Limits of Ultra: Towards an Interdisciplinary Understanding of Ultra-Endurance Running Performance

Ultra-endurance running (UER) poses extreme mental and physical challenges that present many barriers to completion, let alone performance. Despite these challenges, participation in UER events continues to increase. With the relative paucity of research into UER training and racing compared with traditional endurance running distance (e.g., marathon), it follows that there are sizable improvements still to be made in UER if the limitations of the sport are sufficiently understood. The purpose of this review is to summarise our current understanding of the major limitations in UER. We begin with an evolutionary perspective that provides the critical background for understanding how our capacities, abilities and limitations have come to be. Although we show that humans display evolutionary adaptations that may bestow an advantage for covering large distances on a daily basis, these often far exceed the levels of our ancestors, which exposes relative limitations. From that framework, we explore the physiological and psychological systems required for running UER events. In each system, the factors that limit performance are highlighted and some guidance for practitioners and future research are shared. Examined systems include thermoregulation, oxygen delivery and utilisation, running economy and biomechanics, fatigue, the digestive system, nutritional and psychological strategies. We show that minimising the cost of running, damage to lower limb tissue and muscle fatigability may become crucial in UER events. Maintaining a sustainable core body temperature is critical to performance, and an even pacing strategy, strategic heat acclimation and individually calculated hydration all contribute to sustained performance. Gastrointestinal issues affect almost every UER participant and can be due to a variety of factors. We present nutritional strategies for different event lengths and types, such as personalised and evidence-based approaches for varying types of carbohydrate, protein and fat intake in fluid or solid form, and how to avoid flavour fatigue. Psychology plays a vital role in UER performance, and we highlight the need to be able to cope with complex situations, and that specific long and short-term goal setting improves performance. Fatigue in UER is multi-factorial, both physical and mental, and the perceived effort or level of fatigue have a major impact on the ability to continue at a given pace. Understanding the complex interplay of these limitations will help prepare UER competitors for the different scenarios they are likely to face. Therefore, this review takes an interdisciplinary approach to synthesising and illuminating limitations in UER performance to assist practitioners and scientists in making informed decisions in practice and applicable research.

Reconstructing Neanderthal diet: The case for carbohydrates

Evidence for plants rarely survives on Paleolithic sites, while animal bones and biomolecular analyses suggest animal produce was important to hominin populations, leading to the perspective that Neanderthals had a very-high-protein diet. But although individual and short-term survival is possible on a relatively low-carbohydrate diet, populations are unlikely to have thrived and reproduced without plants and the carbohydrates they provide. Today, nutritional guidelines recommend that around half the diet should be carbohydrate, while low intake is considered to compromise physical performance and successful reproduction. This is likely to have been the same for Paleolithic populations, highlighting an anomaly in that the basic physiological recommendations do not match the extensive archaeological evidence. Neanderthals had large, energy-expensive brains and led physically active lifestyles, suggesting that for optimal health they would have required high amounts of carbohydrates. To address this anomaly, we begin by outlining the essential role of carbohydrates in the human reproduction cycle and the brain and the effects on physical performance. We then evaluate the evidence for resource availability and the archaeological evidence for Neanderthal diet and investigate three ways that the anomaly between the archaeological evidence and the hypothetical dietary requirements might be explained. First, Neanderthals may have had an as yet unidentified genetic adaptation to an alternative physiological method to spare blood glucose and glycogen reserves for essential purposes. Second, they may have existed on a less-than-optimum diet and survived rather than thrived. Third, the methods used in dietary reconstruction could mask a complex combination of dietary plant and animal proportions. We end by proposing that analyses of Paleolithic diet and subsistence strategies need to be grounded in the minimum recommendations throughout the life course and that this provides a context for interpretation of the archaeological evidence from the behavioral and environmental perspectives.

Dietary Observations of Ultra-Endurance Runners in Preparation for and During a Continuous 24-h Event

Carbohydrate (CHO) intake recommendations for events lasting longer than 3h indicate that athletes should ingest up to 90g.h.⁻¹ of multiple transportable carbohydrates (MTC). We examined the dietary intake of amateur (males: n=11, females: n=7) ultra-endurance runners (mean age and mass 41.5±5.1years and 75.8±11.7kg) prior to, and during a 24-h ultra-endurance event. Heart rate and interstitial glucose concentration (indwelling sensor) were also tracked throughout the event. Pre-race diet (each 24 over 48h) was recorded via weighed intake and included the pre-race meal (1–4h pre-race). In-race diet (24h event) was recorded continuously, in-field, by the research team. Analysis revealed that runners did not meet the majority of CHO intake recommendations. CHO intake over 24–48h pre-race was lower than recommended (4.0±1.4g·kg⁻¹; 42±9% of total energy), although pre-race meal CHO intake was within recommended levels (1.5±0.7g·kg⁻¹). In-race CHO intake was only in the 30–60g·h⁻¹ range (mean intake 33±12g·h⁻¹) with suboptimal amounts of multiple transportable CHO consumed. Exercise intensity was low to moderate (mean 68%HR_max 45%VO_2max) meaning that there would still be an absolute requirement for CHO to perform optimally in this ultra-event. Indeed, strong to moderate positive correlations were observed between distance covered and both CHO and energy intake in each of the three diet periods studied. Independent t-tests showed significantly different distances achieved by runners consuming ≥5 vs. <5g·kg⁻¹ CHO in pre-race diet [98.5±18.7miles (158.5±30.1km) vs. 78.0±13.5miles (125.5±21.7km), p=0.04] and ≥40 vs. <40g·h⁻¹ CHO in-race [92.2±13.9miles (148.4±22.4km) vs. 74.7±13.5miles (120.2±21.7km), p=0.02]. Pre-race CHO intake was positively associated with ultra-running experience, but no association was found between ultra-running experience and race distance. No association was observed between mean interstitial glucose and dietary intake, or with race distance. Further research should explore approaches to meeting pre-race dietary CHO intake as well as investigating strategies to boost in-race intake of multiple transportable CHO sources. In 24-h ultra-runners, studies examining the performance enhancing benefits of getting closer to meeting pre-race and in-race carbohydrate recommendations are required.

Sport supplements and the athlete's gut: a review

Vigorous or prolonged exercise poses a challenge to gastrointestinal system functioning and is associated with digestive symptoms. This narrative review addresses 1) the potential of dietary supplements to enhance gut function and reduce exercise-associated gastrointestinal symptoms and 2) strategies for reducing gastrointestinal-related side effects resulting from popular sports supplements. Several supplements, including probiotics, glutamine, and bovine colostrum, have been shown to reduce markers of gastrointestinal damage and permeability with exercise. Yet, the clinical ramifications of these findings are uncertain, as improvements in symptoms have not been consistently observed. Among these supplements, probiotics modestly reduced exercise-associated gastrointestinal symptoms in a few studies, suggesting they are the most evidenced-based choice for athletes looking to manage such symptoms through supplementation. Carbohydrate, caffeine, and sodium bicarbonate are evidence-based supplements that can trigger gastrointestinal symptoms. Using glucose-fructose mixtures is beneficial when carbohydrate ingestion is high (>50 g/h) during exercise, and undertaking multiple gut training sessions prior to competition may also be helpful. Approaches for preventing caffeine-induced gastrointestinal disturbances include using low-to-moderate doses (<500 mg) and avoiding/minimizing exacerbating factors (stress, anxiety, other stimulants, fasting). Adverse gastrointestinal effects of sodium bicarbonate can be avoided by using enteric-coated formulations, low doses (0.2 g/kg), or multi-day loading protocols.

A Hydrogel Drink With High Fructose Content Generates Higher Exogenous Carbohydrate Oxidation and Lower Dental Biofilm pH Compared to Two Other, Commercially Available, Carbohydrate Sports Drinks

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the substrate oxidation of three commercially available, 14%-carbohydrate sports drinks with different compositions, osmolality, and pH for their impact on dental exposure to low pH. In a cross-over, randomized double-blinded design, 12 endurance athletes (age 31. 2 ± 7.7 years, V ˙ O_2max 65.6 ± 5.0 mL·kg^-1) completed 180 min of cycling at 55% W_max. During the first 100 min of cycling, athletes consumed amylopectin starch (AP), maltodextrin+sucrose (MD+SUC), or maltodextrin+fructose hydrogel (MD+FRU) drinks providing 95 g carbohydrate·h^-1, followed by water intake only at 120 and 160 min. Fuel use was determined using indirect calorimetry and stable-isotope techniques. Additionally, dental biofilm pH was measured using the microtouch method in a subsample of participants (n = 6) during resting conditions before, and at different time intervals up to 45 min following a single bolus of drink. Exogenous carbohydrate oxidation (CHO_EXO) during the 2nd hour of exercise was significantly (P < 0.05) different between all three drinks: MD+FRU (1.17 ± 0.17 g·min^-1), MD+SUC (1.01 ± 0.13 g·min^-1), and AP (0.84 ± 0.11 g·min^-1). At the end of exercise, CHO_EXO and blood glucose concentrations (3.54 ± 0.50, 4.07 ± 0.67, and 4.28 ± 0.47 mmol·L^-1, respectively) were significantly lower post MD+FRU consumption than post MD+SUC and AP consumption (P < 0.05). Biofilm acidogenicity at rest demonstrated a less pronounced pH fall for MD+FRU compared to the acidulant-containing MD+SUC and AP (P < 0.05). In conclusion, while total intake of MD+FRU showed signs of completed uptake before end of monitoring, this was less so for MD+SUC, and not at all the case for AP. Thus, this study showed that despite carbohydrates being encapsulated in a hydrogel, a higher CHO_EXO was observed following MD+FRU drink ingestion compared to AP and MD+SUC consumption upon exposure to the acidic environment of the stomach. This finding may be related to the higher fructose content of the MD+FRU drink compared with the MD+SUC and AP drinks. Furthermore, a carbohydrate solution without added acidulants, which are commonly included in commercial sport drinks, may have less deleterious effects on oral health.

'I think I'm gonna hurl': A Narrative Review of the Causes of Nausea and Vomiting in Sport

Exercise-associated gastrointestinal (GI) distress can negatively impact athletic performance and interfere with exercise training. Although there are a few universal underlying causes of GI distress, each symptom often has its own unique triggers and, therefore, its own prevention and management strategies. One of the most troubling GI symptoms an athlete can experience during training and competition is nausea/vomiting. The prevalence of nausea varies with several factors, two of the most important being exercise intensity and duration. Relatively brief, high-intensity exercise (e.g., sprinting, tempo runs) and ultra-endurance exercise are both associated with more frequent and severe nausea. The potential causes of nausea in sport are numerous and can include catecholamine secretion, hypohydration, heat stress, hyponatremia, altitude exposure, excessive fluid/food consumption, hypertonic beverage intake, pre-exercise intake of fatty- or protein-rich foods (especially in close proximity to exercise), prolonged fasting, various supplements (caffeine, sodium bicarbonate, ketones), certain drugs (antibiotics, opioids), GI infections, and competition-related anxiety. Beyond directly addressing these aforementioned causes, antiemetic drugs (e.g., ondansetron) may also be useful for alleviating nausea in some competitive situations. Given the commonness of nausea in sport and its potential impact on exercise performance, athletes and sports medicine practitioners should be aware of the origins of nausea and strategies for dealing with this troublesome gut complaint.

Alginate and HM-pectin in sports-drink give rise to intra-gastric gelation in vivo

A polysaccharide drink containing 14% maltodextrin/fructose shows in vivo gelling behaviour as evidenced by magnetic resonance imaging.

Runner's diarrhea: what is it, what causes it, and how can it be prevented?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Runner's diarrhea is an acute exercise-induced diarrhea. Usually, this is not a pathological situation but it can affect performance. This review focuses on the discussion of the main causes of runner's diarrhea and nutritional recommendations to prevent it.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although based on limited data, multiple transportable carbohydrate intake during exercise instead of glucose alone can be recommended for preventing the urge to defecate and (possibly) diarrhea. Additionally, avoiding ingestion of fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs) is related to a lower incidence of reported gastrointestinal problems. There is, however, still no study that associates FODMAPs and runner's diarrhea. Gluten-free diets seem to have no impact on exercise-induced intestinal damage and there is no evidence to recommend this diet for the prevention of diarrhea in nonceliac athletes.

SUMMARY

The main causes of diarrhea in runners are ischemic, mechanical, and nutritional factors. For the prevention of diarrhea, it has been recommended that dehydration and the ingestion of fiber, fat, protein, high concentrated carbohydrate beverages, FODMAPs, caffeine, bicarbonate, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs be avoided. However, the causes of diarrhea and nutritional strategies to prevent it are based on limited research and more studies are definitely needed.

Does Carbohydrate Intake During Endurance Running Improve Performance? A Critical Review

Wilson, PB. Does carbohydrate intake during endurance running improve performance? A critical review. J Strength Cond Res 30(12): 3539-3559, 2016-Previous review articles assessing the effects of carbohydrate ingestion during prolonged exercise have not focused on running. Given the popularity of distance running and the widespread use of carbohydrate supplements, this article reviewed the evidence for carbohydrate ingestion during endurance running. The criteria for inclusion were (a) experimental studies reported in English language including a performance task, (b) moderate-to-high intensity exercise >60 minutes (intermittent excluded), and (c) carbohydrate ingestion (mouth rinsing excluded). Thirty studies were identified with 76 women and 505 men. Thirteen of the 17 studies comparing a carbohydrate beverage(s) with water or a placebo found a between-condition performance benefit with carbohydrate, although heterogeneity in protocols precludes clear generalizations about the expected effect sizes. Additional evidence suggests that (a) performance benefits are most likely to occur during events >2 hours, although several studies showed benefits for tasks lasting 90-120 minutes; (b) consuming carbohydrate beverages above ad libitum levels increases gastrointestinal discomfort without improving performance; (c) carbohydrate gels do not influence performance for events lasting 16-21 km; and (d) multiple saccharides may benefit events >2 hours if intake is ≥1.3 g·min Given that most participants were fasted young men, inferences regarding women, adolescents, older runners, and those competing in fed conditions are hampered. Future studies should address these limitations to further elucidate the role of carbohydrate ingestion during endurance running.

Effects of glucose-fructose versus glucose ingestion on stride characteristics during prolonged treadmill running

Scarce research has examined the effects of carbohydrate composition on running stride characteristics. On two occasions, 14 males and 6 females completed a 120-min sub-maximal run followed by a 4-mile time trial. Participants consumed glucose (GLU) or glucose-fructose (GLU-FRU) beverages supplying 1.3 g/min carbohydrate. Substrate use, psychological affect [Feeling Scale (FS)], and stride characteristics (stride frequency, stride length, and contact time) were assessed. Effects were expressed as Cohen's d (90% confidence limits [90% CL]). CLs for stride frequency differences at 53 min (90% CL = 0.04-0.21) and 113 min (90% CL = 0.02-0.24) did not cover 0, indicating a positive effect of GLU-FRU. However, effect sizes were small (d = 0.13) and likely-to-very-likely trivial. Energy expenditure differences at sub-maximal end were very likely trivial (d = 0.08; 90% CL = 0.00-0.17), while FS ratings were possibly higher for GLU-FRU at 50 (d = 0.19; 90% CL = -0.10-0.48) and 110 min (d = 0.16; 90% CL = -0.13-0.45). During the time trial, stride length was possibly higher with GLU-FRU (d = 0.13; 90% CL = -0.08-0.33). Glucose-fructose co-ingestion has no significant effect on stride characteristics during constant-velocity running but may result in slightly higher stride length during self-paced running.