Vitamin C and E supplementation hampers cellular adaptation to endurance training in humans: a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

In this double-blind, randomised, controlled trial, we investigated the effects of vitamin C and E supplementation on endurance training adaptations in humans. Fifty-four young men and women were randomly allocated to receive either 1000 mg of vitamin C and 235 mg of vitamin E or a placebo daily for 11 weeks. During supplementation, the participants completed an endurance training programme consisting of three to four sessions per week (primarily of running), divided into high-intensity interval sessions [4-6 × 4-6 min; >90% of maximal heart rate (HRmax)] and steady state continuous sessions (30-60 min; 70-90% of HRmax). Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max ), submaximal running and a 20 m shuttle run test were assessed and blood samples and muscle biopsies were collected, before and after the intervention. Participants in the vitamin C and E group increased their VO2 max (mean ± s.d.: 8 ± 5%) and performance in the 20 m shuttle test (10 ± 11%) to the same degree as those in the placebo group (mean ± s.d.: 8 ± 5% and 14 ± 17%, respectively). However, the mitochondrial marker cytochrome c oxidase subunit IV (COX4) and cytosolic peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ coactivator 1 α (PGC-1α) increased in the m. vastus lateralis in the placebo group by 59 ± 97% and 19 ± 51%, respectively, but not in the vitamin C and E group (COX4: -13 ± 54%; PGC-1α: -13 ± 29%; P ≤ 0.03, between groups). Furthermore, mRNA levels of CDC42 and mitogen-activated protein kinase 1 (MAPK1) in the trained muscle were lower in the vitamin C and E group than in the placebo group (P ≤ 0.05). Daily vitamin C and E supplementation attenuated increases in markers of mitochondrial biogenesis following endurance training. However, no clear interactions were detected for improvements in VO2 max and running performance. Consequently, vitamin C and E supplementation hampered cellular adaptations in the exercised muscles, and although this did not translate to the performance tests applied in this study, we advocate caution when considering antioxidant supplementation combined with endurance exercise.

Strength and Power Testing of Athletes: A Multicenter Study of Test-Retest Reliability.

PURPOSE: This study examined the test-retest reliability of common assessments for measuring strength and power of the lower body in high-performing athletes. METHODS: A total of 100 participants, including both male (n = 83) and female (n = 17) athletes (21 [4] y, 182 [9] cm, and 78 [12] kg), were recruited for this study, using a multicenter approach. The participants underwent physical testing 4 times. The first 2 sessions (1 and 2) were separated by ∼1 week, followed by a period of 2 to 6 months, whereas the last 2 sessions (3 and 4) were again separated by ∼1 week. The test protocol consisted of squat jumps, countermovement jumps, jump and reach, 30-m sprint, 1-repetition-maximum squat, sprint cycling, and a leg-press test. RESULTS: The typical error (%) ranged from 1.3% to 8.5% for all assessments. The change in means ranged from -1.5% to 2.5% for all assessments, whereas the interclass correlation coefficient ranged from .85 to .97. The smallest worthwhile change (0.2 of baseline SD) ranged from 1.2% to 5.0%. The ratio between the typical error (%) and the smallest worthwhile change (%) ranged from 0.5 to 1.2. When observing the reliability across testing centers, considerable differences in reliability were observed (typical error [%] ratio: 0.44-1.44). CONCLUSIONS: Most of the included assessments can be used with confidence by researchers and coaches to measure strength and power in athletes. Our results highlight the importance of controlling testing reliability at each testing center and not relying on data from others, despite having applied the same protocol.

Strength and Power Testing of Athletes: Associations of Common Assessments Over Time.

PURPOSE: This study examined the associations among common assessments for measuring strength and power in the lower body of high-performing athletes, including both cross-sectional and longitudinal data. METHODS: A total of 100 participants, including both male (n = 83) and female (n = 17) athletes (21 [4] y, 182 [9] cm, 78 [12] kg), were recruited for the study using a multicenter approach. The participants underwent physical testing 4 times. The first 2 sessions (1 and 2) were separated by ∼1 week, followed by a period of 2 to 6 months, whereas the last 2 sessions (3 and 4) were also separated by ∼1 week. The test protocol consisted of squat jumps, countermovement jumps, jump and reach, 30-m sprint, 1-repetition-maximum squat, sprint cycling, and a leg-press test. RESULTS: There were generally acceptable correlations among all performance measures. Variables from the countermovement jumps and leg-press power correlated strongly with all performance assessments (r = .52-.79), while variables from sprint running and squat-jump power displayed more incoherent correlations (r = .21-.82). For changes over time, the correlations were mostly strong, albeit systematically weaker than for cross-sectional measures. CONCLUSIONS: The associations observed among the performance assessments seem to be consistent for both cross-sectional data and longitudinal change scores. The weaker correlations for change scores are most likely mainly caused by lower between-subjects variations in the change scores than for the cross-sectional data. The present study provides novel information, helping researchers and practitioners to better interpret the relationships across common performance assessment methods.

Force-velocity profiling in athletes: Reliability and agreement across methods.

The aim of the study was to examine the test-retest reliability and agreement across methods for assessing individual force-velocity (FV) profiles of the lower limbs in athletes. Using a multicenter approach, 27 male athletes completed all measurements for the main analysis, with up to 82 male and female athletes on some measurements. The athletes were tested twice before and twice after a 2- to 6-month period of regular training and sport participation. The double testing sessions were separated by ~1 week. Individual FV-profiles were acquired from incremental loading protocols in squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ) and leg press. A force plate, linear encoder and a flight time calculation method were used for measuring force and velocity during SJ and CMJ. A linear regression was fitted to the average force and velocity values for each individual test to extrapolate the FV-variables: theoretical maximal force (F0), velocity (V0), power (Pmax), and the slope of the FV-profile (SFV). Despite strong linearity (R2>0.95) for individual FV-profiles, the SFV was unreliable for all measurement methods assessed during vertical jumping (coefficient of variation (CV): 14-30%, interclass correlation coefficient (ICC): 0.36-0.79). Only the leg press exercise, of the four FV-variables, showed acceptable reliability (CV:3.7-8.3%, ICC:0.82-0.98). The agreement across methods for F0 and Pmax ranged from (Pearson r): 0.56-0.95, standard error of estimate (SEE%): 5.8-18.8, and for V0 and SFV r: -0.39-0.78, SEE%: 12.2-37.2. With a typical error of 1.5 cm (5-10% CV) in jump height, SFV and V0 cannot be accurately obtained, regardless of the measurement method, using a loading range corresponding to 40-70% of F0. Efforts should be made to either reduce the variation in jumping performance or to assess loads closer to the FV-intercepts. Coaches and researchers should be aware of the poor reliability of the FV-variables obtained from vertical jumping, and of the differences across measurement methods.

A strength-oriented exercise session required more recovery time than a power-oriented exercise session with equal work.

The present randomized cross-over controlled study aimed to compare the rate of recovery from a strength-oriented exercise session vs. a power-oriented session with equal work. Sixteen strength-trained individuals conducted one strength-oriented session (five repetitions maximum (RM)) and one power-oriented session (50% of 5RM) in randomized order. Squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), 20-m sprint, and squat and bench press peak power and estimated 1RMs were combined with measures of rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and perceived recovery status (PRS), before, immediately after and 24 and 48 h after exercise. Both sessions induced trivial to moderate performance decrements in all variables. Small reductions in CMJ height were observed immediately after both the strength-oriented session (7 ± 6%) and power-oriented session (5 ± 5%). Between 24 and 48 h after both sessions CMJ and SJ heights and 20 m sprint were back to baseline. However, in contrast to the power-oriented session, recovery was not complete 48 h after the strength-oriented session, as indicated by greater impairments in CMJ eccentric and concentric peak forces, SJ rate of force development (RFD) and squat peak power. In agreement with the objective performance measurements, RPE and PRS ratings demonstrated that the strength-oriented session was experienced more strenuous than the power-oriented session. However, these subjective measurements agreed poorly with performance measurements at the individual level. In conclusion, we observed a larger degree of neuromuscular impairment and longer recovery times after a strength-oriented session than after a power-oriented session with equal total work, measured by both objective and subjective assessments. Nonetheless, most differences were small or trivial after either session. It appears necessary to combine several tests and within-test analyses (e.g., CMJ height, power and force) to reveal such differences. Objective and subjective assessments of fatigue and recovery cannot be used interchangeably; rather they should be combined to give a meaningful status for an individual in the days after a resistance exercise session.