Effects of Carbohydrate Mouth Rinsing on Upper Body Resistance Exercise Performance

Effect of carbohydrate mouth rinse on muscle strength and muscular endurance: A systematic review with meta-analysis

The present systematic review with meta-analysis summarized studies that investigated the effect of carbohydrate (CHO) mouth rinse on muscle strength and muscular endurance. The search was performed in six databases. Thirteen randomized clinical trials were selected and the standardized mean difference between CHO mouth rinse and placebo for maximal strength and muscular endurance was determined via a random-effects model using Review Manager 5.4 software. Meta-regression was also performed to explore the influence of load, number of sets, number of exercises, fasting time, CHO concentration, and number of mouth rinses on the main outcomes. There was no significant effect of CHO mouth rinse on maximal strength (mean difference= 0.25 kg, 95%CI - 1.81 to 2.32 kg, z = 0.24, p = 0.810). However, there was a significant positive effect of CHO mouth rinse on muscular endurance (mean difference = 1.24 repetitions, 95%CI 0.70 to 1.77 repetitions, z = 4.55, p < 0.001). Meta-regression identified that CHO mouth rinse has greater benefits on muscular endurance when using high workloads, multiple exercises, and a smaller number of mouth rinses (p = 0.001). In conclusion, CHO mouth rinse has no effect on maximal muscle strength but has a positive effect on muscular endurance and seems to optimize when fewer mouth rinses, high workloads and numbers of exercises are used.Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2057417.

Carbohydrate Mouth Rinse Increases High but Not Low Intensity Repetitions to Failure in Resistance-Trained Males

Carbohydrate mouth rinsing (CMR) has been shown to enhance exercise performance. However, the influence of CMR on repetitions to failure with different intensities (40% or 80% of 1 RM) is unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a 6% CMR solution on muscular endurance assessed at 40% and 80% of 1 RM in resistance-trained males. Sixteen resistance-trained males (age: 25 ± 3 years, height: 182 ± 6 cm, body mass: 86 ± 3 kg, body fat: 16 ± 3%, bench press 1 RM: 106 ± 16 kg, resistance training experience: 5 ± 1 years) completed four conditions in random order. The four conditions consisted of ten seconds of mouth rinsing with 25 mL solutions containing either maltodextrin or placebo (sweetened water) prior to performing a bench press muscular endurance test at either 40% of 1 RM or 80% of 1 RM. Total repetitions, heart rate (HR), ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), glucose (GLU) and felt arousal (FA) were recorded for each condition. There was a significant condition by intensity interaction (p = 0.02). CMR significantly increased total repetitions compared with placebo at the higher intensity (80% of 1 RM; p = 0.04), while there was no effect at the lower intensity (p = 0.20). In addition, HR, RPE, GLU and FA did not differ between conditions or across intensities (p > 0.05). In conclusion, CMR-enhanced muscular endurance performed at higher but not lower intensities.

Different Doses of Carbohydrate Mouth Rinse Have No Effect on Exercise Performance in Resistance Trained Women

Carbohydrate (CHO) mouth rinse has been shown to enhance aerobic endurance performance. However, the effects of CHO mouth rinse on muscular strength and endurance are mixed and may be dependent on dosage of CHO. The primary purpose was to examine the effects of different dosages of CHO rinse on strength (bench press 1 repetition maximum [1-RM]) and muscular endurance (40% of 1-RM repetitions to failure) in female athletes. Sixteen resistance-trained females (age: 20 ± 1 years; height: 167 ± 3 cm; body mass: 67 ± 4 kg; BMI: 17 ± 2 kg/m²; resistance training experience: 2 ± 1 years) completed four conditions in random order. The four conditions consisted of a mouth rinse with 25 mL solutions containing either 6% of CHO (Low dose of CHO: LCHO), 12% CHO (Moderate dose of CHO: MCHO), 18% CHO (High dose of CHO: HCHO) or water (Placebo: PLA) for 10 s prior to a bench press strength and muscular endurance test. Maximal strength (1-RM), muscular endurance (reps and total volume), heart rate (HR), ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and glucose (GLU) were recorded each condition. There were no significant differences in strength (p = 0.95) or muscular endurance (total repetitions: p = 0.06; total volume: p = 0.20) between conditions. Similarly, HR (p = 0.69), RPE (p = 0.09) and GLU (p = 0.92) did not differ between conditions. In conclusion, various doses of CHO mouth rinse (6%, 12% and 18%) have no effect on upper body muscular strength or muscular endurance in female athletes.

Carbohydrate mouth rinse improves resistance exercise capacity in the glycogen-lowered state

The effect of carbohydrate mouth rinse (CHO MR) on resistance exercise performance is equivocal and may be moderated by carbohydrate availability. This study determined the effect of CHO MR on low-load resistance exercise capacity completed in a fed but glycogen-lowered state. Twelve resistance-trained men (age: 22 ± 4 years; height: 1.79 ± 0.05 m; mass: 78.7 ± 7.8 kg; bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM): 87 ± 21 kg; squat 1RM: 123 ± 19 kg) completed two fed-state resistance exercise bouts consisting of six sets of bench press and six sets of squat to failure at 40% 1RM. Each bout was preceded by glycogen-depleting cycling the evening before, with feeding controlled to create acute energy deficit and maintain low muscle glycogen. During resistance exercise, participants rinsed with either a 6% CHO MR solution or a taste-matched placebo (PLA) between sets. Total volume workload was greater with CHO MR (9354 ± 2051 vs. 8525 ± 1911 kg, p = 0.010). Total number of repetitions of squat were greater with CHO MR (107 ± 26 vs. 92 ± 16, p = 0.017); the number of repetitions of bench press were not significantly different (CHO MR: 120 ± 24 vs. PLA: 115 ± 22, p = 0.146). This was independent of differences in feeling or arousal. CHO MR may be an effective ergogenic aid for athletes completing resistance exercise when in energy deficit and with low carbohydrate availability. Novelty: CHO MR can increase low-load resistance exercise capacity undertaken in a glycogen-lowered but fed state. This effect was driven by a greater number of repetitions-to-failure in the squat - using muscles lowered in glycogen content with exhaustive cycling on the evening prior to resistance exercise - but not bench press.

Effect of Carbohydrate Mouth Rinse on Resistance Exercise Performance

Green, MS, Kimmel, CS, Martin, TD, Mouser, JG, and Brune, MP. Effect of carbohydrate mouth rinse on resistance exercise performance. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-A carbohydrate mouth rinse (CMR) has been shown to enhance short duration endurance performance and raises the possibility that a similar strategy could improve performance during resistance exercise. Eighteen male and female (N = 36) resistance trained subjects (mean values ± SD; age: 21.5 ± 1.6 years, height: 1.72 ± 0.09 m, body mass: 72.8 ± 13.4 kg, and body fat: 16.7 ± 5.8%) performed 3 experimental visits during which bench press resistance exercise (4 × 10 repetitions at 65% of 1 repetition maximum [1RM] with 120 seconds recovery) and repetitions to failure at 60% 1RM were performed. Subjects rinsed 25 ml of water (WAT), noncaloric placebo (PLA), or 6.4% maltodextrin (CHO) solution for 10 seconds during exercise in a crossover, counter-balanced manner. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE), pleasure-displeasure (FS), number of repetitions to fatigue (REPS), and postexercise blood glucose (GLU) and lactate (LA) were measured. Compared with WAT (17.7 ± 0.8), PLA (19.0 ± 0.7; p = 0.025), and CHO (18.7 ± 0.8; p = 0.039) resulted in higher REPS, with no difference between PLA and CHO treatments (p = 0.310). Rating of perceived exertion progressively increased each set (p < 0.0001), but was not affected by treatment (p = 0.897). Pleasure-displeasure declined during recovery from sets 3 and 4 (p < 0.05) but was also not affected by treatment (p = 0.692). Postexercise GLU (p = 0.103) and LA (p = 0.620) were not different between treatments. Although a placebo effect was present for REPS, this study failed to detect an effect of CMR on REPS, RPE, FS, GLU, or LA on upper-body resistance exercise.