4.5 Article

Effect of beetroot juice supplementation on 10-km performance in recreational runners

Journal

APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY NUTRITION AND METABOLISM
Volume 44, Issue 1, Pages 90-94

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2018-0277

Keywords

nitrate supplementation; nitric oxide; running; exercise nutritional science; physical endurance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of chronic beetroot juice (BRJ) supplementation on 10-km running performance in recreational runners. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover-designed study, 14 male recreational runners (age, 27.8 +/- 3.4 years) performed three 10-km running tests, at baseline and under the conditions of BRJ supplementation and placebo (PLA). Supplementation was administered for 3 days, and on the days of the assessments, the ingestion occurred 2 h before the test and consisted of a dose of 420 mL of BRJ in natura (8.4 mmol inorganic nitrate (NO3-).day(-1)) or PLA with depleted NO3- (0.01 mind NO3-.day(-1)). The mean velocity (MV) was calculated, and the following variables were determined: maximal heart rate, maximal rating of perceived exertion, blood glucose concentration (analyzed before and after the test), and lactate peak. There was no main effect between conditions regarding 10-km running time performance (BRJ: 50.1 +/- 5.3 min; PLA: 51.0 +/- 5.1 min; P = 0.391) and total MV (BRJ: 12.1 +/- 13 km.h(-1); PLA: 11.9 +/- 1.2 km.h(-1); P = 0.321) or in the other analyzed variables. The time to complete the first half of the test (5 km) was statistically lower in the BRJ group than in the PLA group (P = 0.027). In conclusion, chronic supplementation with BRJ increased MV in the first half of the test and improved the final test times of 10 of the 14 runners, although we did not find a statistically significant difference in the performance of the 10-km run.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available