Can caffeine supplementation reverse the effect of time of day on repeated-sprint exercise performance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate if caffeine can reduce the negative influence of diurnal variations on repeated-sprint performance, in addition to investigating if caffeine in the afternoon would potentiate performance compared with the morning. Thirteen physically active men took part in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled and crossover study. All participants underwent a repeated-sprint ability test (10 × 6 s cycle sprints, with 30 s of rest) at 60 min after ingestion of either 5 mg·kg −1 or placebo under 4 different conditions: morning with caffeine ingestion, morning with placebo ingestion, afternoon with caffeine ingestion, and afternoon with placebo ingestion. Total work, peak power (PP) and anaerobic power reserve (APR) were assessed. Oxygen uptake, heart rate, lactate concentration, and rating of perceived exertion were also measured during the repeated-sprint test. Total work (+8%, d = 0.2, small), PP (+6%, d = 0.2), and APR (+9%, d = 0.2) were significantly higher in the afternoon when compared with morning. However, physiological responses were not different between caffeine and placebo conditions. Repeated-sprint (10 × 6 s cycle sprint) performance was influenced by time of day, with lower performance in the morning compared with the afternoon. However, caffeine supplementation did not prevent the reduction in performance in the morning or improve performance in the afternoon.
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".