4 5.5 ± 0.6 5.3 ± 0.4 5.3 ± 0.6 NA NA NA 75% 1.2 ± 0.3 1.2 ± 0.4 1.3 ±

0.2 5.2 ± 0.7 5.4 ± 0.4 5.5 ± 0.7 NA NA NA 100% 1.3 ± 0.5 1.3 ± 0.2 1.4 ± 0.5 5.5 ± 0.6 5.6 ± 0.4 5.7 ± 0.5 6.7 ± 1.8a 7.7 ± 1.8**, ab 7.5 ± 1.9***, b Asterixes (*, ** and ***) denote changes in concentrations that occur during the time-course of each particular subset of prolonged cycling (compared to baseline set to 0%). * = P < 0.017, ** = P < 0.003, *** = P < 0.0003. Letters (a and b) denote differences in concentrations that occur between subsets of prolonged cycling. N = 12 5-min mean-power test performance Mean power output during the 5-min mean-power test was not different between beverages; CHO 399 ± 42 W (5.4 ± 0.5 W·kg-1), PROCHO 390 Crenolanib price ± 31 W (5.3 ± 0.5 W·kg-1) and PF-2341066 NpPROCHO 399 ± 33 W (5.4 ± 0.3 W·kg-1) (P = 0.29, Figure 2). No differences were found in control parameters RPE and blood lactate between beverages as sampled directly after the 5-min mean-power test (data not shown). However, a negative correlation was found

between performance in the NpPROCHO 5-min mean-power test and athletic performance level measured as a performance factor, as developed in Table 1 (Pearson R = -0.74 with 95% confidence interval -0.92 to -0.29, P = 0.006, Figure 3), a correlation that was also found between NpPROCHO 5-min mean-power performance and each of BAY 73-4506 supplier the subcomponents of the performance factor (Wmax, Pearson R = -0.74, P = 0.006; VO2max, Pearson R = -0.67, P = 0.02 and 5-min mean-power-output from the familiarization test, Pearson R = -0.66, P = 0.02). No such correlation was found for the PROCHO beverage (Figure 3). The

NpPROCHO vs performance factor correlation showed a Pearson R2 of 0.54, suggesting that 54% of the observed difference in power output performance between CHO and NpPROCHO can be explained by differences in athletic performance level. Indeed, when the cyclists were divided into two equally sized groups based on their individually calculated performance factor (Table 1), ingestion of NpPROCHO resulted in improved power output-performance relative to ingestion of CHO in the lesser performing cyclists compared to the superior performing cyclists (-2.4% vs -1.9%, P < 0.05) (Figure 4). As for ingestion of PROCHO, no such effect was observed. Adding to this, in the lesser FAD trained athletes, ingestion of NpPROCHO had a positive effect on power output performance relative to CHO compared to ingestion of PROCHO (ES = 1.08). This classifies as a large ES and signifies that the mean of the performance of the NpPROCHO group lies at the 88 percentile of the PROCHO group. Figure 2 Mean power output during the 5-min mean-power test following 120-min submaximal cycling at 50% of maximal aerobic power with ingestion of either carbohydrate (CHO), protein + carbohydrate (PROCHO) or Nutripeptin™ + protein + carbohydrate (NpPROCHO). No differences were found between beverages. N = 12.