High carbohydrate intakes are commonly recommended for athletes of various sports, including strength trainees, to optimize performance. However, the effect of carbohydrate intake on strength training performance has not been systematically analyzed. A systematic literature search was conducted for trials that manipulated carbohydrate intake, including supplements, and measured strength, resistance training or power either acutely or after a diet and strength training program. Studies were categorized as either (1) acute supplementation, (2) exercise-induced glycogen depletion with subsequent carbohydrate manipulation, (3) short-term (2–7 days) carbohydrate manipulation or (4) changes in performance after longer-term diet manipulation and strength training. Forty-nine studies were included: 19 acute, six glycogen depletion, seven short-term and 17 long-term studies. Participants were strength trainees or athletes (39 studies), recreationally active (six studies) or untrained (four studies). Acutely, higher carbohydrate intake did not improve performance in 13 studies and enhanced performance in six studies, primarily in those with fasted control groups and workouts with over 10 sets per muscle group. One study found that a carbohydrate meal improved performance compared to water but not in comparison to a sensory-matched placebo breakfast. There was no evidence of a dose-response effect. After glycogen depletion, carbohydrate supplementation improved performance in three studies compared to placebo, in particular during bi-daily workouts, but not in research with isocaloric controls. None of the seven short-term studies found beneficial effects of carbohydrate manipulation. Longer-term changes in performance were not influenced by carbohydrate intake in 15 studies; one study favored the higher- and one the lower-carbohydrate condition. Carbohydrate intake per se is unlikely to strength training performance in a fed state in workouts consisting of up to 10 sets per muscle group. Performance during higher volumes may benefit from carbohydrates, but more studies with isocaloric control groups, sensory-matched placebos and locally measured glycogen depletion are needed.

Citrulline malate (CitMal) is a dietary supplement that is suggested to enhance strength training performance. However, there is conflicting evidence on this matter. Thus, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine whether supplementing with CitMal prior to strength training could increase the total number of repetitions performed before reaching voluntary muscular failure. A systematic search was conducted wherein the inclusion criteria were double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in healthy participants that examined the effect of CitMal on repetitions to failure during upper body and lower body resistance exercises. The Hedges’s g standardized mean differences (SMD) between the placebo and CitMal trials were calculated and used in a random effect model. Two separate subanalyses were performed for upper body and lower body exercises. Eight studies, including 137 participants who consisted of strength-trained men (n = 101) and women (n = 26) in addition to untrained men (n = 9), fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Across the studies, 14 single-joint and multijoint exercises were performed with an average of 51 ± 23 total repetitions during 5 ± 3 sets per exercise at ∼70% of one-repetition maximum. Supplementing with 6–8 g of CitMal 40–60 min before exercise increased repetitions by 3 ± 5 (6.4 ± 7.9%) compared with placebo (p = .022) with a small SMD (0.196). The subanalysis for the lower body resulted in a tendency for an effect of the supplement (8.1 ± 8.4%, SMD: 0.27, p = .051) with no significant effect for the upper body (5.7 ± 8.4%, SMD: 0.16, p = .131). The current analysis observed a small ergogenic effect of CitMal compared with placebo. Acute CitMal supplementation may, therefore, delay fatigue and enhance muscle endurance during high-intensity strength training.

Short-term energy deficit strategies are practiced by weight class and physique athletes, often involving high protein intakes to maximize satiety and maintain lean mass despite a paucity of research. This study compared the satiating effect of two protein diets on resistance-trained individuals during short-term energy deficit. Following ethical approval, 16 participants (age: 28 ± 2 years; height: 1.72 ± 0.03 m; body-mass: 88.83 ± 5.54 kg; body-fat: 21.85 ± 1.82%) were randomly assigned to 7-days moderate (PRO_MOD: 1.8 g·kg⁻¹·d⁻¹) or high protein (PRO_HIGH: 2.9 g·kg⁻¹·d⁻¹) matched calorie-deficit diets in a cross-over design. Daily satiety responses were recorded throughout interventions. Pre-post diet, plasma ghrelin and peptide tyrosine tyrosine (PYY), and satiety ratings were assessed in response to a protein-rich meal. Only perceived satisfaction was significantly greater following PRO_HIGH (67.29 ± 4.28 v 58.96 ± 4.51 mm, p = 0.04). Perceived cravings increased following PRO_MOD only (46.25 ± 4.96 to 57.60 ± 4.41 mm, p = 0.01). Absolute ghrelin concentration significantly reduced post-meal following PRO_MOD (972.8 ± 130.4 to 613.6 ± 114.3 pg·mL⁻¹; p = 0.003), remaining lower than PRO_HIGH at 2 h (−0.40 ± 0.06 v −0.26 ± 0.06 pg·mL⁻¹ normalized relative change; p = 0.015). Absolute PYY concentration increased to a similar extent post-meal (PRO_MOD: 84.9 ± 8.9 to 147.1 ± 11.9 pg·mL⁻¹, PRO_HIGH: 100.6 ± 9.5 to 143.3 ± 12.0 pg·mL⁻¹; p < 0.001), but expressed as relative change difference was significantly greater for PRO_MOD at 2 h (+0.39 ± 0.20 pg·mL⁻¹ v −0.28 ± 0.12 pg·mL⁻¹; p = 0.001). Perceived hunger, fullness and satisfaction post-meal were comparable between diets (p > 0.05). However, desire to eat remained significantly blunted for PRO_MOD (p = 0.048). PRO_HIGH does not confer additional satiating benefits in resistance-trained individuals during short-term energy deficit. Ghrelin and PYY responses to a test-meal support the contention that satiety was maintained following PRO_MOD, although athletes experiencing negative symptoms (i.e., cravings) may benefit from protein-rich meals as opposed to over-consumption of protein.

The authors wish to make a correction to the published version of their paper

Background/Objectives: Higher energy and carbohydrate intakes have been hypothesized to enhance resistance training adaptations, yet empirical evidence remains mixed. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether supplemental carbohydrate–energy intake improves muscle hypertrophy and strength. Methods: Twenty resistance-trained men (26.7 ± 4.9 years old, 9.7 ± 6.1 years training experience) completed a quasi-randomized, double-blinded, counterbalanced crossover trial. Participants consumed either a daily protein-only supplement (30 g protein, 4 g carbohydrate) or a daily protein-plus-carbohydrate supplement (30 g protein, 54 g carbohydrate) for 8 weeks each, followed by crossover, while continuing their habitual training and nutrition. Primary outcomes included lean mass obtained using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, muscle thickness and cross-sectional area obtained via ultrasound, back squat one-repetition maximum, fatigue index, and knee extensor peak torque. Differences in estimated marginal means, controlling for order and phase effects, were analyzed via linear mixed models, with first-phase-only ANCOVAs as sensitivity analyses. Results: The carbohydrate–protein condition resulted in significantly higher daily energy (+485 kcal/d; p = 0.017) and carbohydrate intake (+33 g/d; p = 0.043) than the protein-only condition, with no differences in protein or fat intake or training volume. No significant differences between conditions were observed for any outcome, including in the sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Modest supplemental carbohydrate–energy intake did not significantly augment muscle hypertrophy, fatigue resistance or strength in trained men within our study context. More high-powered research is needed to determine how much and under which circumstances carbohydrate–energy intake affects resistance training adaptations.