Probiotics May Protect Sleep Quality After Hard Training
Researchers tested whether 30 days of probiotic supplementation (10 billion CFU each of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium lactis) could preserve sleep quality after a marathon in 27 male runners.
The placebo group experienced classic post-race sleep disruption: increased daytime sleepiness, longer time to fall asleep, reduced total sleep time, and worse overall sleep quality scores 24 hours after the race.
The probiotic group showed significantly better outcomes across all these measures compared to placebo.
The mechanism appears to involve gut barrier protection. LPS (a marker of “leaky gut”) dropped significantly in the probiotic group post-race but not in placebo , suggesting the supplement helped prevent bacterial endotoxins from entering circulation and triggering inflammation that disrupts sleep.
My Thoughts
This is genuinely interesting and one of the first studies connecting probiotics to post-race sleep preservation in runners.
The gut-brain axis mechanism makes sense: marathons hammer your intestinal barrier, LPS leaks through, inflammation spikes, and your sleep suffers that night.
What caught my attention is that the probiotic group didn’t show big differences in standard inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, TNF-α) versus placebo, rather the differentiation was specifically in LPS levels.
That suggests the benefit came from protecting gut integrity rather than broadly suppressing inflammation.
For runners who consistently struggle with terrible sleep the night after hard races or long runs, taking a probiotic like MAS Flush is worth considering.
Keep in mind that The 30-day lead time matters. You can’t just pop a probiotic and expect results that night.
Baking Soda for Runners: The Benefit Is Smaller Than You Think
Researchers pooled 11 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (126 total participants) examining single-dose sodium bicarbonate (~0.3 g/kg) on continuous running performance.
Raw analysis showed a small benefit (SMD=0.32), but after adjusting for two critical factors, participants who dropped out due to GI symptoms and likely publication bias, the effect became negligible and non-significant (SMD=0.18).
GI symptoms occurred in ~30% of participants taking sodium bicarbonate versus ~3% on placebo.
In male-only studies (8 of 11 trials), the adjusted benefit was small but statistically significant (SMD=0.40). Higher body mass was also associated with greater benefit.
My Thoughts
This is a reality check for the “baking soda works” narrative.
The unadjusted numbers look promising, but once you account for people who couldn’t even complete the test because of GI distress (and the studies that probably never got published because they showed nothing) the benefit largely evaporates for mixed-sex populations.
The male-specific effect is curious and lines up with other research suggesting sex differences in buffering responses, though the underlying mechanism isn’t clear.
The practical takeaway?
If you’re male, have tested tolerance extensively in training, and are racing something in the 1-4 minute range where acidosis is a genuine limiter, it might be worth experimenting with.
For most recreational runners doing 5Ks and longer? The ~30% chance of GI distress probably isn’t worth a negligible performance gain.
Lifting Burns Through Glycogen — Here’s How Much
Researchers pooled 20 studies (168 males, 12 females) measuring muscle glycogen changes after resistance training sessions.
A single session reduced glycogen by ~104 mmol/kg — roughly 21% of resting stores.
Key moderators: more sets meant more depletion (~11 mmol/kg per additional set), longer sessions depleted more (~1.3 mmol/kg per minute), but higher intensity actually depleted less (~3 mmol/kg less per 1% intensity increase).
Untrained individuals depleted more than trained (~113 vs ~101 mmol/kg), and varied-intensity protocols depleted nearly twice as much as fixed-intensity (~163 vs ~83 mmol/kg).
My Thoughts
This is useful context for runners who incorporate strength training.
A 21% glycogen hit from lifting is meaningful. Not as dramatic as a long run, but enough to matter if you’re stacking sessions without adequate fueling.
The counterintuitive finding about intensity is interesting: heavier loads with fewer reps deplete less than moderate loads with more volume.
This aligns with fiber recruitment patterns as high-intensity work hammers fast-twitch fibers intensely but briefly, while moderate-intensity, high-volume work keeps demanding fuel across more total contractions.
The practical implication is nutrition timing. If you’re lifting in the afternoon and running the next morning, you probably need more carbs post-lift than you’d assume.
The “I just did some squats” mindset undersells the glycogen cost.
The study also reinforces why untrained individuals should be especially careful about fueling around new strength programs — they’re depleting more, recovering slower, and more susceptible to the fatigue that comes with low glycogen.
