DESIGN: Randomised double-blind counterbalanced crossover.
METHODS: Eighteen recreationally active men (mean±SD; age: 24.7±4.8 years old; body-weight, BW: 67.1±6.1kg; height: 171.7±4.9cm) performed a cycling time-trial on an electromagnetically-braked cycle ergometer. Participants were instructed to complete the individualised total work in the shortest time possible, while ingesting either BCAAs (pre-exercise: 0.084gkg-1 BW; during exercise: 0.056gkg-1h-1) or a non-caloric placebo solution. Rating of perceived exertion, power, cadence and heart rate were recorded throughout, while maximal voluntary contraction, muscle voluntary activation level and electrically evoked torque using single and doublet stimulations were assessed at baseline, immediately post-exercise and 20-min post-exercise.
RESULTS: Supplementation with BCAA reduced (287.9±549.7s; p=0.04) time-to-completion and ratings of perceived exertion (p≤0.01), while concomitantly increasing heart rate (p=0.02). There were no between-group differences (BCAA vs placebo) in any of the neuromuscular parameters, but significant decreases (All p≤0.01) in maximal voluntary contraction, muscle voluntary activation level and electrically evoked torque (single and doublet stimulations) were recorded immediately following the trial, and these did not recover to pre-exercise values by the 20min recovery time-point.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to a non-caloric placebo, acute BCAA supplementation significantly improved performance in cycling time-trial among recreationally active individuals without any notable changes in either central or peripheral factors. This improved performance with acute BCAA supplementation was associated with a reduced rating of perceived exertion.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional validation study.
METHODS: We used data involving 3- and 4-year-olds from 13 middle- and high-income countries who participated in the SUNRISE study. We used Spearman's rank-order correlation, Bland-Altman plots, and Kappa statistics to validate parent-reported child habitual total physical activity against activPAL™-measured total physical activity over 3 days. Additionally, we used Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under the Curve analysis to validate existing step-count thresholds (Gabel, Vale, and De Craemer) using step-counts derived from activPAL™.
RESULTS: Of the 352 pre-schoolers, 49.1 % were girls. There was a very weak but significant positive correlation and slight agreement between parent-reported total physical activity and accelerometer-measured total physical activity (r: 0.140; p = 0.009; Kappa: 0.030). Parents overestimated their child's total physical activity compared to accelerometry (mean bias: 69 min/day; standard deviation: 126; 95 % limits of agreement: -179, 316). Of the three step-count thresholds tested, the De Craemer threshold of 11,500 steps/day provided excellent classification of meeting the total physical activity guideline as measured by accelerometry (area under the ROC curve: 0.945; 95 % confidence interval: 0.928, 0.961; sensitivity: 100.0 %; specificity: 88.9 %).
CONCLUSIONS: Parent reports may have limited validity for assessing pre-schoolers' level of total physical activity. Step-counting is a promising alternative - low-cost global surveillance initiatives could potentially use pedometers for assessing compliance with the physical activity guideline in early childhood.