Author(s): DURKALEC-MICHALSKI, K., 1,2, PODGÓRSKI, T. 1, MARCHELEK-MYŚLIWIEC, M. 3, PRZYBYLIK, B.1, DZIUBA-HUT, I. 1, KOBUS-CISOWSKA, J. 4, WĘDRYSZEWSKI, K. 5, BERTRAND, B. 6, NOWACZYK, P.M. 1,2, Institution: POZNAN UNIVERSITY OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION, Country: POLAND, Abstract-ID: 927

INTRODUCTION:
Hydrocolloid gels may serve as an alternative hydration strategy, especially when water availability or quality is limited, or limited is the ability to carry adequate liquid supply (due to its weight). The aim of this randomized controlled crossover study was to verify the efficacy of ingestion of hydrocolloid gel AquaGard® (AG) comparing to water (WAT) in supporting exercise performance and preventing exercise-induced fluid and electrolyte balance disturbances.
METHODS:
Fifteen healthy physically active young males (21.1±1.9 years, 80.1±11.4 kg body mass [BM]) at two study visits completed exercise protocol (2 x 30 min of rowing at individual maximal lactate steady state [MLSS] followed by 15-min rest and subsequent 2000-m rowing time trial [TT]). During exercise protocols participants ingested 4.7 mLAG/kgBM or 21.5 mLWAT/kgBM divided into 5 equal servings (servings 1-3 ingested pre-exercise; servings 4 and 5 after 30 and 60 min of rowing at the MLSS, respectively). For evaluation of blood osmolality (Osm), hematocrit value and concentrations of lactate, Na+, K+, Ca2+, and Cl- capillary blood samples were taken at 7 distinct time points (TP): at REST, 60 min pre-exercise (-60’PRE-EX), pre-exercise (PRE-EX), after 30 and 60 min of rowing at the MLSS (+30’-EX and POST-EX), and 3 and 30 min after TT (POST-TT and +30’POST-TT). Borg scale was implemented to evaluate perceived exertion (RPE) at +30’-EX, POST-EX and POST-TT. TT and RPE results were analyzed with test t for dependent variables. For blood variables mixed model of ANOVA with repeated measurements was applied – the interaction of treatment (AG/WAT) x TP was analyzed.
RESULTS:
There were no significant differences in time to complete TT (483±45 vs. 477±41 s; p=0.389) or average power output during TT (215±55 vs. 209±61 W; p=0.497) between AG vs. WAT conditions. No differences in RPE between AG vs. WAT were observed at +30’-EX (12±2 vs. 12±2 points; p=0.683), POST-EX (14±4 vs. 14±2 points; p=0.738), or POST-TT (18±1 vs. 18±1 points; p=0.001). There were significant treatment x TP interactions for blood Osm (p<0.001), Na+ (p<0.001), and Cl- (p<0.001) – all were higher at AG vs. WAT at POST-TT (Osm: 296±5 vs. 290±5 mmol/kg, p<0.001; Na+: 145±3 vs. 142±2 mmol/L, p<0.001; Cl-: 107±1 vs. 106±1 mmol/L, p=0.001) and +30’POST-TT (Osm: 290±3 vs. 285±3 mmol/kg, p=0.001; Na+: 143±1 vs. 140±2 mmol/L, p<0.001; Cl-: 106±1 vs. 105±2 mmol/L, p=0.011) – with no differences between AG vs. WAT at the remaining TPs.
CONCLUSION:
Ingestion of hydrocolloid gel AquaGard® is equally effective in supporting rowing exercise performance comparing to traditional ingestion of water in young healthy males. Blood osmolality, concentration of Na+ and Cl- were higher after exercise protocol at AG vs. WAT ingestion, but remained clinically negligible and within reference ranges.