Caffeine, exercise physiology, and time-trial performance: no effect of <i>ADORA2A</i> or <i>CYP1A2</i> genotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of ADORA2A and CYP1A2 genotypes on the physiological and ergogenic effects of caffeine. Sixty-six male cyclists were screened for ADORA2A and CYP1A2 genotypes; with 40 taking part subsequently in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Trial 1 was used to establish the oxygen uptake−power output relationship and maximal oxygen uptake. In trials 2 and 3, participants ingested 5 mg·kg −1 of caffeine or placebo 1 h before completing a submaximal incremental cycling test, followed by a time-trial (∼30 min). Relative to placebo, caffeine led to a significant reduction in time to complete the time-trial (caffeine: 29.7 ± 1.8 min; placebo: 30.8 ± 2.3 min); but there was no effect of genotype. During submaximal exercise, caffeine reduced mean heart rate by 2.9 ± 3.7 beats·min −1 , with effects dissipating as exercise intensity increased. Caffeine also significantly reduced perceived exertion by 0.5 ± 0.8, and increased blood lactate by 0.29 ± 0.42 mmol·L −1 , respiratory exchange ratio by 0.013 ± 0.032, and minute ventilation by 3.1 ± 6.8 L·min −1 . Nonetheless, there were no supplement × genotype interactions. In conclusion, caffeine influences physiological responses to submaximal exercise and improves time-trial performance irrespective of ADORA2A or CYP1A2 genotypes. Novelty: Caffeine affects physiological responses at rest and during submaximal exercise independent of ADORA2A or CYP1A2 genotypes. Variability in the effect of caffeine on time-trial performance is not explained by ADORA2A or CYP1A2 genotypes.
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) | 0.001 | 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".