Milk protein addition to a post-exercise carbohydrate–electrolyte rehydration solution. Is there a dose-response relationship?

R. Stone,L. James,D. Scott,M. Stepney,R. Harris,J. Madin,D. Clayton
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665111001698
2011-10-14
Proceedings of The Nutrition Society
Abstract:The ingestion of low-fat milk has been shown to be more effective at restoring fluid balance after exercise-induced dehydration than the ingestion of a commercially available carbohydrate–electrolyte sports drink. More recently, it has been shown that after exerciseinduced dehydration, the inclusion of 25 g/l milk protein in a carbohydrate–electrolyte rehydration solution increased drink retention in comparison with an isoenergetic, electrolyte content matched carbohydrate solution. This suggests that the protein present in milk ( 36 g/l) accounts for at least some of the increased drink retention previously reported. It is currently unknown whether there is a doseresponse effect of milk protein on drink retention after exercise-induced dehydration. The aim of the present study was to investigate this. Eight males [mean (SD): age 22 (SD 2) years, height 1.77(SD 0.08) m, body mass 76.96(SD 8.73) kg] completed intermittent exercise in a hot environment [35.0(SD 0.1) C, 51.8(SD 5.9) relative humidity] until they lost 1.83(SD 0.10)% of their initial body mass. Subjects then ingested a volume of drink in litres equivalent to 150% of their body mass loss in kg. This drink was provided in four aliquots of equal volume at 15 min intervals (0, 15, 30 and 45 min) over a 1 h rehydration period. Subjects then remained in the laboratory for a further 4 h. During each trial, subjects consumed one of the three drinks: a 60 g/l carbohydrate solution (C); a 40 g/l carbohydrate, 20 g/l milk-protein solution (CP20); or a 20 g/l carbohydrate, 40 g/l milk-protein solution (CP40). Drinks were matched in terms of energy density, as well as Na ( 20 mmol/l) and K ( 5 mmol/l) content. Urine samples were collected before and after exercise, after rehydration and every hour during the 4 h recovery period. Urine samples were measured for volume, osmolality and Na and K concentration. Trials were administered in a double blind, randomised crossover design. Total cumulative urine output after rehydration was greater for trial C [1150(SD 245) ml] than for trial CP20 [857(SD 270) ml] (P = 0.007) and CP40 [769(SD 129) ml] (P = 0.006), with no difference between CP20 and CP40 (P = 1.000). As a result, total drink retention was greater for CP20 [58(SD 9)%] (P = 0.002) and CP40 [64(SD 7)%] (P<0.001) than C [43(SD 7%] (P = 0.008), but there was no difference between CP20 and CP40 (P = 1.000). At the end of the study period, whole-body net-fluid balance (estimated from fluid lost through sweat and urine production and fluid gained through drink ingestion) was less negative for trials CP20 [203(SD 315) ml] (P = 0.029) and CP40 [97(SD 146) ]l) (P = 0.001) than for trial C [487(SD 149) ml], but there was no difference between CP20 and CP40 (P = 1.000). Although the mean net-fluid balance was negative for all trials at the end of the study, it was only significantly negative after ingestion of drink C (P = 0.002).
Chemistry,Medicine
What problem does this paper attempt to address?