The effects of low and moderate doses of caffeine supplementation on upper and lower body maximal voluntary concentric and eccentric muscle force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the growing quantity of literature exploring the effect of caffeine on muscular strength, there is a dearth of data that directly explores differences in erogenicity between upper and lower body musculature and the dose–response effect. The present study sought to investigate the effects of low and moderate doses of caffeine on the maximal voluntary strength of the elbow flexors and knee extensors. Ten nonspecifically strength-trained, recreationally active participants (aged 21 ± 0.3 years) completed the study. Using a randomised, counterbalanced, and double-blind approach, isokinetic concentric and eccentric strength was measured at 60 and 180°/s following administration of a placebo, 3 mg·kg −1 body mass caffeine, and 6 mg·kg −1 body mass caffeine. There was no effect of caffeine on the maximal voluntary concentric and eccentric strength of the elbow flexors, or the eccentric strength of the knee extensors. Both 3 and 6 mg·kg −1 body mass caffeine caused a significant increase in peak concentric force of the knee extensors at 180°/s. No difference was apparent between the 2 concentrations. Only 6 mg·kg −1 body mass caused an increase in peak concentric force during repeated contractions. The results infer that the effective caffeine concentration to evoke improved muscle performance may be related to muscle mass and contraction type. The present work indicates that a relatively low dose of caffeine treatment may be effective for improving lower body muscular strength, but may have little benefit for the strength of major muscular groups of the upper body.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".