Single and Serial Carbohydrate Mouth Rinsing Do Not Improve Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Performance in Soccer Players

A Narrative Review of Current Concerns and Future Perspectives of the Carbohydrate Mouth Rinse Effects on Exercise Performance

Previous systematic reviews have confirmed that carbohydrate (CHO) mouth rinse may boost physical exercise performance, despite some methodological aspects likely affecting its ergogenic effect. In this review, we discussed if the exercise mode, pre-exercise fasting status, CHO solutions concentration, CHO solutions temperature, mouth rinse duration, and CHO placebo effects may potentially reduce the CHO mouth rinse ergogenic effect, suggesting possible solutions to manage these potential confounders. The effectiveness of CHO mouth rinse as a performance booster is apparently related to the origin of the exercise-induced neuromuscular fatigue, as CHO mouth rinse unequivocally potentiates endurance rather than sprint and strength exercises performance. Furthermore, ergogenic effects have been greater in fasting than fed state, somehow explaining the varied magnitude of the CHO mouth rinse effects in exercise performance. In this regard, the CHO solution concentration and temperature, as well as the mouth rinse duration, may have increased the variability observed in CHO mouth rinse effects in fasting and fed state. Finally, placebo effects have challenged the potential of the CHO mouth rinse as an ergogenic aid. Therefore, we suggest that future studies should consider methodological controls such as sample size and sample homogeneity, proper familiarization with experimental procedures, and the use of alternative placebo designs to provide unbiased evidence regarding the potential of the CHO mouth rinse as an ergogenic aid.

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.