Journal club Nitrate

General
1. Information about the author(s): Approx. 5 lines (Where is the group located? What is the
expertise of the group? How does this paper fit in their overall research interests? Tip: use
Google!)

2. What is the research question and what is the hypothesis that is tested in the paper?
the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of acute BRJ supplementation on power,
velocity, and repetitions completed during free-weight resistance exercise. Owing to previous reports
of increased neuromuscular efficiency and calcium sensitivity, we hypothesized that BRJ
supplementation would increase power output, velocity, and repetitions performed during free-
weight bench press exercise at 70% 1RM.

3. Is this research question and hypothesis clearly defined?

I am missing the dosage protocol frequency of BRJ in the research question. As it is only acute dosage
and not multiple day dosaging.

4. Is the chosen experimental setup (design) appropriate to answer the question? What other
choices would you have made? Explain.
The following investigation used a double-blinded, counterbalanced, crossover study design to
investigate the effects of acute BRJ ingestion on velocity, power, and bench press volume.  the cross
over design could be quite clever to see interpersonal differences on and off the supplement.

5. Is the work presented in the paper original (new, confirmatory, fails to advance
knowledge)? Explain.
They noted a few reasons why their research is novel.

 To date, all studies investigating BRJ and dynamic resistance exercise performance have used
multiple day dosage protocols leaving the effects of a 1-time acute dose on resistance
exercise performance unknown.
 Furthermore, no investigations have examined BRJ supplementation and free-weight exercise
performance at loads typically used to induce hypertrophy (21). Given that loads of 67–85%
of 1RM are recommended for hypertrophy and most athletes will use free weights to train
(12,22), knowledge of whether BRJ can enhance performance during these conditions is of
practical importance.
 Finally, no studies to date have investigated how BRJ influences power and velocity during
barbell movement.

6. Is the work clearly presented (well organized, clearly written, or obscure and vague)?
Explain.
Nothing stands out in my opinion

Title / abstract
7. Does the title of the paper cover the content of the paper? Is the title clear, concise and
informative? Explain.
I think it may miss some of outcomes in the title but I’m not sure if its necessary.

8. Is the abstract complete and does it attract your attention? Explain. Introduction.
I think it has the most important information. I’m not missing anything.
9. Is the introduction understandable and do you recognize a clear funnel shape in the
introduction? Comment on this.
 Information about BRJ, that it contains nitrate.
 Nitrate is metabolised into NO
 NO has different effects on the body: vasodilation, increased muscle blood flow, etc.
 Most research done in endurance exercise, no evidence found for its efficacy.
 Not much research done on strength based exercise. May have more effect here.
 Some research done in multiple day supplementing. Much less in acute dosing effects


10. Are the appropriate references being used (enough references, too many references)?
Comment on this.
34 references not a lot. But maybe enough.

Methods
11. Is the description of the experiment protocol clear? Is all information available for other
researchers to re-perform the study? Comment on this.
Supplementation procedure is quite simple and clear as it is only acute supplementation. Unclear
what is meant with: In addition, all subjects were asked to replicate their diet each day of the exercise
trials.

1 RM testing is clear.

Protocol is clear.

As far as I can tell all information is available for other researchers. The experiment is quite simple
and only encompasses a single test per experimental group.

12. Are the participants (and selection criteria) well described? What selection criteria have
been used and why do you think this is appropriate or not?
Resistance-trained men (n = 11), performing the barbell bench press at least once per week, were
recruited for this investigation.

Very small sample size and also quite big differences in height, body weight and bench press 1 rm.

13. What methods have been used? Are these methods valid and reliable? Comment on this.
A linear position transducer (GymAware, Kinetitech Performance Technology, Mitchell, Australia) was
attached to the barbell to measure power and velocity of movement. This device has been previously
validated for velocity and power measurements
14. What statistic tests are being used and what is your opinion on the statistics in this paper?
Are the tests used appropriate for this research? Comment on this.
 Power, velocity, and total repetitions were analyzed using paired-samples t-test.
 Cohen’s d effect sizes (ES) were calculated for all performance variables as BRJ minus PL
divided by the pooled SD.
 Set-to-set RTF performance was analyzed using a 2 3 3 [condition 3 set] repeated-measures
analysis of variance. Multiple comparisons were analyzed with a Bonferroni adjustment if
warranted.
 Significance was set at p # 0.05 a priori.

Results
15. Are the results clearly presented? Are the main results easily deducible? Comment on this.
Results section is short but clear. Although some of the statistics are unclear to me due to not having
enough knowledge about the methods.

16. How do you judge the completeness of the data given? Are also non-significant results
and negative outcomes displayed and clearly visible? Comment on this.
To me it seems all data was given from both experimental conditions as everything was compared.

17. How many figures and tables have been used and do the figures explain themselves?
Comment on this.
2 figures. They do explain themselves.

Discussion
18. Is there are short summary given about the research and is this appropriate? Explain.
Yes.

19. Is the interpretation consistent with results and earlier findings (references)? Explain.
Our results indicate that acute BRJ supplementation increased mean velocity and mean power output
during free-weight bench press. Furthermore, BRJ supplementation increases the total number of
repetitions completed across 3 sets to failure.  this is what the results show.

20. What are the limitations of this study (potential bias, unforeseen issues)? Are these well
described? Explain.
 Plasma NO2- was not quantified in the current study leaving the concentration needed to
accompany resistance exercise improvements unknown.
 only bench press performance at 70% 1RM was investigated. Thus, the effects of acute BRJ
supplementation on other free-weight exercises and different relative intensities need to be
explored.

21. What is the main outcome of this paper? Use your own words!
Acute BRJ supplementation increased power output and velocity on the bench press in previously
strength trained males.

22. What is your overall opinion of this paper? (Approximately 5-10 lines)