Dilution Method of Menthol Solutions Affects Subsequent Perceptual Thermal Responses during Passive Heat Exposure in Non-Heat Acclimated Participants

How Cool is That? The Effects of Menthol Mouth Rinsing on Exercise Capacity and Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Menthol (MEN) mouth rinsing (MR) has gained considerable interest in the athletic population for exercise performance; however, the overall magnitude of effect is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of menthol MEN MR and the impact it has on exercise capacity and performance.

METHODS

Three databases were searched with articles screened according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Three-level meta-analyses were used to investigate the overall efficacy of MEN MR and the impact it has on exercise capacity and performance. Meta-regressions were then performed with 1) mean VO2peak, 2) MEN swilling duration; 3) the MEN concentration of MR solution, 4) the number of executed swills throughout a single experiment, 5) the use of flavoured sweetened, non-caloric, or non-flavoured neutral solutions as controls, 6) mean environmental temperature at the time of exercise tests, and 7) exercise type as fixed factors to evaluate their influence on the effects of MEN MR.

RESULTS

Ten MEN MR studies included sufficient information pertaining to MEN MR and exercise performance and capacity. MR with MEN resulted in no significant change in capacity and performance (SMD = 0.12; 95% CI - 0.08, 0.31; p = 0.23, n = 1, tau21 < 0.0001, tau22 =  < 0.0001, I2 = 0%). No significant influence was detected in meta-regressions for VO2peak, (estimate: 0.03; df = 8; 95% CI - 0.03, 0.09; p = 0.27), swilling duration (5 vs. 10 s: 0.00; df = 16; 95% CI - 0.41, 0.41; p = 1.0), MEN concentration (low [0.01%] vs. high [0.1%]: - 0.08; df = 15; 95% CI - 0.49, 0.32; p = 0.67), number of swills (estimate: 0.02; df = 13; 95% CI - 0.05, 0.09; p = 0.56), the use of flavoured sweetener or non-caloric as control (non-flavoured vs. flavoured: 0.12; df = 16; 95% CI - 0.30, 0.55; p = 0.55) or mean room temperature during exercise tests (estimate: 0.01; df = 16; 95% CI - 0.02, 0.04; p = 0.62).

CONCLUSION

MEN MR did not significantly improve overall exercise capacity and performance, though those involved in endurance exercise may see benefits.

Menthol Mouth Rinsing Maintains Relative Power Production during Three-Minute Maximal Cycling Performance in the Heat Compared to Cold Water and Placebo Rinsing

Previous menthol studies have demonstrated ergogenic effects in endurance-based activity. However, there is a need for research in sports whose physiological requirements exceed maximal aerobic capacity. This study assessed the effects of 0.1% menthol mouth-rinsing upon a modified three-minute maximal test in the heat (33.0 ± 3.0 °C; RH 46.0 ± 5.0%). In a randomised crossover single blind placebo-controlled study, 11 participants completed three modified maximal tests, where each trial included a different mouth rinse: either menthol (MEN), cold water (WAT) or placebo (PLA). Participants were asked to rate their thermal comfort (TC), thermal sensation (TS) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) throughout the test. Heart rate, core temperature, oxygen uptake (VO₂), ventilation (VE) and respiratory exchange ratio (RER) were monitored continuously throughout the test, alongside cycling power variables (W; W/kg). A blood lactate (BLa) level was taken pre- and post- test. Small to moderate effects (Cohen's d and accompanying 90% confidence intervals) between solutions MEN, WAT and PLA were observed towards the end of the test in relation to relative power. Specifically, from 75-105 s between solutions MEN and WAT (ES: 0.795; 90% CI: 0.204 to 1.352) and MEN and PLA (ES: 1.059; 90% CI: 0.412 to 1.666), this continued between MEN and WAT (ES: 0.729; 90% CI: 0.152 to 1.276) and MEN and PLA (ES: 0.791; 90% CI: 0.202 to 1.348) from 105-135 s. Between 135-165 s there was a moderate difference between solutions MEN and WAT (ES: 1.058; 90% CI: 0.411 to 1.665). This indicates participants produced higher relative power for longer durations with the addition of the menthol mouth rinse, compared to cold water or placebo. The use of menthol (0.1%) as a mouth rinse showed small performance benefits for short duration high intensity exercise in the heat.

The Effect of Isolated and Combined Application of Menthol and Carbohydrate Mouth Rinses on 40 km Time Trial Performance, Physiological and Perceptual Measures in the Heat

The current study compared mouth swills containing carbohydrate (CHO), menthol (MEN) or a combination (BOTH) on 40 km cycling time trial (TT) performance in the heat (32 °C, 40% humidity, 1000 W radiant load) and investigates associated physiological (rectal temperature (Trec), heart rate (HR)) and subjective measures (thermal comfort (TC), thermal sensation (TS), thirst, oral cooling (OC) and RPE (legs and lungs)). Eight recreationally trained male cyclists (32 ± 9 y; height: 180.9 ± 7.0 cm; weight: 76.3 ± 10.4 kg) completed familiarisation and three experimental trials, swilling either MEN, CHO or BOTH at 10 km intervals (5, 15, 25, 35 km). The 40 km TT performance did not differ significantly between conditions (F2,14 = 0.343; p = 0.715; η2 = 0.047), yet post-hoc testing indicated small differences between MEN and CHO (d = 0.225) and MEN and BOTH (d = 0.275). Subjective measures (TC, TS, RPE) were significantly affected by distance but showed no significant differences between solutions. Within-subject analysis found significant interactions between solution and location upon OC intensity (F28,196 = 2.577; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.269). While solutions containing MEN resulted in a greater sensation of OC, solutions containing CHO experienced small improvements in TT performance. Stimulation of central CHO pathways during self-paced cycling TT in the heat may be of more importance to performance than perceptual cooling interventions. However, no detrimental effects are seen when interventions are combined.