingested during the protocol. Blood glucose, lactate, heart rate (HR), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were also measured. Continuous variables were analyzed with paired t-tests, and repeated measures with repeated-measures analysis of variance. No differences existed between MCO and MCP in 40-km TT time (81.6 ± 2.8 vs. 81.9 ± 2.9 minutes, respectively, p = 0.94), or in 10-km time (24.0 ± 0.9 vs. 23.9 ± 1.0 minutes, p = 0.97). Blood glucose was higher before 10-km TT in MCO compared with MCP (3.78 ± 0.20 vs. 3.31 ± 0.19 mmol·L, p = 0.002). No treatment differences were found for lactate, HR, RPE, or strength recovery. When using a protocol and performance measures that replicate realistic, shorter duration events, adding protein to a multiple CHO beverage does not improve performance compared with multiple CHO only.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in a Population-Based Study of Minnesota Residents.

COVID-19 continues to be a public health concern in the United States. Although safe and effective vaccines have been developed, a significant proportion of the US population has not received a COVID-19 vaccine. This cross-sectional study aimed to describe the demographics and behaviors of Minnesota adults who have not received the primary series of the COVID-19 vaccine, or the booster shot using data from the Minnesota COVID-19 Antibody Study (MCAS) collected through a population-based sample between September and December 2021. Data were collected using a web-based survey sent to individuals that responded to a similar survey in 2020 and their adult household members. The sample was 51% female and 86% White/Non-Hispanic. A total of 9% of vaccine-eligible participants had not received the primary series and 23% of those eligible to receive a booster had not received it. Older age, higher education, better self-reported health, $75,000 to $100,000 annual household income, mask-wearing, and social distancing were associated with lower odds of hesitancy. Gender, race, and previous COVID-19 infection were not associated with hesitancy. The most frequently reported reason for not receiving a COVID-19 vaccination was safety concerns. Mask-wearing and being age 65 or older were the only strong predictors of lower odds of vaccine hesitancy for both the primary series and booster analyses.

Nutrition as prevention for improved cancer health outcomes: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Among adults with cancer, malnutrition is associated with decreased treatment completion, more treatment harms and use of health care, and worse short-term survival. To inform the National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention workshop, "Nutrition as Prevention for Improved Cancer Health Outcomes," this systematic review examined the evidence for the effectiveness of providing nutrition interventions before or during cancer therapy to improve outcomes of cancer treatment. METHODS: We identified randomized controlled trials enrolling at least 50 participants published from 2000 through July 2022. We provide a detailed evidence map for included studies and grouped studies by broad intervention and cancer types. We conducted risk of bias (RoB) and qualitative descriptions of outcomes for intervention and cancer types with a larger volume of literature. RESULTS: From 9798 unique references, 206 randomized controlled trials from 219 publications met the inclusion criteria. Studies primarily focused on nonvitamin or mineral dietary supplements, nutrition support, and route or timing of inpatient nutrition interventions for gastrointestinal or head and neck cancers. Most studies evaluated changes in body weight or composition, adverse events from cancer treatment, length of hospital stay, or quality of life. Few studies were conducted within the United States. Among intervention and cancer types with a high volume of literature (n = 114), 49% (n = 56) were assessed as high RoB. Higher-quality studies (low or medium RoB) reported mixed results on the effect of nutrition interventions across cancer and treatment-related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological limitations of nutrition intervention studies surrounding cancer treatment impair translation of findings into clinical practice or guidelines.