High Doses of Caffeine Increase Muscle Strength and Calcium Release in the Plasma of Recreationally Trained Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of acute caffeine supplementation on muscular strength remain unclear. We examined the effects of two different doses of caffeine on muscle strength and calcium in plasma compared to placebo using a crossover, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design. Twenty-one (n = 21) recreationally resistance-trained participants were randomly assigned into three experimental conditions: 6 mg·kg bw−1 of caffeine (CF6); 8 mg·kg bw−1 of caffeine (CF8); or placebo (PLA), with a 7-day washout period between conditions. Muscular strength assessments were made for both upper (bench press) and lower body muscles (squat and deadlift). Calcium release in plasma was measured on five different occasions. Bench press (CF8: 100.1 ± 1.9 kg; PLA: 94.2 ± 2.5 kg), deadlift (CF8: 132.8 ± 3.5 kg; PLA: 120.7 ± 5.7 kg), and squat (CF8: 130.1 ± 4.9 kg; PLA 119.4 ± 5.4 kg) strength were all significantly (p < 0.001) improved in CF8 compared to PLA. Calcium release in plasma was significantly increased in CF8, whereas no changes were observed in CF6 or PLA. Overall, 8 mg·kg bw−1 of caffeine appears to be an effective dose to optimize upper and lower body muscular strength and calcium release in recreationally trained participants.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".