Overview

Technology and innovations in sport The present and the future How did science and technology contribute to British success? What are the main developments in sport and technology leading up to London 2012? What are the current (and future) hot topics in sport science and technology?

Asker Jeukendrup
Professor of Exercise Metabolism Di Director t of f the th Human H Performance P f Lab L b Exercise Metabolism Research Group School of sport and Exercise Sciences University of Birmingham

Inventions that have made a difference
Graham Obree Swimsuits

World Class Performance Plan

Most of the funding is directed to athletes and sports
z z z z z

Provide World Class Services to Athletes Training Camps Other support pp coaching, coach education Athlete support

Dick Fosbury Clap scate

Some funding is directed towards research

5 British medals in Athens were won with a total margin of 0.545 seconds

UK Athletics
Sport Archery Athletics Badminton Basketball Boxing Canoeing Cycling Diving Equestrian Fencing Gymnastics Handball Hockey Judo Modern Pentathlon Rowing Sailing Shooting Swimming Synchronised Swimming Table Tennis Taekwondo Triathlon Volleyball Water Polo Weightlifting Wrestling Total

Investment
Sydney Olympiad* n/a £10,600,000 n/a** n/a n/a** £4,500,000 £5,400,000 £900,000 £3,000,000 n/a £5,900,000 n/a n/a** £3,900,000 £1,100,000 £9,600,000 £5,100,000 n/a £6,900,000 n/a n/a** £600,000 £1,400,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a £58,900,000 athens olympiad* £800,000 £11,400,000 n/a** n/a n/a** £4,700,000 £8,600,000 £1,400,000 £4,400,000 n/a £4,100,000 n/a n/a** £4,100,000 £2,000,000 £10,600,000 £7,600,000 £1,400,000 £6,400,000 n/a n/a** £600,000 £2,600,000 n/a n/a £300,000 n/a £70,000,000 beijing olympiad^ £2,834,000 £26,513,000 £8,759,000 £3,694,000 £5,005,000 £13,622,000 £22,151,000 £5,873,000 £11,727,000 £3,074,000 £9,036,000 £2,986,000 £9,882,000 £6,947,000 £5,920,000 £26,042,000 £22,292,000 £5,056,000 £20,659,000 £1,648,000 £2,533,000 £2,667,000 £5,113,000 £4,112,000 £3,147,000 £1,686,000 £2,125,000 £ 235,103,000

Research vs. service provision UK Athletics view:
z z z z

Some of the top academics live in the country Th just They j t cant t commit it themselves th l to t sport t Buy out academic’s time Case reports: coach, athlete, physio, medic, nutritionist, psychologist, biomechanist...

1

05) 2 .4 * * * * * * Glucose infusion Glucose infusion * 1. 16:461-465. 2004 Plasma glucose (mmol/L) 14.0 4.0 25% 50% 75% Rd glucose (g/min) 1. MSSE 27:200-210.open to any sports enthusiast with creative ideas Commissioned research 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Carter et al Pflugers Arch 446:211-9.8 0.6 2H-glucose infusion for measurement of Ra/Rd glucose * Significantly different from PLA ( P = 0. 1995 Anantaraman et al Int J Sports Med.0 2. 15:223-230. 2004 8 trained cyclists Randomised double blind Glucose or Saline infusion 6. 1997 Time (min) The effect of a non non-sweet carbohydrate on performance Carter et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36(12):2107-2111 Effect of glucose infusion during high intensity exercise Carter et al MSSE 36(9): 1543-1550.6 * * * * * * * Glucose infusion Saline infusion 0. * significant difference from PLA (P<0. N = 9). 2004 Effect of glucose infusion on 40 km time trial performance Carter et al.aimed at final year students Garage Innovators Award . 1995 el-Sayed et al J Sports Sci. MSSE 36(9):1543-50.8% Improvement Water 6. MSSE 36(9):1543-50.0 0.0 8. 1997 deliver performance solutions by building networks to encourage the generation of novel ideas and methods.0 6.2 1.2 0. 2003 Below et al.0 10. CHO-electrolyte 8 innovation partners Ideas 4 Innovation’ programme z z * Placebo New Researchers Award .011. Effect of glucose infusion on plasma glucose concentration and uptake Carter et al. (2004).4 0.0 0.0 Saline infusion Saline infusion 100% 25% 50% 75% 100% % of time trial completed % of time trial completed 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Time (min) Data are mean ± SEM.4% Maltodextrin 2.UK Sport Research UK Sport Research and Innovation team: z Effect of CHO feeding during cycling on ”40 km” time trial performance Jeukendrup et al Int J Sports Med 18(2): 125-129.0 12.

dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). and cingulate cortex by the contrasts A [Glucose > Control Glucose] and B [Maltodextrin > Control Maltodextrin].0 y = 26 x = -18 Frontal operculum / insula (Primary taste cortex) -Umami 2.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 2.5 Fructose Galactose Sucrose Maltose MD Starch B Activations in the insula/operculum.0 5.4 0.1 G>AS_G S>AS_S y=8 =8 2.2 0. MSSE 36(12): 2107-2111.0 6.3 z z 6.6 0. striatum.1 0. the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC).0 Glucose z=6 =6 Jeukendrup and Jentjens. Brain activity 0. * Indicates significant difference from PLA.5 1. 2000 A y = 38 1.0 -0.4 0.3 z z 6.3 0.3 2.0 2.0 -0.0 1.0 0.3 6.005 Taste receptor cells Taste Pathways 5 Primary Tastes 0. dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).4 0.0 -0. striatum.5% of the TT 56 * CHO 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Data are mean ± SEM (n = 9).0 z Orbitofrontal cortex Prefrontal Cortex Ventral Striatum Nucleus Accumbens Maltodextrin Control Cingulate Cortex Activations in the insula/operculum.1 -0.2 0. the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC).3 2. 2004 Brain activity 9 trained subjects Two 40 km TT’s z z CHO mouth-rinse PLA mouth-rinse Placebo Carbohydrate was a non-sweet maltodextrin Rinse Protocol: 5 sec rinse around mouth every 12.5 0. P < 0.CHO Mouth-rinse and 40 km TT Performance Carter et al.0 2.5 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Oxidation of ingested carbohydrate Exogenous carbohydrate Oxidation rate (g/min) 3.1 0.5 0. 3.5 2.5 z 6.5 2. and cingulate cortex by the contrasts A [Glucose > Control] and B [Sweetener > Control].3 0.0 3.0 5. Sports Med 29(6): 407-424.3 3.0 5.2 Brain activity =6 y=8 8 z= Nucleus of the solitary tract -Sweet -Sour Thalamus -Bitter -Salt S lt Glucose Control 2.0 Carbohydrate ingestion rate (g/min) 3 .

Sports Med 29(6): 407-424.20 GLU 1.8 1. 2008 2h at 60%VO2max followed by a 1h time trial (~40 km) 2.74 MBq 0. 2000 Absorption of fructose glucose SGLT1 glucose glucose Na+ ATP ADP K+ Liver galactose Na+ GLUT2 galactose Gastro intestinal Gastro-intestinal tract glucose Blood Na+ Na+ K+ fructose fructose GLUT5 Muscle CO2 1.8 MD GLU GLU GLU GLU 1.4 SUC 2.0 g/min Methods (1) Jentjens et al.2 g/min 0.8 Br J Nutr 1.8 1.2 0.Glucose turnover during exercise Jeukendrup and Jentjens.70 GLU 1.4 FRUC 56:07 FRUC Glucose+Fructose 7. 2004 Peak oxidation Rates in g/min Med-GLU MedHighHigh -GLU GLU+FRU 0.8 1.75 Glucose 9.2 1.0 2.74 MBq 0.80 0. 2004 Performance with glucose+fructose versus glucose Currell and Jeukendrup.8 g/min) Glucose (1.6 Jentjens et al.4 0.2 g/min) High-Glu (1.83 1. J Appl Physiol 96: 1277-1284.6 g/min water Glucose Glucose Glucose 1. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37(3): 426–432.80 0. 2004 Jentjens et al.2 Jentjens et al.2 High glucose Glucose + Fructose 120 mg 0. 2004 Exogenous CHO oxidation with glucose+fructose Medium glucose 1.6% 60. 2005 2. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40(2): 275–281.0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Time (min) Jentjens et al.8 0.25 0.2 1. 2004 2.26 Peak oxidation rate (g/min) Exogenous CHO oxidation with different CHO mixtures Jentjens et al.50 0.6 0.83 1.8.4 0.0 Jentjens and Jeukendrup. J Appl Physiol 96: 1277-1284.4 Wallis et al.0 0.6 FRUC FRUC SUC 1.1% 67:00 Placebo 200 220 240 260 280 300 Power (W) 4 .6 g/min) Fructose + glucose NaCl Fructose Glucose 0. 93(4):485-92 1.4 1.6 0.74 MBq [U-13C]-fructose [U-14C]-glucose g/min Med-Glu (1.41 GLU 1. 2005 1.4 1. 54: 610-618.4 SUC 2. J Appl Physiol 96: 11285-1291.0 0. Metabolism.2 1.26 1. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 1551-1558. 2005 2. J Appl Physiol 96: 1277-1284.2 g/min) Fructose (0.

P < 0.05.Research up till few years ago Training Training Gene transcription and translation training DNA RNA Protein Signal Stretch Ca2+ AMPK Etc. 2005 Muscle glycogen Glycogen (mmol/kg) Pre Halfway Post Hansen et al J Appl Physiol 98(1):93-9. 2005 Day 1 Left leg Low Exercise Rest Fasted Exercise Right leg High Exercise Rest Fasted Day 2 Left leg Low Right leg High Exercise 10 wks Live high train low Train low – compete high Changes in resting CS and HAD concentrations μmol/g/min Hansen et al J Appl Physiol 98(1):93-9.05 Citrate synthase 3-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase 5 . * Difference between Low and High. * * * difference from pre-training level. Nucleus Cytoplasm AAA AAA Transcription Protein Function Cap Translation Cap mRNA Transport Protein stability Increased CPT I Increased fat oxidation Chromatin structure RNA Processing New hypothesis Train low compete high Hansen et al J Appl Physiol 98(1):93-9. P < 0. 2005 * Change in resting muscle CS and HAD activity from pretraining to posttraining (10 weeks).

3 69 ± 8 22 ± 5 25 ± 7 114 ± 14* Recovery Improving training adaptations Improving fluid and carbohydrate delivery Improving immune function Reducing risk of overreaching/overtraining Alternative fuels Weight loss strategies ( decrease fat mass without decreasing muscle mass) Thank you! 6 .6 ± 1.7 5.7 ± 2.Performance The future of sports nutrition Pretraining Low Pmax.4* 11.2 19.9 ± 1. kJ High Posttraining Low High 74 ± 7 77 ± 6 107 ± 7* 106 ± 6 5. min Total work.0 ± 0. W Texh.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful