Citrulline has been proposed as an ergogenic aid, leading to an interest in watermelon given its high citrulline concentration. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of a single, pre-exercise dose of l-citrulline, watermelon juice, or a placebo on the total maximum number of repetitions completed over 5 sets, time to exhaustion, maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max), anaerobic threshold, and flow-mediated vasodilation. A randomised double-blind within-participants study design was used to examine these effects among 22 participants (n = 11 males). Supplementation included either a 7.5% sucrose drink containing 6 g of l-citrulline, 710 mL of watermelon juice (~1.0 g citrulline), or a 7.5% sucrose placebo drink. Supplementation was administered 1 or 2 h before exercise testing to investigate a timing effect. There was no significant effect between the three supplements for the total number of repetitions, time to exhaustion, VO2max, anaerobic threshold, or flow-mediated vasodilation. There was also no interaction observed relative to gender or supplement timing (P > 0.05). A single dose of l-citrulline or watermelon juice as a pre-exercise supplement appears to be ineffective in improving exercise performance; however, greater doses of l-citrulline have been shown to be safe and are currently left unexamined.

Exercise performance declined in HPM conditions in part due to impaired vasodilation in the peripheral vasculature.

Gadomski, SJ, Ratamess, NA, and Cutrufello, PT. Range of motion adaptations in powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res 32(11): 3020–3028, 2018—The aim of this study was to investigate range of motion (ROM) and training patterns in powerlifters. Upper- and lower-extremity passive ROMs were assessed through goniometry in 15 male powerlifters (35.3 ± 13.7 years) and 15 age-matched controls (34.9 ± 14.6 years). The Apley scratch test and modified Thomas test were used to assess ROM across multiple joints. Training frequency, stretching frequency, and exercise selection were recorded using questionnaires. Passive glenohumeral (GH) extension, internal rotation, and external rotation ROM were significantly decreased in powerlifters (p < 0.050). Powerlifters displayed decreased ROM in the Apley scratch test in both dominant (p = 0.015) and nondominant (p = 0.025) arms. However, knee extension angle was markedly improved in powerlifters (20.3 ± 7.3°) compared with controls (29.9 ± 6.2°; p < 0.001). Bench press and bench press variations accounted for 74.8% of all upper-body exercises, whereas back squat and deadlift accounted for 79.7% of all lower-body exercises in powerlifters' training programs. To determine whether existing ROM adaptations were seen in elite powerlifters, the powerlifting cohort was split into 3 groups based on Wilks score: <400 (low), 400–500 (intermediate), and >500 (high). GH ROM limitations were more pronounced in elite powerlifters (Wilks >500), who had more powerlifting experience (p = 0.048) and greater lean body mass (p = 0.040). Overall, powerlifters displayed decreased GH ROM, but increased hamstring ROM, after training programs that were heavily focused on the bench press, back squat, and deadlift.

The purpose of this study was to assess lung function in runners with marathon‐induced lung edema. Thirty‐six (24 males) healthy subjects, 34 (SD 9) years old, body mass index 23.7 (2.6) kg/m2 had posterior/anterior (PA) radiographs taken 1 day before and 21 (6) minutes post marathon finish. Pulmonary function was performed 1–3 weeks before and 73 (27) minutes post finish. The PA radiographs were viewed together, as a set, and evaluated by two experienced readers separately who were blinded as to time the images were obtained. Radiographs were scored for edema based on four different radiological characteristics such that the summed scores for any runner could range from 0 (no edema) to a maximum of 8 (severe interstitial edema). Overall, the mean edema score increased significantly from 0.2 to 1.0 units (P <0.01), and from 0.0 to 2.9 units post exercise in the six subjects that were edema positive (P = 0.03). Despite a 2% decrease in forced vital capacity (FVC, P =0.024) and a 12% decrease in alveolar‐membrane diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DmCO, P =0.01), there was no relation between the change in the edema score and the change in DmCO or FVC. In conclusion, (1) mild pulmonary edema occurs in at least 17% of subjects and that changes in pulmonary function cannot predict the occurrence or severity of edema, (2) lung edema is of minimal physiological significance as marathon performance is unaffected, exercise‐induced arterial hypoxemia is unlikely, and postexercise pulmonary function changes are mild.

No abstract

The increased risk of morbidity and mortality among adults and children with pre-existing cardiovascular or respiratory illness from emission-derived particulate matter (PM) is well documented. However, the detrimental effects of PM inhalation on the exercising, healthy population is still in question. This review will focus on the acute and chronic responses to PM inhalation during exercise and how PM exposure influences exercise performance. The smaller ultrafine PM (<0.01 μm aerodynamic diameter) appears to have the most severe health consequences compared with the larger coarse PM (2.5 < PM <10 μm aerodynamic diameter). While the response to PM inhalation may affect those with a pre-existing condition, the healthy population is not immune to the effects of PM inhalation, especially during exercise. This population, including the competitive athlete, is susceptible to pulmonary inflammation, decreased lung function (both acute and chronic in nature), the increased risk of asthma, vascular endothelial dysfunction, mild elevations in pulmonary artery pressure and diminished exercise performance. PM exposure is usually associated with vehicular traffic, but other sources of PM, including small engines from lawn and garden equipment, cigarette smoke, wood smoke and cooking, may also impair health and performance. The physiological effects of PM are dependent on the source of PM, various environmental factors, physical attributes and nature of exercise. There are a number of measures an athlete can take to reduce exposure to PM, as well as the deleterious effects that result from the inevitable exposure to PM. Considering the acute and chronic physiological responses to PM inhalation, individuals living and exercising in urban areas in close proximity to major roadways should consider ambient air pollution levels (in particular, PM and ozone) prior to engaging in vigorous exercise, and those exposed to PM through other sources may need to make lifestyle alterations to avoid the deleterious effects of PM inhalation. Although it is clear that PM exposure is detrimental to healthy individuals engaging in exercise, further research is necessary to better understand the role of PM on athlete health and performance, as well as measures that can attenuate the harmful effects of PM.

Dixon, C.B., R.W. Deitrick, J.R. Pierce, P.T. Cutrufello, and L.L. Drapeau. Evaluation of the BOD POD and leg-toleg bioelectrical impedance analysis for estimating percent body fat in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III collegiate wrestlers. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19(1):85-91. 2005.-The purpose of this study was to compare percent body fat (%BF) estimated by air displacement plethysmography (ADP) and legto-leg bioelectrical impedance analysis (LBIA) with hydrostatic weighing (HW) in a group (n ϭ 25) of NCAA Division III collegiate wrestlers. Body composition was assessed during the preseason wrestling weight certification program (WCP) using the NCAA approved methods (HW, 3-site skinfold [SF], and ADP) and LBIA, which is currently an unaccepted method of assessment. A urine specific gravity less than 1.020, measured by refractometry, was required before all testing. Each subject had all of the assessments performed on the same day. LBIA measurements (Athletic mode) were determined using a Tanita body fat analyzer (model TBF-300A). Hydrostatic weighing, corrected for residual lung volume, was used as the criterion measurement. The %BF data (mean Ϯ SD) were LBIA (12.3 Ϯ 4.6), ADP (13.8 Ϯ 6.3), SF (14.2 Ϯ 5.3), and HW (14.5 Ϯ 6.0). %BF estimated by LBIA was significantly (p Ͻ 0.01) smaller than HW and SF. There were no significant differences in body density or %BF estimated by ADP, SF, and HW. All methods showed significant correlations (r ϭ 0.80-0.96; p Ͻ 0.01) with HW. The standard errors of estimate (SEE) for %BF were 1.68, 1.87, and 3.60%; pure errors (PE) were 1.88, 1.94, and 4.16% (ADP, SF, and LBIA, respectively). Bland-Atman plots for %BF demonstrated no systematic bias for ADP, SF, and LBIA when compared with HW. These preliminary findings support the use of ADP and SF for estimating %BF during the NCAA WCP in Division III wrestlers. LBIA, which consistently underestimated %BF, is not supported by these data as a valid assessment method for this athletic group.

The purpose of this study was to compare percent body fat (%BF) estimated by air displacement plethysmography (ADP) and leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance analysis (LBIA) with hydrostatic weighing (HW) in a group (n = 25) of NCAA Division III collegiate wrestlers. Body composition was assessed during the preseason wrestling weight certification program (WCP) using the NCAA approved methods (HW, 3-site skinfold [SF], and ADP) and LBIA, which is currently an unaccepted method of assessment. A urine specific gravity less than 1.020, measured by refractometry, was required before all testing. Each subject had all of the assessments performed on the same day. LBIA measurements (Athletic mode) were determined using a Tanita body fat analyzer (model TBF-300A). Hydrostatic weighing, corrected for residual lung volume, was used as the criterion measurement. The %BF data (mean +/- SD) were LBIA (12.3 +/- 4.6), ADP (13.8 +/- 6.3), SF (14.2 +/- 5.3), and HW (14.5 +/- 6.0). %BF estimated by LBIA was significantly (p < 0.01) smaller than HW and SF. There were no significant differences in body density or %BF estimated by ADP, SF, and HW. All methods showed significant correlations (r = 0.80-0.96; p < 0.01) with HW. The standard errors of estimate (SEE) for %BF were 1.68, 1.87, and 3.60%; pure errors (PE) were 1.88, 1.94, and 4.16% (ADP, SF, and LBIA, respectively). Bland-Atman plots for %BF demonstrated no systematic bias for ADP, SF, and LBIA when compared with HW. These preliminary findings support the use of ADP and SF for estimating %BF during the NCAA WCP in Division III wrestlers. LBIA, which consistently underestimated %BF, is not supported by these data as a valid assessment method for this athletic group.