Combined but Not Isolated Ingestion of Caffeine and Taurine Improves Wingate Sprint Performance in Female Team-Sport Athletes Habituated to Caffeine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have investigated caffeine (CAF) and taurine (TAU) in isolation and combined during exercise in males. However, the potential synergistic effect during high-intensity exercise remains unknown in female athletes. Seventeen female team-sport athletes participated (age: 23.4 ± 2.1 years; height: 1.68 ± 0.05 m; body mass: 59.5 ± 2.2 kg). All participants were habitual caffeine consumers (340.1 ± 28.6 mg/day). A double-blind randomized crossover design was used. Participants completed four experimental trials: (i) CAF and TAU (6 mg/kg body mass of CAF + 1 g of TAU), (ii) CAF alone; (iii) TAU alone; and (iv) placebo (PLA). Supplements were ingested 60 min before a 30-s Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT). Heart rate and blood lactate (BL) were measured before and immediately after the WAnT; and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded immediately after the WAnT. Peak power (PP) was significantly higher following co-ingestion of CAF+TAU compared to PLA (p = 0.03) and TAU (p = 0.03). Mean power (MP) was significantly higher following co-ingestion of CAF+TAU compared to PLA (p = 0.01). No other differences were found between conditions for PP and MP (p > 0.05). There were also no observed differences in fatigue index (FI), BL; heart rate; and RPE between conditions (p > 0.05). In conclusion, compared to PLA the combined ingestion of 6 mg/kg of CAF and 1 g of TAU improved both PP and MP in female athletes habituated to caffeine; however; CAF and TAU independently failed to augment WAnT performance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".