More recently, Thomas et al.  conducted a similar study, comparing isocaloric CM and CHO+Pro beverages and a CHO OICR-9429 concentration beverage comparable to that used by Karp et al. . Time to exhaustion in the subsequent exercise bout was significantly longer with CM than either comparison beverage. Although the potential mechanisms for these findings are not clear, these studies support the potential efficacy of CM as a post-exercise recovery beverage following heavy endurance exercise. The present study was designed to compare recovery beverages in free-living
athletes within a collegiate team setting. Although this maximizes the generalizability of our findings for athletes, there were some relevant limitations to this design. Firstly, the free-living Selleck AZD2281 environment may have increased measurement error over the course of the study. Great CHIR-99021 mouse care was taken throughout the study to insure that training/nutritional conditions were virtually identical between the
two treatment periods. However, it is possible that activities outside the experimental protocols may have influenced the outcomes of the study. For example, four of the seventeen participants who completed the study were removed from statistical analyses (as described in Methods) due to large variations in baseline measurements (i.e. prior to ITD and beverage treatments), possibly due to activities outside of the study parameters. Six subjects failed to return completed dietary recall questionnaires, and thus we cannot be certain that nutrient intake did not vary between treatment periods for the entire sample. In addition, subjects were instructed to replicate the same dietary habits between treatment
periods, but were not required to arrive at the laboratory in a fasted state. Thus, differences in nutrient timing between treatment periods could also have influenced some of the study outcomes. Another Methane monooxygenase limitation was the NCAA regulation limiting out-of-season practice time to a maximum of 8 hrs per week of ‘athletically related activities’ (NCAA Playing and Practice Limitations, Bylaw 18.104.22.168). As a result, it was not possible to implement an ITD period greater than 4 days in the present study. The prescribed training program was designed to increase daily training time by >25% per day between baseline and ITD periods (Table 1). However, due to adjustments in training plans to accommodate for inclement weather on two days (and maintain consistency between treatment periods), the ITD period increased daily training times by only 12% (Table 3). This training stimulus produced significant increases in muscle soreness ratings, and serum CK levels over the four-day period. However, MPSTEFS ratings and serum Mb were not significantly altered over time, and MVC actually improved over the four days of ITD.