Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Increases in cycling performance in response to caffeine ingestion are repeatable.



Key Questions Addressed
1 For [population], is caffeine intake above [exposure dose], compared to intakes [exposure dose] or less, associated with adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Increases in cycling performance in response to caffeine ingestion are repeatable.
Author TA Astorino,T Cottrell,AT Lozano,K Aburto-Pratt,J Duhon,
Country
Year 2012
Numbers

Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.


Extraction Form: Cardiovascular Design
Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
What outcome is being evaluated in this paper? Cardiovascular
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the objective of the study (as reported by the authors)? The primary aim of this study was to determine the repeatability of caffeine's ergogenic effects on cycling performance.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Provide a general description of the methods as reported by the authors. Information should be extracted based on relevance to the SR (i.e., caffeine related methods) Nine endurance-trained men and women who were training a minimum of 5 h/wk for the preceding 2 years participated in the study. Subjects visited the laboratory on 5 occasions at the same time of day within subjects. Before each visit, they abstained from intense lower-body exercise for 48 hours and were 3 hours post-absorptive. Familiarization testing was completed on days 1 and 2, followed by experimental trials on days 3 to 5. All trials were separated by at least 48 hours to a maximum of 1 week. One hour before exercise, subjects ingested 5 mg/kg caffeine or placebo. A single-blind, crossover design was used, and treatment order was assigned using a Latin squares design. Solutions ingested during the 3 test days included 2 boluses of anhydrous caffeine (Gallipot, St Paul, Minn; 5 mg/kg body weight; caffeine trials 1 [C1] and 2 [C2]) or placebo. All doses were weighed to the nearest 0.001 g on a calibrated balance scale (Denver Instrument, Bohemia, NY). These were housed in identical opaque containers containing 1 package of a commercially available, noncaloric lemon-flavored beverage (Crystal Light, Northfield, Ill); 5 mg/kg of glucose; and 125 mL of noncaloric carbonated soda. Drinks appeared, smelled, and tasted similar. Subjects and co-investigators were unaware of the order of treatments and were deceived of the true content of the drinks, as they were told that the study aim was to examine effects of a new carbohydrate beverage. This was done so that the placebo effects of caffeine could be reported. The subjects were provided the solution for the first day of testing during their last familiarization trial, and this process ensued during the remaining trials. They were provided specific instructions with each drink to mix it with 250 mL of cold water and drink it immediately 1 hour before exercise, as this has been shown to maximize plasma levels of caffeine [22] . They returned empty bottles on the day of each trial to verify drink ingestion and underwent a brief interview with the primary investigator to ensure that they complied with the guidelines for drink timing and ingestion. If these were not met, the subjects returned at least 48 hours later while adhering to the proper guidelines and completed the trial.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
How many outcome-specific endpoints are evaluated? 1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the (or one of the) endpoint(s) evaluated? (Each endpoint listed separately) Heart rate
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately). 2
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).3
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).6
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Clinical, physiological, other Physiological
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the study design? Controlled Trial
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Randomized or Non-Randomized? RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the diagnostics or methods used to measure the outcome?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Optional: Name of Method or short description Heart rate, cycling time, and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were assessed every 1.6 km as well as at exercise cessation. Heart rate (HR) was assessed via telemetry (Polar Electro, Lake Success, NY).
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Caffeine (general) Caffeine (general)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Coffee, Chocolate, energy drink, gum, medicine/supplement, soda, tea, other?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Measured or self reported? Measured
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Children, adolescents, adults, or pregnant included? Adults
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What was the reference, comparison, or control group(s)? (e.g. high vs low consumption, number of cups, etc.) Caffeine treatment vs. placebo [with exercise]
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the listed confounders or modifying factors as stated by the authors? (e.g. multi-variable components of models.  Copy from methods) A 1-way analysis of variance with repeated measures was used to assess differences in time-trial performance across treatments. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to examine differences in cycling time, HR, and RPE across time and treatment. The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used to account for the sphericity assumption. If a significant F ratio was obtained, an online Tukey post hoc calculator was used to detect significant differences between means.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What conflicts of interest were reported? Not discussed.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Refid 22348455
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the sources of funding? This study was partially funded by a College of Arts and Sciences Faculty Development grant.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons

No Results found.