Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Caffeine does not alter RPE or pain perception during intense exercise in active women.



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 Caffeine does not alter RPE or pain perception during intense exercise in active women.
Author TA Astorino,LR Roupoli,BR Valdivieso,
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 assess the effect of caffeine on rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and pain perception during a simulated time trial.
  • 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) Before the initial experimental trial, they were required to record all food/drink ingested in the preceding 24 h, and this form was photocopied and returned to subjects so they repeated this intake prior to trial 2. One hour before exercise in the presence of one of the Investigators, each subject ingested a 226 mL drink which was administered across days in a double blind, crossover design. The Primary Investigator prepared all drinks and provided them to the co-Investigators, who along with participants, were unaware of order of treatment assignment, which followed a Latin Squares design. The placebo contained 113 mL of diet 7-up, 113 mL of water, and 6 mg/kg body weight of glucose, while the experimental drink contained the same amount of these ingredients as well as 6 mg/kg body weight of anhydrous caffeine (Gallipot, St.Paul, MN). Trials were separated by a minimum of 48 h and performed at the same time of day within subjects. Subjects were informed to refrain from caffeine and lower-body exercise for 24 h prior to subsequent trials and arrive to the lab in a well-rested and euhydrated state. During exercise, heart rate (HR) (Polar, Lake Success, NY), RPE (Borg, 1982), and leg pain (Cook, O’Connor, Oliver, & Lee, 1998) were recorded. Drinks were prepared by an external investigator and mixed in plastic cups so the solutions looked, tasted, and smelled similar. Taste was also similar as demonstrated by subjects being unable to distinguish between drinks across days, as measured with a brief interview conducted after the last 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? Objective
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Optional: Name of Method or short description During exercise, heart rate (HR) (Polar, Lake Success, NY), RPE (Borg, 1982), and leg pain (Cook, O’Connor, Oliver, & Lee, 1998) were recorded.
  • 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.) 6 mg/kg caffeine+glucose or glucose alone (placebo)
  • 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) Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation and were analyzed with SPSS Version 17.0 (Chicago, IL). Multiple two-way analyses of variance with repeated measures was used to examine differences in HR, RPE, pain, and average speed and power output across distance (five levels) and treatment (caffeine versus placebo). If a significant F ratio was obtained, Tukey’s post hoc test was used to locate differences between means. The Greenhouse- Geisser correction was used to account for the sphericity assumption of unequal variances across groups. Effect size for the F ratio was expressed as partial eta-squared (g2). With a confidence level equal to 95%, power = 0.80, and anticipated difference in performance equal to 3%, similar to values typically reported (Wiles et al., 2006), minimum sample size was determined to be 10 for a two-tailed test. Statistical significance was established as P < 0.05.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What conflicts of interest were reported? The authors report no conflicts of interest in the execution of this study.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Refid 22813436
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the sources of funding? This project did not receive funding from any agency in the public, commercial, or non-profit sectors.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons

No Results found.