4.4 Article

Influence of a caffeine mouth rinse on sprint cycling following glycogen depletion

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE
卷 16, 期 8, 页码 1087-1094

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2016.1165739

关键词

Anaerobic; carbohydrate; ergogenic; high intensity; repeated sprint exercise

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Attenuated performance during intense exercise with limited endogenous carbohydrate (CHO) is well documented. Therefore, this study examined whether caffeine (CAF) mouth rinsing would augment performance during repeated sprint cycling in participants with reduced endogenous CHO. Eight recreationally active males (aged 23 +/- 2yr, body mass 84 +/- 4kg, stature 178 +/- 7cm) participated in this randomized, single-blind, repeated-measures crossover investigation. Following familiarization, participants attended two separate evening glycogen depletion sessions. The following morning, participants completed five, 6s sprints on a cycle ergometer (separated by 24s active recovery), with mouth rinsing either (1) a placebo solution or (2) a 2% CAF solution. During a fifth visit, participants completed the sprints without prior glycogen depletion. Repeated-measures ANOVA identified significant main effect of condition (CAF, placebo, and control [P<.05; effect size (ES)=0.850-0.897]), sprint (1-5 [P<.005; ES=0.871-0.986]), and interaction (conditionxsprint [P<.05; ES=0.831-0.846]), for peak and mean power. The control condition exhibited the highest peak power (overall mean 760 +/- 77W) and mean power (overall mean 699 +/- 83W) over the five sprints (P<.001 in both instances). CAF peak power (overall mean 643 +/- 79W) was significantly greater than placebo (mean 573 +/- 79W [P<.05; ES=0.850]). Additionally, CAF mean power (overall mean 589 +/- 80W) was significantly greater than placebo (519 +/- 82W [P<.05; ES=0.397]). These data indicate that mouth rinsing a caffeinated solution reduces decrements caused by CHO reduction, which may benefit athletes wishing to train in a low-CHO state.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据