■这项调查旨在阐明斋月间歇性禁食对表现的影响,生理反应,和生物能量途径在重复冲刺期间的贡献。
■14名活跃的男性穆斯林运动员(年龄=22.4±1.8岁,体重=69.5±3.8公斤,身高=176±5.1厘米)执行重复的冲刺协议,由10个20米冲刺和15秒被动恢复间隔组成,在禁食和非禁食条件下。禁食是在Sahur(斋月期间的黎明前餐)之后禁食12-14小时后进行的。相比之下,非禁食期发生在斋月禁食期开始之前,在一天的相同时间,当时运动员还不需要禁食。使用PCr-LA-O2方法定量重复冲刺期间的生物能途径贡献。
■禁食期间的平均冲刺时间为3.4±0.3s,而非禁食期间的平均冲刺时间为3.3±0.2s,表明在禁食状态下较慢时间接近显著性阈值的趋势(p=0.052,效应大小(ES)=0.34)。就生物能贡献而言,总代谢能量消耗(TEE)在禁食期间(236.5±22kJ)略低于非禁食期间(245.2±21.7kJ),但这一差异无统计学意义(p=0.102,ES=0.40).同样,每次冲刺的代谢能量消耗在禁食条件下为23.7±2.2kJ,而非禁食条件下为24.5±2.2kJ(p=0.106,ES=0.35).空腹(34.2±4.1kJ)和非空腹条件(34.2±4.1vs.35.5±5.2kJ;p=0.238,ES=0.28)。同样,乳酸(60.4±7.6vs.59.2±8.3kJ;p=0.484,ES=0.15);和银河(149.3±19.9vs.143±21.5kJ;p=0.137,ES=0.30)能量贡献在禁食和非禁食时段之间没有显着差异。性能下降的百分比(Pdec)和氧化的百分比贡献,乳酸,和乳酸途径的总能量消耗没有显著差异之间的禁食和非禁食条件,表明在两种条件下都有相似的生物能量分布。
■目前的发现表明,在禁食和非禁食状态之间,性能指标和代谢结果没有显着差异。具有更长持续时间和更高强度协议的未来评估可能会提供进一步的见解。
UNASSIGNED: This investigation aims to elucidate the impact of Ramadan intermittent fasting on performance, physiological responses, and bioenergetic pathway contributions during repeated sprints.
UNASSIGNED: Fourteen active male Muslim athletes (age = 22.4 ± 1.8 years, body weight = 69.5 ± 3.8 kg, height = 176 ± 5.1 cm) executed a repeated sprint protocol, consisting of ten 20-meter sprints with 15-s passive recovery intervals, during both fasting and non-fasting conditions. The fasting session was conducted after a 12-14 h fast following Sahur (the pre-dawn meal during Ramadan). In contrast, the non-fasting session occurred before the Ramadan fasting period began, during the same hours of the day, at a time when fasting was not yet required for the athletes. Bioenergetic pathway contributions during repeated sprints were quantified using the PCr-LA-O2 method.
UNASSIGNED: The mean sprint time during fasting sessions was 3.4 ± 0.3 s compared to 3.3 ± 0.2 s in non-fasting sessions, indicating a trend approaching the threshold of significance for slower times in the fasted state (p = 0.052, effect size (ES) = 0.34). In terms of bioenergetic contributions, the total metabolic energy expenditure (TEE) was slightly lower during fasting sessions (236.5 ± 22 kJ) compared to non-fasting sessions (245.2 ± 21.7 kJ), but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.102, ES = 0.40). Similarly, metabolic energy expenditure per sprint was 23.7 ± 2.2 kJ in fasting conditions compared to 24.5 ± 2.2 kJ in non-fasting conditions (p = 0.106, ES = 0.35). The oxidative energy contribution did not differ significantly between fasting (34.2 ± 4.1 kJ) and non-fasting conditions (34.2 ± 4.1 vs. 35.5 ± 5.2 kJ; p = 0.238, ES = 0.28). Similarly, lactic (60.4 ± 7.6 vs. 59.2 ± 8.3 kJ; p = 0.484, ES = 0.15); and alactic (149.3 ± 19.9 vs. 143 ± 21.5 kJ; p = 0.137, ES = 0.30) energy contributions showed no significant differences between the fasting and non-fasting sessions. The percentage of performance decrement (Pdec) and the percentage contributions of oxidative, lactic, and alactic pathways to the total energy expenditure did not differ significantly between the fasting and non-fasting conditions, indicating a similar bioenergetic profile across both conditions.
UNASSIGNED: The present findings indicate no significant differences in performance metrics and metabolic outcomes between fasted and non-fasted states. Future assessments with longer duration and higher intensity protocols may provide further insights.