Assessing Overall Exercise Recovery Processes Using Carbohydrate and Carbohydrate-Protein Containing Recovery Beverages

Isabella Russo; Paul A Della Gatta; Andrew Garnham; Judi Porter; Louise M Burke; Ricardo J S Costa

doi:10.3389/fphys.2021.628863

Assessing Overall Exercise Recovery Processes Using Carbohydrate and Carbohydrate-Protein Containing Recovery Beverages

Front Physiol. 2021 Feb 4:12:628863. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.628863. eCollection 2021.

Authors

Isabella Russo¹, Paul A Della Gatta², Andrew Garnham¹, Judi Porter^{1

2}, Louise M Burke³, Ricardo J S Costa¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Monash University, Notting Hill, VIC, Australia.
² Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
³ Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Abstract

We compared the impact of two different, but commonly consumed, beverages on integrative markers of exercise recovery following a 2 h high intensity interval exercise (i.e., running 70-80% V̇O₂ _max intervals and interspersed with plyometric jumps). Participants (n = 11 males, n = 6 females) consumed a chocolate flavored dairy milk beverage (CM: 1.2 g carbohydrate/kg BM and 0.4 g protein/kg BM) or a carbohydrate-electrolyte beverage (CEB: isovolumetric with 0.76 g carbohydrate/kg BM) after exercise, in a randomized-crossover design. The recovery beverages were provided in three equal boluses over a 30 min period commencing 1 h post-exercise. Muscle biopsies were performed at 0 h and 2 h in recovery. Venous blood samples, nude BM and total body water were collected before and at 0, 2, and 4 h recovery. Gastrointestinal symptoms and breath hydrogen (H₂) were collected before exercise and every 30 min during recovery. The following morning, participants returned for performance assessment. In recovery, breath H₂ reached clinical relevance of >10 ppm following consumption of both beverages, in adjunct with high incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms (70%), but modest severity. Blood glucose response was greater on CEB vs. CM (P < 0.01). Insulin response was greater on CM compared with CEB (P < 0.01). Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide stimulated neutrophil function reduced on both beverages (49%). p-GSK-3β/total-GSK-3β was greater on CM compared with CEB (P = 0.037); however, neither beverage achieved net muscle glycogen re-storage. Phosphorylation of mTOR was greater on CM than CEB (P < 0.001). Fluid retention was lower (P = 0.038) on CEB (74.3%) compared with CM (82.1%). Physiological and performance outcomes on the following day did not differ between trials. Interconnected recovery optimization markers appear to respond differently to the nutrient composition of recovery nutrition, albeit subtly and with individual variation. The present findings expand on recovery nutrition strategies to target functionality and patency of the gastrointestinal tract as a prerequisite to assimilation of recovery nutrition, as well as restoration of immunocompetency.

Keywords: gastrointestinal; hydration; immune; inflammation; mTOR; muscle glycogen.