| Literature DB >> 33781269 |
Aleksandra Filip-Stachnik1, Michal Wilk2, Michal Krzysztofik1, Ewelina Lulińska3, James J Tufano4, Adam Zajac1, Petr Stastny4, Juan Del Coso5.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The main goal of this study was to assess the acute effects of 3 and 6 mg of caffeine intake per kg of body mass (b.m.) on maximal strength and strength-endurance in women habituated to caffeine.Entities:
Keywords: 1RM test; Bench Press; Ergogenic substances; Resistance exercise; Time under Tension
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33781269 PMCID: PMC8008648 DOI: 10.1186/s12970-021-00421-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Int Soc Sports Nutr ISSN: 1550-2783 Impact factor: 5.150
Participants’ characteristics
| Age [years] | 23.0 ± 0.9 |
|---|---|
| Body mass [kg] | 59.0 ± 6.6 |
| Height [cm] | 168.8 ± 4.8 |
| Body Fat [%] | 19.8 ± 3.3 |
| Resistance training experience [years] | 2.9 ± 1.0 |
| 1 RM in bench press exercise [kg] | 40.0 ± 9.7 |
| 1 RM in bench press exercise: body mass ratio [%] | 67.9 ± 12.4 |
| Habitual caffeine intake [mg/kg/b.m/day; mg/day] | 5.8 ± 2.6; 344.4 ± 172.3 |
| Energy intake [kcal] | 2131.2 ± 185.9 |
| Protein [% of total energy intake] | 20.4 ± 3.0 |
| Carbohydrate [% of total energy intake] | 50.1 ± 3.5 |
| Fat [% of total energy intake] | 29.5 ± 2.3 |
All data are presented as mean ± standard deviation; 1RM one-repetition maximum
Summary of performance data in bench press exercise after the ingestion of a placebo (PLAC) or 3 (CAF-3) or 6 mg/kg/b.m. of caffeine (CAF-6) in women habituated to caffeine
| Variable | PLAC | CAF-3 | CAF-6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1RM [kg] | 40.48 ± 9.21 (36.29 to 44.67) | 41.68 ± 8.98 (37.59 to 45.76) | 42.98 ± 8.79 (38.98 to 46.98) | < 0.01 |
| REP [n] | 33.05 ± 6.59 (30.05 to 36.05) | 33.81 ± 5.46 (31.32 to 36.30) | 35.29 ± 6.99 (32.10 to 38.47) | 0.18 |
| TUT [s] | 53.52 ± 11.44 (48.3 to 58.7) | 57.05 ± 10.90 (52.1 to 62.0) | 61.76 ± 15.39 (54.8 to 68.8) | < 0.01 |
| MP [W] | 119 ± 25 (107 to 130) | 120 ± 27 (107 to 132) | 122 ± 31 (108 to 137) | 0.56 |
| PP [W] | 284 ± 145 (219 to 350) | 277 ± 82 (239 to 314) | 290 ± 110 (240 to 340) | 0.75 |
| MV [m/s] | 0.61 ± 0.08 (0.58 to 0.65) | 0.60 ± 0.07 (0.56 to 0.63) | 0.59 ± 0.07 (0.56 to 0.63) | 0.45 |
| PV [m/s] | 1.14 ± 0.11 (1.09 to 1.19) | 1.14 ± 0.10 (1.09 to 1.18) | 1.11 ± 0.13 (1.05 to 1.17) | 0.23 |
All data are presented as mean ± standard deviation; CI confidence interval; 1RM one-repetition maximum; REP number of performed repetitions; TUT time under tension; MP mean power output; PP peak power output; MV mean bar velocity; PV peak bar velocity
Fig. 1Dose–response effects of caffeine ingestion on maximal strength and strength-endurance. a Load in the one-repetition maximum test; b Number of repetitions in the strength endurance-test; c Time Under Tension in the strength-endurance test; d Peak and Mean bar velocity in the strength endurance-test; e Peak and mean power output in the strength endurance-test. Data are mean ± standard deviations for 21 women habituated to caffeine. *Significant difference (p < 0.05) between CAF-3 and PLAC. †Significant difference (p < 0.05) between CAF-6 and PLAC. $Significant difference (p < 0.05) between CAF-3 and CAF-6
Pairwise differences in bench press performance after the ingestion of a placebo (PLAC) or 3 (CAF-3) or 6 mg/kg/b.m. of caffeine (CAF-6) in women habituated to caffeine
| Variable | Comparison | Effect size (Cohen’s | Relative effect [%] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1RM [kg] | PLAC vs. CAF-3 | 0.01 | 0.11 – trivial | 3.5 |
| PLAC vs. CAF-6 | < 0.01 | 0.28 – small | 6.9 | |
| CAF-3 vs. CAF-6 | < 0.01 | 0.14 – trivial | 3.2 | |
| REP [n] | PLAC vs. CAF-3 | 0.80 | 0.13 – trivial | 4.4 |
| PLAC vs. CAF-6 | 0.17 | 0.33 – small | 9.5 | |
| CAF-3 vs. CAF-6 | 0.45 | 0.24 – small | 6.2 | |
| TUT [s] | PLAC vs. CAF-3 | 0.20 | 0.32 – small | 8.6 |
| PLAC vs. CAF-6 | < 0.01 | 0.61 – moderate | 17.6 | |
| CAF-3 vs. CAF-6 | 0.06 | 0.35 - small | 8.7 | |
| MP [W] | PLAC vs. CAF-3 | 0.94 | 0.04 – trivial | 0.8 |
| PLAC vs. CAF-6 | 0.36 | 0.11 – trivial | 2.4 | |
| CAF-3 vs. CAF-6 | 0.56 | 0.07 – trivial | 1.6 | |
| PP [W] | PLAC vs. CAF-3 | 0.84 | 0.06 – trivial | 1.8 |
| PLAC vs. CAF-6 | 0.93 | 0.05 – trivial | 5.1 | |
| CAF-3 vs. CAF-6 | 0.63 | 0.13 – trivial | 3.9 | |
| MV [m/s] | PLAC vs. CAF-3 | 0.44 | 0.13 – trivial | -2.2 |
| PLAC vs. CAF-6 | 0.29 | 0.26 – small | -2.7 | |
| CAF-3 vs. CAF-6 | 0.96 | 0.14 – trivial | 0.1 | |
| PV [m/s] | PLAC vs. CAF-3 | 0.98 | 0.00 | 0.1 |
| PLAC vs. CAF-6 | 0.47 | 0.25 – small | -1.7 | |
| CAF-3 vs. CAF-6 | 0.60 | 0.26 small | -1.5 |
All data are presented as mean ± standard deviation; 1RM one-repetition maximum; REP number of performed repetitions; TUT time under tension; MP mean power output; PP peak power output; MV mean bar velocity; PV peak bar velocity