Postexercise Fructose–Maltodextrin Ingestion Enhances Subsequent Endurance Capacity
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: Restoring skeletal muscle and hepatic glycogen content during short-term (<6 h) recovery from prolonged exercise is pertinent for athletes seeking to maximize performance in repeated exercise bouts. Previous research suggests that coingestion of fructose-glucose carbohydrate sources augments hepatic and has equivalent effects on skeletal muscle glycogen storage during short-term recovery from prolonged exercise compared with isocaloric glucose ingestion. The aim of the present investigation was to determine whether this has a discernible effect on subsequent exercise capacity. METHODS: Eight trained endurance runners and triathletes performed two experimental trials in a single-blind, randomized, and counterbalanced crossover design. Trials involved treadmill running to exhaustion at 70% V˙O2max, a 4-h recovery with 90 g·h of glucose-maltodextrin (GLU + MAL) or fructose-maltodextrin (FRU + MAL) ingestion (1:1.5 ratio), and a second bout of treadmill running to exhaustion at 70% V˙O2max. RESULTS: Exercise capacity in bout 2 was significantly greater with FRU + MAL (81.4 ± 22.3 vs 61.4 ± 9.6 min, P = 0.02), a large magnitude effect (effect size = 1.84 ± 1.12, 32.4% ± 19.9%). Total carbohydrate oxidation rates were not significantly different during bout 1 or 2 between trials, although total carbohydrate oxidized in bout 2 was significantly greater with FRU + MAL (223 ± 66 vs 157 ± 26 g, P = 0.02). Ingested carbohydrate oxidation rates were greater during bout 2 with FRU + MAL (P = 0.001). Plasma glucose and nonesterified fatty acid concentrations were not significantly different between trials. Plasma lactate concentrations were significantly greater during recovery before bout 2 with FRU + MAL (P = 0.001). Self-reported nausea and stomach fullness during bout 2 were marginally in favor of FRU + MAL. CONCLUSION: Short-term recovery of endurance capacity was significantly enhanced with FRU + MAL versus GLU + MAL ingestion during recovery.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 40 · Cited by 25
- Authors
- MAUNDER, E., PODLOGAR, T., & WALLIS, G. A.
- Affiliations
- Auckland University of Technology (NZ)
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- Venue
- Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
- Published
- 2018-05
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1039-1045
- ISSN
- 0195-9131 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2772363418
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 1.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
- Keywords
- post-exercise recovery, endurance capacity, carbohydrate oxidation, glycogen resynthesis, repeated exercise bouts, endurance runners, triathletes, plasma lactate
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Blood Glucose, Dietary Carbohydrates, Fatigue, Fatty Acids, Nonesterified, Female, Fructose, Humans, Male, Oxygen Consumption, Physical Endurance, Polysaccharides, Running, Single-Blind Method, Muscle, Skeletal, Cross-Over Studies, Lactic Acid, Sports Nutritional Physiological Phenomena
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review