## 4 Discussion  
This study is the first to report whether mouth rinsing with PJ has any inhibitory effect on EIMCs in active cramp-prone adults. It aimed to determine whether mouth rinsing with PJ (1) reduced the duration of an EIMC when compared to water, (2) reduced the discomfort associated with an EIMC more than water, and (3) was superior to ingesting PJ at inhibiting an EIMC. There was no significant difference in cramp duration between conditions. Interestingly however, the point estimates for median cramp duration reduced by 17.2% and 31.4% in the PJI and PJMR groups, respectively, compared to water (50.68 s). Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [17] found that cramp duration was reduced by 45% compared to baseline when ingesting PJ (pre: 153.2 \(\pm\) 23.7 s, post: 84.6 \(\pm\) 18.5 s). A recent study investigating the acetic acid concentration in various substances found that several pickle brines (acetic acid weight percent (AAwt%) range = 0.406 \(\pm\) 0.007-0.796 \(\pm\) 0.007) [33] similar to those used in the study by [PERSON] et al. [17] had a greater AAwt% than the proprietary PJ (0.260 \(\pm\) 0.006%) [35] used in the current study. The reduced acetic acid concentration in the tested conditions may suggest that a larger sample was needed to account for the concentration difference, potentially contributing to the lack of significance that was observed. Furthermore, unlike the current study, [PERSON] et al. [17] only included cramps that lasted \(\geq\)90 s, thus reducing the potential for variability. Although a similar sample and intervention was tested in the current study, the absence of a minimum cramp duration inclusion criterion resulted in wide-ranging variability between participants, making it difficult to assess any changes caused by PJ. [PERSON] et al. 's [17] study reported the reliable electrical induction of long (\(\geq\)90 s) muscle cramps in the FHB of the participants. However, despite replicating [PERSON] et al. 's [17] cramp induction protocol during pilot testing, the authors were unable to induce muscle cramps reliably. Even upon modifying the protocol, the authors observed marked variability in cramp duration between participants, with few lasting \(\geq\)90 s. Consistency was observed in the individuals' inter-sessional cramp  
Figure 2: Linear mixed models with random subject intercepts comparing visual analogue scale (VAS) between conditions over time (seconds). durations, resulting in the inclusion of all of the participants who experienced a FHB EIMC during the familiarisation session, regardless of cramp duration. Considering that few participants experienced long cramps, the current sample is a better representation of the general cramp-prone population. The current study showed no significant changes in the severity or duration of perceived cramp discomfort between conditions during an EIMC. No other studies monitoring the effects of an intervention on perceived discomfort throughout the duration of a cramp have been identified. Other studies testing TRP-activator ingestion have assessed perceived discomfort severity pre- and post-cramp induction, but not during, with mixed findings being reported [32, 36]. One study found no changes in the perceived discomfort between the TRP-activator intervention group and placebo control at various time points across the 24 h following the electrical induction of a calf cramp [32]. Whilst another found that during the initial 20 min following volitional calf cramp cessation, the perceived discomfort (on a 1 to 10 rating scale) was significantly lower for the TRP-activator group (3.4 \(\pm\) 4.6) than it was in the control group (4.0 \(\pm\) 2.2) [36]. Interestingly, [PERSON] et al. [37] found that the perceived discomfort severity of an EIMC was significantly (\(p\) = 0.01) reduced in participants when comparing an electrolyte beverage (2.00 \(\pm\) 0.54) to a placebo beverage (2.88 \(\pm\) 0.84). However, unlike the current study, these study protocols had participants ingesting the conditions prior to cramp induction.