. Each trial consisted of six pens of ten pigs (five barrows, five gilts) in three smallscale hoop barns (6.0 × 10.8 m). Pens were randomly assigned one dietary treatment: 1) corn-soybean meal control, 2) 40% Trical 815 triticale diet (by weight) or 3) 80% Trical 815 triticale diet (by weight). The 40 and 80% triticale diets had corn and soybean meal added. Animals had ad libitum access to feed and water during the study. Pigs were started on experiment at approximately 72 kg and fed for 49 d. At the end of each trial all pigs were scanned for backfat thickness and loin muscle area. Barrows from one winter and one summer trial were evaluated for meat and fat quality and sensory evaluation of pork. End weights and ADG were greater during the winter than summer (treatment × season interaction P < 0.01) and decreased as triticale inclusion increased (P < 0.001). Feed intake was similar. Pigs fed the control diet had the greatest G:F, those fed the 80% triticale diet had the least, with pigs fed the 40% triticale diet having intermediate G:F. During the summer, pigs fed the control diet had more BF (P < 0.05) than those fed the triticale diets. Also during summer, pigs fed the control diet had the largest loin muscle area (LMA) (47.5 ± 1.72 cm 2 ); pigs fed the 40% triticale diet had intermediate LMA (45.5 ± 1.72 cm 2 ) and those fed the 80% triticale diet had the smallest LMA (43.4 ± 1.73 cm 2 ). Dietary treatment had no effect on carcass weight, BF, LMA, percentage lean of barrows or sensory evaluation or fatty acid profile of loin chops. Ultimate pH was higher (P < 0.001), percentage loin purge was less (P < 0.05) and shear force (kg) was less (P < 0.05) during summer than winter. Total monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) were greater (P < 0.05) and total PUFA in loins were less (P < 0.01) during the winter than summer. Replacing corn with triticale in finishing pig diets in hoops slightly decreased growth performance, but did not affect pork quality.
Previous research suggests that mouth rinsing carbohydrates (CHO) improves exercise performance. The mechanisms for the improvement are not yet known, but may involve maintenance of insulin concentrations during exercise or attenuation of centrally‐mediated fatigue from putative, caloric‐responsive receptors in the oral cavity. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of mouth rinsing branched‐chain amino acids (BCAA) or CHO on cycle time trial performance, blood markers of central fatigue (prolactin), plasma insulin, glucose, and lactate concentrations, substrate oxidation during steady‐state exercise, and the subjective exercise experience. Ten healthy, endurance‐trained adult males (23.5 ± 3.8 y, 74.0 ± 9.0 kg, 180.5 ± 5.4 cm, 57.9 ± 6.9 ml/kg/min VO2 peak) volunteered for the study. Participants exercised at 65% Wattmax for 30 min then completed a time trial equivalent to 30 min cycling at 75% Wattmax. Participants rinsed the mouth with 6% glucose (CHO), 6% branched‐chain amino acids (BCAA), or water (PLA) for 10 s at the start and after every 10 min during the steady‐state exercise and cycle time trial. Treatment did not affect heart rate, ratings of perceived exertion, affect, arousal, plasma glucose and lactate concentrations, and substrate oxidation during steady‐state exercise and a cycle time trial. Furthermore, mouth rinsing BCAA or CHO did not affect plasma insulin or prolactin concentrations during steady‐state exercise or a cycle time trial. Finally, mouth rinsing BCAA or CHO did not affect cycle time trial performance after steady‐state exercise. In conclusion, mouth rinsing BCAA or CHO does not improve cycle time trial lasting approximately 30 min when performed after 30 min steady‐state exercise.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.