University of Hertfordshire


  • 907284

    Final published version, 625 KB, PDF document

View graph of relations
Original languageEnglish
Article number19
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
Journal publication date24 Apr 2015
Publication statusPublished - 24 Apr 2015


Background: Magnesium supplementation has previously shown reductions in blood pressure of up to 12 mmHg. A positive relationship between magnesium supplementation and performance gains in resistance exercise has also been seen. However, no previous studies have investigated loading strategies to optimise response. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of oral magnesium supplementation on resistance exercise and vascular response after intense exercise for an acute and chronic loading strategy on a 2-day repeat protocol. Methods: The study was a randomised, double-blind, cross-over design, placebo controlled 2 day repeat measure protocol (n = 13). Intense exercise (40 km time trial) was followed by bench press at 80% 1RM to exhaustion, with blood pressure and total peripheral resistance (TPR) recorded. 300 mg/d elemental magnesium was supplemented for either a 1 (A) or 4 (Chr) week loading strategy. Food diaries were recorded. Results: Dietary magnesium intake was above the Reference Nutrient Intake (RNI) for all groups. Bench press showed a significant increase of 17.7% (p = 0.031) for A on day 1. On day 2 A showed no decrease in performance whilst Chr showed a 32.1% decrease. On day 2 post-exercise systolic blood pressure (SBP) was significantly lower in both A (p = 0.0.47) and Chr (p = 0.016) groups. Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) showed significant decreases on day 2 solely for A (p = 0.047) with no changes in the Chr. TPR reduced for A on days 1 and 2 (p = 0.031) with Chr showing an increase on day 1 (p = 0.008) and no change on day 2. Conclusion: There was no cumulative effect of Chr supplementation compared to A. A group showed improvement for bench press concurring with previous research which was not seen in Chr. On day 2 A showed a small non-significant increase but not a decrement as expected with Chr showing a decrease. DBP showed reductions in both Chr and A loading, agreeing with previous literature. This is suggestive of a different mechanism for BP reduction than for muscular strength. TPR showed greater reductions with A than Chr, which would not be expected as both interventions had reductions in BP, which is associated with TPR.


© 2015 Kass and Poeira; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

ID: 9893833