NAP: Training (2014)

Citation:

Hulston CJ, Venables MC, Mann CH, Martin C, Philp A, Baar K, Jeukendrup AE. Training with low muscle glycogen enhances fat metabolism in well-trained cyclists. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010; 42(11): 2,046-2,055.

PubMed ID: 20351596
 
Study Design:
Randomized Controlled Trial
Class:
A - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Positive POSITIVE: See Quality Criteria Checklist below.
Research Purpose:

To determine the effects of training with low muscle glycogen on exercise performance, substrate metabolism and skeletal muscle adaptation.

Inclusion Criteria:
  • Endurance-trained male cyclists
  • No high-intensity interval training in the four weeks before the investigation.
Exclusion Criteria:

None mentioned.

Description of Study Protocol:
Design

Randomized controlled trial (high-glycogen or low-glycogen training) with subjects pair-matched for:

  • VO2max
  • Wmax
  • Time trial performance
  • Training history.
Intervention
  • Three-phase design with baseline measures, a three-week training intervention and post-training measures
  • Training consisted of nine aerobic training (AT) and nine HIT sessions spread over three weeks under the supervision of researchers. AT performed on electromagnetically braked cycle ergometers and consisted of 90-minute continuous cycling at approximately 70% VO2max. HIT on the subject's bike was attached to stationary trainer, fitted with power-measuring SRM cranks and consisted of a 20-minute warm-up followed by eight five-minute all-out efforts with one minute of recovery. 
  • High-glycogen subjects trained once daily, alternating between AT on Day One and HIT the following day, with AT first and HIT one hour later
  • Low-glycogen trained twice every second day, with AT first and HIT one hour later
  • All training sessions were performed in the morning after an overnight fast. Subjects continued to fast until the entire training session was completed. Water was allowed. The nutritional status of subjects was controlled for 24 hours before the experimental measures (muscle biopsy, 60-minute steady state cycle test and time trial) with 67.5% CHO, 13.5% protein and 19% fat. Subjects were asked to maintain high CHO during the three-week training intervention.

Statistical Analysis

All data were analyzed using a two-factor ANOVA, with one between-subject factor (high vs. low group) and one within-subject factor (pre-training vs. post-training time). The level of significance was set at P<.05 and significant interactions followed up with Tukey honestly significant difference post-hoc test. 

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

  • Preliminary testing: 
    • Incremental exercise test to exhaustion to determine VO2max and maximum power output (Wmax)
    • Three to five days later, subjects had a 60-minute rest and 60 minutes cycling at 70% VO2max with acetate infusion; acetate was then stopped and subjects performed a 60-minute time trial.
  • Baseline and post-training measures (each time with identical measures):
    • Muscle biopsy (approximately 80mg) from vastus lateralis using percutaneous needle biopsy technique modified for use with suction; on the morning of an overnight fast and 48 hours after the last exercise bout
    • A 60-minute steady state cycle test [more than 48 hours post-muscle biopsy, overnight fast, 60 minutes at 70% VO2max with stable isotope infusion and repeated blood sampling occurred by antecubital vein catheter using a glucose (priming dose and continuous rate) and palmitate infusion (continuous rate)]
    • Blood samples and expired breath samples were collected at baseline, end of the resting period and at 15-minute intervals during exercise
    • Time trial: Subjects completed a set amount of work in a cadence-dependent (linear) mode as fast as possible immediately following steady-state cycling.

Dependent Variables

  • Self-selected training intensity
  • Time trial performance
  • VO2
  • RER
  • A 13C:12C ratio via expired breath samples
  • Whole-body substract metabolism using stoichiometric equations
  • Plasma glucose via blood samples
  • Plasma palmitate kinetics (FFA extracted from plasma, isolated and derived to their methyl esters)
  • Relative contribution of fat:energy ratio expenditure during exercise
  • Relative contribution of muscle glycogen:energy ratio expenditure during exercise
  • Muscle glycogen oxidation
  • Muscle glycogen content via muscle biopsy
  • Protein content:
    • COX2, COX5
    • FAT/CD36, beta-HAD
    • GLUT4.

Independent Variables

Training (high-glycogen training vs. low-glycogen training).

Control Variables

  • Nutritional status of subjects was controlled for 24 hours before the experimental measures by giving subjects a standard diet consisting of 67.5% CHO (8g per kg-1 body mass), 13.5% protein and 19% fat
  • Throughout the three-week training intervention, subjects were asked to maintain a high CHO diet and were given detailed instructions on how to achieve this. 
Description of Actual Data Sample:
  • Initial N: 14
  • Attrition (final N): 14.

Age

  • High-glycogen: 31±6 years
  • Low-glycogen: 30±6 years.

Other Relevant Demographics

  • Length of training:
    • High-glycogen: 6.4±2.7 years
    • Low-glycogen: 7.6±3.0 years.
  • Training volume:
    • High-glycogen: 334±70km per week
    • Low-glycogen: 321±78km per week.
  • VO2max:
    • High-glycogen: 4.93±0.38L per minute
    • Low-glycogen: 4.94±0.34L per minute.
  • Wmax:
    • High-glycogen: 372±27W
    • Low-glycogen: 381±28W.

Anthropometrics

  • No significant differences between groups
  • Height:
    • High-glycogen: 176±5cm
    • Low-glycogen: 178±6cm.
  • Body mass:
    • High-glycogen: 75.7±6.9kg
    • Low-glycogen: 75.4±9.4kg.

Location

United Kingdom.

Summary of Results:

 Key Findings

  • Self-selected training intensity was higher in the high-glycogen training group [323±9 (87%±2% of Wmax)] compared to the low-glycogen training group [297±8 (78%±2% of Wmax)]; P<0.05
  • Time trial performance (mean power output, W) improved in the high-glycogen training group (271±13 to 298±13) and low-glycogen training group (278±11 to 307±10);  P<0.001 main effect for time
  • Time trial performance (time to complete task in minutes) improved in the high-glycogen (62.10±1.49 minutes to 56.37±1.17 minutes) and low-glycogen (61.90±1.12 minutes to 56.12±1.22 minutes) training groups; P<0.001 main effect for time
  • CHO oxidation decreased (P<0.01) in the low-glycogen training group only (220±8mmol to 194±10mmol per kg per minute)
  • Fat oxidation increased (P<0.01) in the low-glycogen training group only (26±2mmol to 34±2mmol per kg per minute)
  • The ratio of fat:energy expenditure was unaffected in the high-glycogen group but increased in the low-glycogen training group (32%±2% to 40%±2%); P<0.05
  • Muscle glycogen content increased 18% and 36% after training for high-glycogen and low-glycogen training groups, respectively (P<0.001). There was no difference between groups.
  • HIT power output increased throughout the training period (main effect time, P<0.0001)
  • VO2max was unaffected by training
  • RER was unaffected by training in high-glycogen group but decreased after training in low-glycogen group (P<0.001)
  • Plasma glucose and palmitate kinetics were unaffected by high-glycogen but decreased after training in low-glycogen group (P<0.05)
  • Estimated rates of plasma FFA oxidation were unaffected by training
  • Oxidation of muscle-derived TG increased after training in the low group only (20%±1% to 28%±2%; P<0.05), which derived the fat:energy expenditure increase in the low-glycogen group
  • The ratio of muscle glycogen:energy expenditure during exercise was unaffected by training in high-glycogen but decreased (from 57%±2% to 50%±2%) after training in low-glycogen; P<0.05
  • COX2 and COX5 protein content was unaffected by training; FAT/CD36 increased after training (P<0.05) and tended to be more pronounced after training in low-glycogen than in high-glycogen (41.4% vs. 11.5%, P>0.05). Beta-HAD increased by 43% after training in low-glycogen but decreased by 20% after training in high-glycogen (P<0.01); GLUT4 tended not to increase as much in the low-glycogen group (low at 7.1%±8.4%, high at 20.6%±9.7%).

 

Author Conclusion:

Training with low-muscle glycogen reduced training intensity and, in performance, was no more effective than training with high-muscle glycogen. Whole-body fat oxidation during a moderate-intensity exercise was increased after training with low muscle glycogen. The enhanced metabolic adaptations in skeletal muscle may account for the increase in whole-body fat oxidation.

Funding Source:
Industry:
GlaxoSmithKline, Nutritional Healthcare, R&D
Pharmaceutical/Dietary Supplement Company:
Reviewer Comments:
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? Yes
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? Yes
3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) Yes
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? Yes
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) Yes
  3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? N/A
  3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) N/A
  3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? Yes
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? Yes
  4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) Yes
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? Yes
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? N/A
  4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? Yes
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? Yes
  5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) Yes
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? N/A
  5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
  5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? Yes
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? Yes
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? N/A
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? Yes
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? Yes
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? N/A
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? N/A
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? N/A
  6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? Yes
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? Yes
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
  8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? N/A
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? Yes
  8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? No
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? N/A
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? N/A
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes