Loading…
Effects of caffeine supplementation on physical performance and mood dimensions in elite and trained-recreational athletes
Caffeine supplementation (CAFF) has an established ergogenic effect on physical performance and the psychological response to exercise. However, few studies have compared the response to CAFF intake among athletes of different competition level. This study compares the acute effects of CAFF on anaer...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 2020-01, Vol.17 (1), p.2-2 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Caffeine supplementation (CAFF) has an established ergogenic effect on physical performance and the psychological response to exercise. However, few studies have compared the response to CAFF intake among athletes of different competition level. This study compares the acute effects of CAFF on anaerobic performance, mood and perceived effort in elite and moderately-trained recreational athletes.
Participants for this randomized, controlled, crossover study were 8 elite athletes (in the senior boxing national team) and 10 trained-recreational athletes. Under two experimental conditions, CAFF supplementation (6 mg/kg) or placebo (PLAC), the athletes completed a Wingate test. Subjective exertion during the test was recorded as the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) both at the general level (RPE
) and at the levels muscular (RPE
) and cardiorespiratory (RPE
). Before the Wingate test, participants completed the questionnaires Profiles of Moods States (POMS) and Subjective Vitality Scale (SVS).
In response to CAFF intake, improvements were noted in W
(11.22 ± 0.65 vs 10.70 ± 0.84; p = 0.003; [Formula: see text] =0.44), W
(8.75 ± 0.55 vs 8.41 0.46; p = 0.001; [Formula: see text] =0.53) and time taken to reach W
(7.56 ± 1.58 vs 9.11 ± 1.53; p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1550-2783 1550-2783 |
DOI: | 10.1186/s12970-019-0332-5 |