Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2010 Sep;5(3):412-6.
doi: 10.1123/ijspp.5.3.412.

Effects of a new evaporative cooling solution during rowing in a warm environment

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effects of a new evaporative cooling solution during rowing in a warm environment

Inigo Mujika et al. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2010 Sep.

Abstract

Energicer is a new solution which purportedly increases evaporative cooling during exercise in the heat.

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of Energicer on performance during indoor rowing in a warm environment.

Methods: Eighteen highly trained rowers (age 23.3 ± 6.7 y, height 181.3 ± 6.0 cm, mass 76.7 ± 5.0 kg, peak aerobic power (PAP) 322.1 ± 24.3 W; mean ± SD) performed two indoor rowing trials at 25.0 degrees Celsius and 65.0% relative humidity. Each trial consisted of 10 min at 55% PAP, 5 min of rest, 10 min at 70% PAP, 10 min of rest, and 2000 m time trial. Subjects were randomly assigned to an experimental (COOL) or a placebo (PLA) condition, using a double-blind, crossover design. During COOL, subjects wore sweatbands soaked in Energicer on both forearms; during PLA, they wore identical sweatbands soaked in cool water. Physiological measures and rowing performance were analyzed in a post-test-only crossover design. Magnitude of the difference between treatments was interpreted using the Cohen's effect statistic.

Results: No substantial differences were observed in heart rate, blood lactate and RPE between treatments during the submaximal row (COOL 163 ± 10 bpm, 4.3 ± 1.0 mM, 14.5 ± 1.8; PLA 165 ± 11 bpm, 4.8 ± 1.4 mM, 14.6 ± 1.6) and the time trial (COOL 179 ± 9 bpm, 10.7 ± 2.3 mM, 20 ± 0; PLA 179 ± 10 bpm, 11.1 ± 2.2 mM, 20 ± 0). Time (419 ± 11 vs 420 ± 12 s), mean power (305 ± 24 vs 304 ± 26 W), sweat loss (1013 ± 186 vs 981 ± 161 mL) and pacing strategy during the time trial were similar in COOL and PLA. The magnitude of differences between treatments was trivial for all measured variables.

Conclusion: Energicer failed to provide a substantial benefit during indoor rowing in a warm environment. Whether Energicer is beneficial during more prolonged exercise and/or under more stressful environmental conditions remains to be elucidated.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types