Validity of a Food and Fluid Exercise Questionnaire for Macronutrient Intake during Exercise against Observations

Information about the accuracy of self-reported food and fluid intake during competitions is scarce. The objective of this study was to validate a previously developed food and fluid exercise questionnaire (FFEQ) against direct observations made during competitions in athletes. Fifty-eight recreational endurance athletes participating in four different running events and one cross duathlon in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2017 were recruited. The FFEQ overestimated the median energy and carbohydrate intake by 27.6 kcal/h (20.6%) and 9.25 g/h (30.8%) (p < 0.001), respectively, compared to direct observation. Reporting bias (i.e., correlation between the difference between methods and average of both methods) increased with a higher energy (r: 0.41, p < 0.01) and carbohydrate intake (r: 0.44, p < 0.01). No statistically significant difference was found between FFEQ-reported fluid intake per hour and observations (median difference: −2.93 mL, −1.1%; p = 0.48) and no fluid reporting bias was identified (r: 0.23, p = 0.08). FFEQ-reported energy (r: 0.74), carbohydrate (r: 0.74), and fluid (r: 0.85) intake was strongly correlated with the observed intake (all p-values < 0.001). In conclusion, the FFEQ accurately estimates the fluid intake on a group level during competitions in recreational athletes. Even though FFEQ overestimates the energy and carbohydrate intake, it is still a useful tool for ranking individuals based on their intake

Validity of a food and fluid exercise questionnaire for macronutrient intake during exercise against observations

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Information about the accuracy of self-reported food and fluid intake during competitions is scarce. The objective of this study was to validate a previously developed food and fluid exercise questionnaire (FFEQ) against direct observations made during competitions in athletes. Fifty-eight recreational endurance athletes participating in four different running events and one cross duathlon in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2017 were recruited. The FFEQ overestimated the median energy and carbohydrate intake by 27.6 kcal/h (20.6%) and 9.25 g/h (30.8%) (p \u3c 0.001), respectively, compared to direct observation. Reporting bias (i.e., correlation between the difference between methods and average of both methods) increased with a higher energy (r: 0.41, p \u3c 0.01) and carbohydrate intake (r: 0.44, p \u3c 0.01). No statistically significant difference was found between FFEQ-reported fluid intake per hour and observations (median difference: -2.93 mL, -1.1%; p = 0.48) and no fluid reporting bias was identified (r: 0.23, p = 0.08). FFEQ-reported energy (r: 0.74), carbohydrate (r: 0.74), and fluid (r: 0.85) intake was strongly correlated with the observed intake (all p-values \u3c 0.001). In conclusion, the FFEQ accurately estimates the fluid intake on a group level during competitions in recreational athletes. Even though FFEQ overestimates the energy and carbohydrate intake, it is still a useful tool for ranking individuals based on their intake

The association between gastrointestinal injury, -complaints, and food intake in 60 km ultramarathon runners

We aimed to assess the association between gastrointestinal (GI) injury, complaints, and food intake in 60-km ultramarathon runners. Thirty-three ultramarathon runners provided pre- and post-race blood samples for assessment of GI injury by intestinal fatty-acid binding protein (I-FABP), and inflammatory response by interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), and C-reactive protein (CRP). GI complaints and nutritional intake were reported by a post-race questionnaire. GI complaints were reported by 73% of the runners, of which 20% reported 1 or 2 severe complaints. IL-6, IL8, TNF-α, and CRP increased significantly from pre- to post-race (P < 0.001 for all biomarkers), while I-FABP did not (1375 [IQR: 1264–2073] to 1726 [IQR: 985–3287] pg/mL; P = 0.330). The ‘GI complaints score’, as the integral of the number and severity of GI complaints, did not correlate with ΔI-FABP (rs: –0.050, P = 0.790) or energy intake (rs: 0.211, P = 0.260). However, there was a significant negative correlation between energy intake and ΔI-FABP (rs: –0.388, P = 0.031). In conclusion, GI complaints were neither associated with food intake nor GI injury as assessed by plasma I-FABP response. Energy intake, however, was inversely related to the I-FABP response to exercise. This finding suggests that substantial energy intakes during exercise may prevent exercise-induced GI injury as assessed by the I-FABP response. Novelty: No association between gastrointestinal complaints and gastrointestinal injury (I-FABP response) or food intake was present. There was an inverse correlation between energy intake and plasma I-FABP response, suggesting that higher energy intakes may prevent gastrointestinal injury as assessed by the I-FABP response

Real-Time Observations of Food and Fluid Timing During a 120 km Ultramarathon

Contains fulltext : 205865.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

The impact of beetroot juice supplementation on muscular endurance, maximal strength and countermovement jump performance

Purpose: Dietary nitrate has been shown to enhance muscle contractile function and has, therefore, been linked to increased muscle power and sprint exercise performance. However, the impact of dietary nitrate supplementation on maximal strength, performance and muscular endurance remains to be established. Methods: Fifteen recreationally active males (25 ± 4 y, BMI 24 ± 3 kg/m2) participated in a randomized double-blinded cross-over study comprising two 6-d supplementation periods; 140 mL/d nitrate-rich (BR; 985 mg/d) and nitrate-depleted (PLA; 0.37 mg/d) beetroot juice. Three hours following the last supplement, we assessed countermovement jump (CMJ) performance, maximal strength and power of the upper leg by voluntary isometric (30° and 60° angle) and isokinetic contractions (60, 120, 180 and 300°·s−1), and muscular endurance (total workload) by 30 reciprocal isokinetic voluntary contractions at 180°·s−1. Results: Despite differences in plasma nitrate (BR: 879 ± 239 vs. PLA: 33 ± 13 μmol/L, P  0.50 for both angles) and isokinetic knee extension power (P > 0.33 for all velocities) did not differ between treatments. Isokinetic knee flexion power was significantly higher following BR compared with PLA ingestion at 60°·s−1 (P = 0.001), but not at 120°·s−1 (P = 0.24), 180°·s−1 (P = 0.066), and 300°·s−1 (P = 0.36). Conclusion: Nitrate supplementation does not improve maximal strength, countermovement jump performance and muscular endurance in healthy, active males

Real-Time Observations of Food and Fluid Timing During a 120 km Ultramarathon

The aim of the present case study was to use real-time observations to investigate ultramarathon runners' timing of food and fluid intake per 15 km and per hour, and total bodyweight loss due to dehydration. The study included 5 male ultramarathon runners observed during a 120 km race. The research team members followed on a bicycle and continuously observed their dietary intake using action cameras. Hourly carbohydrate intake ranged between 22.1 and 62.6 g/h, and fluid intake varied between 260 and 603 mL/h. These numbers remained relatively stable over the course of the ultra-endurance marathon. Runners consumed food and fluid on average 3–6 times per 15 km. Runners achieved a higher total carbohydrate consumption in the second half of the race (p = 0.043), but no higher fluid intake (p = 0.08). Energy gels contributed the most to the total average carbohydrate intake (40.2 ± 25.7%). Post-race weight was 3.6 ± 2.3% (range 0.3–5.7%) lower than pre-race weight, revealing a non-significant (p = 0.08) but practical relevant difference. In conclusion, runners were able to maintain a constant timing of food and fluid intake during competition but adjusted their food choices in the second half of the race. The large variation in fluid and carbohydrate intake indicate that recommendations need to be individualized to further optimize personal intakes

Analyse leefomgevingseffecten : verkiezingsprogramma’s 2021-2025, CDA, D66, GroenLinks, SP, PvdA, ChristenUnie : effecten op: Mobiliteit & bereikbaarheid, Klimaat & energie, Landbouw, voedsel & natuur, Wonen

Op verzoek van het CDA, D66, GroenLinks, de SP, de PvdA en de ChristenUnie heeft het PBL hun verkiezingsprogramma’s voor de periode 2021-2025 geanalyseerd op effecten voor de leefomgeving. In het rapport zijn de effecten van maatregelen voor vier thema’s in kaart gebracht: Mobiliteit & bereikbaarheid, Klimaat & energie, Landbouw, voedsel & natuur en Wonen. Er zijn belangrijke verschillen tussen de partijen in de keuze van de maatregelen, de intensiteit van de bijbehorende instrumenten en de effecten op de leefomgeving