Novel Food Bar Enhances Resistance and Sprint Training Capacity and Recovery

esnladmin News Leave a Comment

June 13, 2018 – College Station, TX

We previously reported that ingesting a novel food bar containing isomalto-oligosaccharides and whey protein (FitJoy™, Nutrabolt, Bryan, TX) had a low glycemic index and load while promoting a similar increase in insulin than a high glycemic carbohydrate (Austin Journal of Nutrition and Food sciences.  6(1): 1099, 2018).  Since insulin is anticatabolic, we conducted a study to see if ingesting this food bar prior to, during, and following intense resistance and sprint training would affect exercise capacity and/or recovery.  The following abstracts have been recently presented at the International Society of Sport Nutrition Annual Meeting in Clearwater, FL on June 9, 2018.

Short-term effects of ingesting a food bar containing whey protein and isomalto-oligosaccharides on glycemic and insulinemic responses to an acute resistance-exercise bout and sprint conditioning: I

Tyler J Grubic, CISSN, Ryan Sowinski, Ben E Nevares, Susannah L Williamson, Victoria M Pizzitola, Aimee G Reyes, Chris Rasmussen, Peter S. Murano, Mike Greenwood, FISSN, Conrad P Earnest, FISSN, Richard B Kreider, FISSN

Exercise & Sport Nutrition Lab, Human Clinical Research Facility, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

Corresponding author:  [email protected]

Background

Prior research in our lab demonstrated that ingesting a food bar (FB) containing a whey protein blend and the plant fiber isomalto-oligosaccharides elicited a lower glycemic but similar insulin response in comparison to a reference carbohydrate in healthy adults.  (Austin J Nutri Food Sci 6(1):1099, 2018). This study examined whether ingesting this FB would serve as a low glycemic and insulinogenic food option surrounding intense exercise.

Methods

Twelve resistance-trained males (82.8±10 kg, 14.2±3.7% fat; BMI 26.3±3.7 kg/m2) participated in an un-blinded, randomized, counterbalanced, cross-over trial. Participants donated fasting venous blood samples and completed a Readiness to Perform (RTP) and Eating Satisfaction (ES) surveys prior to ingesting a FB (Fitjoy™) containing 20 g of a whey protein blend and 25 g of isomalto-oligosaccharides plant fiber (VitaFiber™,  13 g fiber, 4 g sugar) and 7g fat (1.5 g saturated) or 25 g of dextrose gel placebo (PLA).  Thirty minutes after ingesting the FB or PLA, participants performed a resistance training workout (3 sets of 10 repetitions at 70% 1RM on 11 exercises) followed by sprint condition drills (3 x 40 yd and 3 x Nebraska drills). Midway and following exercise, participants again ingested the FB or PLA.  Glucose was determined via finger sticks pre-ingestion, pre-exercise, midway-exercise, post-exercise, post-sprint, and post-isokinetic testing. Venous blood samples and RTP and ES surveys were obtained midway and post-exercise. Data were analyzed by general linear model (GLM) repeated measures multivariate and univariate statistics and are presented as mean [95% CI] changes from baseline and effect sizes as partial eta-squared (n2, 0.01 = small, 0.06 = medium, 0.13 = large).

Results

Glucose was significantly greater (+25%) following 30-min post ingestion in the PLA compared to FB trial (151.5 [137.2, 165.8]; 111.2 [96.9, 125.5] mg/dL, p<0.001). Glucose values with FB remained within normal values (94.6±11 to 111.2±18.6 mg/dL) while greater variability was seen with PLA (95.8±19.6 to 151.5±28.7 mg/dL). No differences were seen between groups in glucose AUC. Both groups demonstrated similar peak insulin responses immediately post exercise with no differences between treatments although the FB displayed a 28% higher insulin peak post training (PLA 11.2 [5.6, 16.8]; FB 15.5 [9.9, 21.1] uIU/mL, p=0.27, n2=0.149). Venous blood glucose taken 48-h recovery was lower in FB group, although no significantly different (FB -0.05 [-0.28, 0.18]; PLA 0.23 [-0.002, 0.46], p=0.09, n2=0.13). Participants also reported significantly greater satisfaction from food, feeling of fullness, and amount of energy with less feelings of hunger with FB. No significant differences over time or between treatments were observed in ratings of symptoms of hypoglycemia, or perceptions to RTP questionnaires.

Conclusions

The FB examined in this study better maintained glucose responses during an intense bout of resistance exercise and sprint conditioning with a similar insulin response suggesting that ingestion of this FB around exercise can serve as a good food choice.

Short-term effects of a ingesting a food bar containing whey protein and isomalto-oligosaccharides on performance outcomes and recovery from an acute resistance-exercise bout and sprint conditioning: II

Tyler J Grubic, CISSN, Ryan Sowinski, Ben E Nevares, Susannah L Williamson, Victoria M Pizzitola, Aimee G Reyes, Chris Rasmussen, Peter S. Murano, Mike Greenwood, FISSN, Conrad P Earnest, FISSN, Richard B Kreider, FISSN

Exercise & Sport Nutrition Lab, Human Clinical Research Facility, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

Corresponding author:  [email protected]

Background

Prior research in our lab demonstrated that ingesting a food bar (FB) containing a whey protein blend and the plant fiber isomalto-oligosaccharides elicited a lower glycemic but similar insulin response in comparison to a reference carbohydrate in healthy adults.  (Austin J Nutri Food Sci 6(1):1099, 2018). This study examined whether ingesting this FB would affect performance and/or recovery during intense resistance and sprint conditioning training.

Methods

Twelve resistance-trained males (82.8±10 kg, 14.2±3.7% fat; BMI 26.3±3.7 kg/m2) participated in an un-blinded, randomized, counterbalanced, cross-over trial. Participants donated fasting venous blood samples, graded visual rating scale (GRPS) measurements at 3 sites (distal vastus medials [VM], distal vastus lateralis [DVL] and mid-lateral vastus lateralis [MLVL]), and isokinetic leg extension/flexion maximal voluntary contractions (MVCs) prior to ingesting a FB (Fitjoy™) containing 20 g of a whey protein blend and 25 g of isomalto-oligosaccharides plant fiber (VitaFiber™,  13 g fiber, 4 g sugar) and 7g fat (1.5 g saturated) or 25 g of dextrose gel placebo (PLA).  Thirty minutes after ingesting the FB or PLA, participants performed a resistance training workout (3 sets of 10 repetitions at 70% 1RM on 11 exercises with 2-min recovery between sets and exercises) followed by sprint conditioning drills (3 x 40 yd sprints [FYD] and 3 x Nebraska agility drills [NAD] with 1:4 work:rest ratio). Venous blood samples, GRPS, and MVC assessments were also assessed post-exercise and at 48-h recovery. Participants repeated the experiment while ingesting the alternate supplement 7-d later. Data were analyzed by general linear model (GLM) repeated measures multivariate and univariate statistics and are presented as mean [95% CI] changes from baseline and effect sizes as partial eta-squared (n2, 0.01 = small, 0.06 = medium, 0.13 = large).

Results

Assessment of mean 95% CI indicated that participants experienced significantly less pain post workout compared to pre-exercise with FB ingestion as indicated at GPRS VM (FB 0.29 [-0.99, 1.57]; PLA 1.88 [0.60, 3.17] cm, p=0.08, n2=0.130). GPRS DVL (FB 1.45 [-0.02, 3.12]; PLA 2.13 [0.45, 3.80] cm, p=0.56, n2=0.016) and GPRS MLVL (FB 1.53 [-0.28, 3.33]; PLA 2.32 [0.51, 4.12] cm, p=0.53, n2=0.018) were significantly lower at 48-h recovery compared to pre-exercise for FB. MVCs were not significantly different over time or between treatments.  NAD sprint-2 was significantly faster for FB group (FB -0.21 [-0.36, -0.60]; PLA 0.13 [-0.28, 0.02] sec, p=0.42) compared to baseline. Both groups were significantly faster in NAD sprint-3. No significant differences in time or between group differences were observed for FYD. Leg-press volume was significantly lower in PLA during set 2 (FB 0.00 [-34.06, 34.06]; PLA -42.71 [-76.77, -8.65] reps*kg, p=0.08, n2=0.133) and set 3 (FB -7.94 [-112.17, 96.30]; PLA -130.79 [-235.02, -26.55] reps*kg, p=0.09, n2=0.120) when compared to baseline. Blood urea nitrogen to creatinine ratio (BUN:Cre) were maintained in FB at 48-h recovery where PLA decreased compared to baseline (FB –1.16 [-2.92, 0.61]; PLA -3.09 [-4.85, -1.34] (mmol/L)/(umol/L), p=0.121, n2=.106).

Conclusions

Participants ingesting the FB exhibited lowered muscle soreness compared to a PLA, better maintained NAD repeated sprint ability, and better leg press performance. It appears this whey protein bar could serve as an advantageous pre-exercise food choice compared to a matched carbohydrate alone.

 

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Exercise & Sport Nutrition Lab at Texas A&M University.  CPE served as a Director of Clinical Sciences for Nutrabolt.  RBK served as a university approved scientific advisor for Nutrabolt.  PSM served as quality assurance supervisor.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *