A double-blind trial finds sodium bicarbonate affects GI symptoms but not performance in elite rugby players.
Background: Sodium bicarbonate (SB) supplementation can enhance performance in short, high-intensity movements. However, its effectiveness in team sports such as rugby remains insufficiently explored. Methods: In this double-blind, parallel, controlled trial, 17 male professional rugby players ingested SB (0.3 g/kg) or a placebo 90 min before a high-intensity, rugby-specific training session monitored via GPS. The training session was conducted under real-world conditions to enhance ecological validity. Physical performance (countermovement jump, CMJ), fatigue markers (capillary lactate and ratings of perceived exertion, RPE), and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms were assessed pre- and post-exercise. Results: No significant pre–post changes were observed in CMJ performance in either group. Lactate concentrations increased from pre- to post-exercise in both groups (both p < 0.001). The SB group showed higher GI symptom severity before, during and after exercise versus placebo, with several symptoms increasing over time solely in the SB group (p < 0.05). RPE increased similarly in both groups (SB: p = 0.012; PLA: p = 0.008). Due to the small sample size, only moderate-to-large within-group effects and very large between-group differences could be detected; therefore, the study was powered to detect moderate-to-large within-group effects but underpowered for detecting between-group differences. Conclusions: Acute SB ingestion at 0.3 g/kg did not result in detectable improvements in performance or fatigue markers during rugby-specific high-intensity training and was associated with a greater incidence of GI discomfort; however, the study was underpowered to detect small between-group differences. This study was registered on 23 May 2025 on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07017582).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Couce et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: