Effects of caffeine supplementation on anaerobic power and muscle activity in youth athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the effects of caffeine ingestion on anaerobic performance and muscle activity in young athletes. In this randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled study, ten highly trained male post-puberal futsal players aged 15.9 ± 1.2 years conducted two laboratory sessions. Athletes performed the Wingate test 60 min after ingestion of caffeine (CAF, 6 mg/kg body mass) or placebo (PL, dextrose) (blinded administration). Peak power, mean power, and the fatigue index were assessed. During the performance of the Wingate test, electromyographic (EMG) data were recorded from selected lower limbs muscles to determine the root mean square (RMS), mean power frequency (MPF), and median power frequency (MDPF) as frequency domain parameters and wavelet (WT) as time-frequency domain parameters. Caffeine ingestion increased peak (0.80 ± 0.29 W/Kg; p = 0.01; d = 0.42) and mean power (0.39 ± 0.02 W/Kg; p = 0.01; d = 0.26) but did not significantly affect the fatigue index (52.51 ± 9.48%, PL: 49.27 ± 10.39%; p = 0.34). EMG data showed that the MPF and MDPF parameters decreased and the WT increased, but caffeine did not have a significant effect on these changes (p > 0.05). Moreover, caffeine ingestion did not significantly affect RMS changes in the selected muscles (p > 0.05). Here we showed that acute caffeine ingestion improved anaerobic performance without affecting EMG parameters in young male futsal athletes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".