↓ Skip to main content

Effect of sodium bicarbonate on prolonged running performance: A randomized, double-blind, cross-over study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
31 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
182 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of sodium bicarbonate on prolonged running performance: A randomized, double-blind, cross-over study
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0182158
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanja Freis, Anne Hecksteden, Ulf Such, Tim Meyer

Abstract

The ability to sustain intense exercise seems to be partially limited by the body's capability to counteract decreases in both intra- and extracellular pH. While the influence of an enhanced buffering capacity via sodium bicarbonate (BICA) on short-term, high-intensity exercise performance has been repeatedly investigated, studies on prolonged endurance performances are comparatively rare, especially for running. The aim of the following study was to assess the ergogenic effects of an oral BICA substitution upon exhaustive intensive endurance running performance. In a double-blind randomized cross-over study, 18 trained runners (VO2peak: 61.2 ± 6.4 ml•min-1•kg-1) performed two exhaustive graded exercise tests and two constant load tests (30 main at 95% individual anaerobic threshold (IAT) followed by 110% IAT until exhaustion) after ingestion of either sodium bicarbonate (BICA) (0.3 g/kg) or placebo (4 g NaCl) diluted in 700 ml of water. Time to exhaustion (TTE) in the constant load test was defined as the main outcome measure. Throughout each test respiratory gas exchange measurements were conducted as well as determinations of heart rate, blood gases and blood lactate concentration. TTE in the constant load test did not differ significantly between BICA and placebo conditions (BICA: 39.6 ± 5.6 min, placebo: 39.3 ± 5.6 min; p = 0.78). While pH in the placebo test dropped to a slightly acidotic value two minutes after cessation of exercise (7.34 ± 0.05) the value in the BICA trial remained within the normal range (7.41 ± 0.06) (p < 0.001). In contrast, maximum running speed (Vmax) in the exhaustive graded exercise test was significantly higher with BICA (17.4 ± 1.0 km/h) compared to placebo (17.1 ± 1.0 km/h) (p = 0.009). The numerical difference in maximum oxygen consumption (VO2peak) failed to reach statistical significance (BICA: 61.2 ± 6.4 ml•min-1•kg-1, placebo: 59.8 ± 6.4 ml•min-1•kg-1; p = 0.31). Maximum blood lactate was significantly higher with BICA compared to the corresponding placebo test (BICA: 11.1 ± 2.3 mmol/l, placebo: 8.9 ± 3.0 mmol/l; p < 0.001). At the end of exercise, an acidotic pH value was found in both exhaustive graded exercise tests (p = 0.002). BICA caused gastrointestinal side effects in 15 patients. Maximal performance was enhanced significantly after BICA administration. The ergogenic effect of BICA in the exhaustive graded exercise test can most likely be attributed to an increased anaerobic glycolysis that is reflected by an accumulation of lactate. However, TTE in prolonged high-intensity running was not improved. Even at the end of exercise no severe metabolic acidosis was found. Metabolic acidification as one of the dominant factors causing muscular fatigue should therefore be reconsidered. German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) DRKS00011284.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 182 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 37 20%
Student > Master 28 15%
Researcher 11 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 5%
Student > Postgraduate 8 4%
Other 25 14%
Unknown 63 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 43 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 66 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2021.
All research outputs
#714,507
of 24,766,831 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#9,654
of 214,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,207
of 322,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#208
of 4,141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,766,831 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 214,356 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,646 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.