Science Says These 3 Foods May Help Athletes

Share it:
Science Says These 3 Foods May Help Athletes

For many athletes, knowing which foods aid performance and which don’t relies on trial and error. Peer-reviewed journals can be a great source of information, too. They provide top-tier, quality content backed by thorough investigation from researchers on numerous subject groups. The following foods received such examination and the results were published in top journals. Read on to learn more about each study and outcome, then decide for yourself whether or not it works for your training.

1. DARK CHOCOLATE

Background: The flavanols in dark chocolate can help boost nitric oxide production — this causes blood vessels to swell and reduces the amount of oxygen you need.

Question: Does dark chocolate consumption lower oxygen requirements and allow you to exercise longer?

The research: In a study published in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, a team of researchers at Kingston University reviewed this query. They had a group of nine amateur cyclists complete an initial fitness test to establish where their exercise levels were. The nine participants were split into two groups. The first group replaced one of their daily snacks with 40 grams of dark chocolate daily for two weeks. The second group did the same, but replaced the snack with white chocolate. During this period, researchers conducted cycling tests and tracked heart rates and oxygen consumption. After a seven-day break to remove all traces of chocolate from their bodies, the two groups switched the type of chocolate they ate for an additional two weeks and took the same cycling tests again.

Conclusion: Dark chocolate eaters used less oxygen when cycling at a moderate pace, and covered more distance in a two-minute time trial.

2. BEETROOT

Background: Eating nitrates has been linked to exercise improvement; roasted beets contain particularly high nitrates.

Question: Can the nitrates found in beets improve running performance?

The research: In a study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, researchers used 11 recreationally fit men and women in a double-blind trial to discover the answer. Participants ate baked beetroot and 75 minutes later ran a 5K treadmill time trial. In a separate test, they ate cranberry relish and 75 minutes later ran the same 5K time trial.

Answer: After eating beets, participants ran 5% faster and perceived exertion was lower than after eating cranberry relish.  

3. CHERRY JUICE

Background: Cherries are known for their anti-inflammatory properties.

Question: Can these anti-inflammatory properties translate into helping runners recover after a marathon?

The research: Published in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, researchers tested marathon runners to see if cherry juice works. Twenty recreational marathon runners were assigned to one of two groups: cherry juice drinkers or placebo drinkers. They consumed their drink for five days before a marathon, the day of the race and 48 hours after. Muscle damage, soreness and inflammation were examined before and after the race.

Conclusion: Those who drank cherry juice healed faster. Researchers found the juice reduced inflammation by increasing total antioxidative capacity — meaning, the antioxidants in the cherries helped clean the harmful free radicals in the cells and blood. In turn, strength recovered significantly faster.

Related Articles

  • Jeremiah Haremza

    Wondering how much cherry juice? the abstract to the article didn’t say.

  • Lytrigian

    My comment is lost in moderation, probably because I included a link. The link was to the John Ioannidis paper explaining why most published research is wrong.

    Come on. These studies do not tell us that “science” says anything at all. We have n=9, n=11, and n=20. These are the kinds of small pilot studies that almost always find what their researchers are looking for, with effect sizes that shrink into insignificance as the studies become larger and better-controlled. Hell, these aren’t even placebo controlled, let alone blinded. Yes, the cherry juice study claims to be placebo-controlled, but any dolt can tell the difference between artificial flavor and real juice.

    So no, “science” doesn’t say these three foods may help athletes. Science says nothing at all about how they affect athletic performance, at least not if these studies are the only information we have.

    • All right I got success to earn $98567.I read about this gig half-year past and a pair of months back I definitely checked out and I have obtained such a wonderful funds. It is supremely valuable for me personally and also my family members.My friends are skeptical to see how I settled my Lifestyle in very less time. Thank you very much GOD for it….You can as well take home that good number of money, if you have a computer system and internet connection in your home. Other technical skillfullness are not essensial to work on this work. I’m Loving it and all of you will surely like it and also you will not forgive yourself if you not at all take a look at the details >>>>>> B1Z.ORG/38u

    • Philip Holman

      Yes, at most I would say these studies have identified the need to perform a larger more controlled test. But to be fair, when subjecting the participants to both the study and the control, it is easy to blind the subjects simply by not disclosing the hypothesis. For example, in the case of dark or white chocolate, the subject isn’t informed which is the study and which is the control and neither is the test administrator.

  • fmrleftchick

    Cherry juice will make you run faster… to the bathroom!

  • Jonathan Owen

    Trouble is, these studies are so infinitesimally small as to be entirely inconclusive. As a scientist, I need thousands of participants to take part in much more robust studies to glean any meaningful data which must then be tested statistically to support/reject any hypothesis. The studies must then be repeatable and peer-reviewed before any degree of ‘certainty’ can be claimed.

    The Beetroot study involved just 11(!) subjects – you could repeat this study 100 times and get 100 different results. This is the problem with these reports – they have nothing whatsoever to do with science – and usually everything to do with marketing