Lewis James

Dr. Lewis James


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

15Years (2012-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
22 August 2018 in Nutrients
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JDJames Dorling
James Dorling
DBDavid Broom
David Broom
Stephen Francis BurnsStephen Francis Burns
Stephen Francis Burns
DCDavid Clayton
David Clayton
KDKevin Deighton
Kevin Deighton
DSDavid Stensel
David Stensel
Exercise facilitates weight control, partly through effects on appetite regulation. Single bouts of exercise induce a short-term energy deficit without stimulating compensatory effects on appetite, whilst limited evidence suggests that exercise training may modify subjective and homeostatic mediators of appetite in directions associated with enhanced meal-induced satiety. However, a large variability in responses exists between individuals. This article reviews the evidence relating to how adiposity, sex, and habitual physical activity modulate exercise-induced appetite, energy intake, and appetite-related hormone responses. The balance of evidence suggests that adiposity and sex do not modify appetite or energy intake responses to acute or chronic exercise interventions, but individuals with higher habitual physical activity levels may better adjust energy intake in response to energy balance perturbations. The effect of these individual characteristics and behaviours on appetite-related hormone responses to exercise remains equivocal. These findings support the continued promotion of exercise as a strategy for inducing short-term energy deficits irrespective of adiposity and sex, as well as the ability of exercise to positively influence energy balance over the longer term. Future well-controlled studies are required to further ascertain the potential mediators of appetite responses to exercise.

6 November 2019 in Sports Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LJLewis James
Lewis James
MFMark P. Funnell
Mark P. Funnell
RJRuth M. James
Ruth M. James
SMStephen A. Mears
Stephen A. Mears
The impact of alterations in hydration status on human physiology and performance responses during exercise is one of the oldest research topics in sport and exercise nutrition. This body of work has mainly focussed on the impact of reduced body water stores (i.e. hypohydration) on these outcomes, on the whole demonstrating that hypohydration impairs endurance performance, likely via detrimental effects on a number of physiological functions. However, an important consideration, that has received little attention, is the methods that have traditionally been used to investigate how hypohydration affects exercise outcomes, as those used may confound the results of many studies. There are two main methodological limitations in much of the published literature that perhaps make the results of studies investigating performance outcomes difficult to interpret. First, subjects involved in studies are generally not blinded to the intervention taking place (i.e. they know what their hydration status is), which may introduce expectancy effects. Second, most of the methods used to induce hypohydration are both uncomfortable and unfamiliar to the subjects, meaning that alterations in performance may be caused by this discomfort, rather than hypohydration per se. This review discusses these methodological considerations and provides an overview of the small body of recent work that has attempted to correct some of these methodological issues. On balance, these recent blinded hydration studies suggest hypohydration equivalent to 2–3% body mass decreases endurance cycling performance in the heat, at least when no/little fluid is ingested.

22 June 2017 in Physiological Reports
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LJLewis James
Lewis James
JMJodie Moss
Jodie Moss
JHJoshua Henry
Joshua Henry
CPCharikleia Papadopoulou
Charikleia Papadopoulou
SMStephen Mears
Stephen Mears
The general scientific consensus is that starting exercise with hypohydration >2% body mass impairs endurance performance/capacity, but most previous studies might be confounded by a lack of subject blinding. This study examined the effect of hypohydration in a single blind manner using combined oral and intragastric rehydration to manipulate hydration status. After familiarization, seven active males (mean ± SD: age 25 ± 2 years, height 1.79 ± 0.07, body mass 78.6 ± 6.2, VO2peak 48 ± 7 mL·kg·min−1) completed two randomized trials at 34°C. Trials involved an intermittent exercise preload (8 × 15 min exercise/5 min rest), followed by a 15‐min all‐out performance test on a cycle ergometer. During the preload, water was ingested orally every 10 min (0.2 mL·kg body mass−1). Additional water was infused into the stomach via a gastric feeding tube to replace sweat loss (EU) or induce hypohydration of ~2.5% body mass (HYP). Blood samples were drawn and thirst sensation rated before, during, and after exercise. Body mass loss during the preload was greater (2.4 ± 0.2% vs. 0.1 ± 0.1%; P < 0.001), while work completed during the performance test was lower (152 ± 24 kJ vs. 165 ± 22 kJ; P < 0.05) during HYP. At the end of the preload, heart rate, RPE, serum osmolality, and thirst were greater and plasma volume lower during HYP (P < 0.05). These results provide novel data demonstrating that exercise performance in the heat is impaired by hypohydration, even when subjects are blinded to the intervention.

1 April 2019 in Journal of Applied Physiology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MFMark P. Funnell
Mark P. Funnell
SMStephen Mears
Stephen Mears
KBKurt Bergin-Taylor
Kurt Bergin-Taylor
LJLewis James
Lewis James
Knowledge of hydration status may contribute to hypohydration-induced exercise performance decrements; therefore, this study compared blinded and unblinded hypohydration on cycling performance. Fourteen trained, nonheat-acclimated cyclists (age: 25 ± 5 yr; V̇o2peak: 63.3 ± 4.7 ml·kg−1·min−1; cycling experience: 6 ± 3 yr) were pair matched to blinded (B) or unblinded (UB) groups. After familiarization, subjects completed euhydrated (B-EUH; UB-EUH) and hypohydrated (B-HYP; UB-HYP) trials in the heat (31°C); 120-min cycling preload (50% Wpeak) and a time trial (~15 min). During the preload of all trials, 0.2 ml water·kg body mass−1 was ingested every 10 min, with additional water provided during EUH trials to match sweat losses. To blind the B group, a nasogastric tube was inserted in both trials and used to provide water in B-EUH. The preload induced similar ( P = 0.895) changes in body mass between groups (B-EUH: −0.6 ± 0.5%; B-HYP: −3.0 ± 0.5%; UB-EUH: −0.5 ± 0.3%; UB-HYP −3.0 ± 0.3%). All variables responded similarly between B and UB groups ( P ≥ 0.558), except thirst ( P = 0.004). Changes typical of hypohydration (increased heart rate, rating of perceived exertion, gastrointestinal temperature, serum osmolality and thirst, and decreased plasma volume; P ≤ 0.017) were apparent in HYP by 120 min. Time trial performance was similar between groups ( P = 0.710) and slower ( P ≤ 0.013) with HYP for B (B-EUH: 903 ± 89 s; B-HYP: 1,008 ± 121 s; −11.4%) and UB (UB-EUH: 874 ± 108 s; UB-HYP: 967 ± 170 s; −10.1%). Hypohydration of ~3% body mass impairs time trial performance in the heat, regardless of knowledge of hydration status. NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study demonstrates, for the first time, that knowledge of hydration status does not exacerbate the negative performance consequences of hypohydration when hypohydration is equivalent to ~3% body mass. This is pivotal for the interpretation of the many previous studies that have not blinded subjects to their hydration status and suggests that these previous studies are not likely to be confounded by the overtness of the methods used to induce hypohydration.

31 October 2018 in European Journal of Sport Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
LJLewis James
Lewis James
ESEmma J. Stevenson
Emma J. Stevenson
PRPenny Rumbold
Penny Rumbold
CHCarl J. Hulston
Carl J. Hulston
Post‐exercise recovery is a multi‐facetted process that will vary depending on the nature of the exercise, the time between exercise sessions and the goals of the exerciser. From a nutritional perspective, the main considerations are: (1) optimisation of muscle protein turnover; (2) glycogen resynthesis; (3) rehydration; (4) management of muscle soreness; (5) appropriate management of energy balance. Milk is approximately isotonic (osmolality of 280–290 mosmol/kg), and the mixture of high quality protein, carbohydrate, water and micronutrients (particularly sodium) make it uniquely suitable as a post‐exercise recovery drink in many exercise scenarios. Research has shown that ingestion of milk post‐exercise has the potential to beneficially impact both acute recovery and chronic training adaptation. Milk augments post‐exercise muscle protein synthesis and rehydration, can contribute to post‐exercise glycogen resynthesis, and attenuates post‐exercise muscle soreness/function losses. For these aspects of recovery, milk is at least comparable and often out performs most commercially available recovery drinks, but is available at a fraction of the cost, making it a cheap and easy option to facilitate post‐exercise recovery. Milk ingestion post‐exercise has also been shown to attenuate subsequent energy intake and may lead to more favourable body composition changes with exercise training. This means that those exercising for weight management purposes might be able to beneficially influence post‐exercise recovery, whilst maintaining the energy deficit created by exercise.

27 January 2021 in Nutrients
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
IRIan Rollo
Ian Rollo
RRRebecca Randell
Rebecca Randell
LBLindsay Baker
Lindsay Baker
JLJavier Yanguas Leyes
Javier Yanguas Leyes
DMDaniel Medina
Daniel Medina
JCJames M. Carter
James M. Carter
Hypohydration increases physiological strain and reduces physical and technical soccer performance, but there are limited data on how fluid balance responses change between different types of sessions in professional players. This study investigated sweat and fluid/carbohydrate intake responses in elite male professional soccer players training at low and high intensities in cool and hot environments. Fluid/sodium (Na+) losses and ad-libitum carbohydrate/fluid intake of fourteen elite male soccer players were measured on four occasions: cool (wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT): 15 ± 7 °C, 66 ± 6% relative humidity (RH)) low intensity (rating of perceived exertion (RPE) 2–4, m·min−1 40–46) (CL); cool high intensity (RPE 6–8, m·min−1 82–86) (CH); hot (29 ± 1 °C, 52 ± 7% RH) low intensity (HL); hot high intensity (HH). Exercise involved 65 ± 5 min of soccer-specific training. Before and after exercise, players were weighed in minimal clothing. During training, players had ad libitum access to carbohydrate beverages and water. Sweat [Na+] (mmol·L−1), which was measured by absorbent patches positioned on the thigh, was no different between conditions, CL: 35 ± 9, CH: 38 ± 8, HL: 34 ± 70.17, HH: 38 ± 8 (p = 0.475). Exercise intensity and environmental condition significantly influenced sweat rates (L·h−1), CL: 0.55 ± 0.20, CH: 0.98 ± 0.21, HL: 0.81 ± 0.17, HH: 1.43 ± 0.23 (p =0.001), and percentage dehydration (p < 0.001). Fluid intake was significantly associated with sweat rate (p = 0.019), with no players experiencing hypohydration > 2% of pre-exercise body mass. Carbohydrate intake varied between players (range 0–38 g·h−1), with no difference between conditions. These descriptive data gathered on elite professional players highlight the variation in the hydration status, sweat rate, sweat Na+ losses, and carbohydrate intake in response to training in cool and hot environments and at low and high exercise intensities.