Low and Moderate Doses of Caffeinated Coffee Improve Repeated Sprint Performance in Female Team Sport Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the effect of low and moderate doses of caffeine ingestion via caffeinated coffee on repeated sprint test (RST) and plasma catecholamine concentration in trained female team-sport athletes. In a randomized, double-blind, crossover design, 13 female team-sport athletes (VO2max: 48.7 ± 4 mL·kg·min−1) completed three RST trials, separated by 4-day, 60 min post-ingestion of either 3 mg·kg−1 (LCOF) or 6 mg·kg−1 (MCOF) or placebo (PLA). The RST consisted of 12 × 4 s sprints on a cycle ergometer interspersed with 20 s of active recovery. Blood lactate (BLa) and glucose (GLU) and epinephrine and norepinephrine concentrations were collected before and 60 min after coffee ingestion, and after RST. Heart rate (HR) and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured at the beginning of RST, and after the 6th and 12th sprints. Average peak power score during RST was significantly improved after LCOF (p = 0.016) and MCOF (p = 0.041) compared to PLA, but peak and mean power output of the individual sprints, and fatigue index were not different between trials (all p > 0.05). Epinephrine and norepinephrine concentrations were significantly higher before and after RST in LCOF and MCOF compared to PLA (all p < 0.05). BLa was also higher after RST in both LCOF and MCOF compared to PLA (p = 0.005). HR, RPE, and GLU were not different between conditions (p > 0.05). In conclusion, low and moderate dose of caffeine ingestion can enhance the average peak power score during repeated sprints. These findings partly support low and moderate doses of caffeine supplementation via coffee as a nutritional ergogenic aid for trained female team-sport players during repeated sprint exercise.
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".