Caffeine Does Not Alter Performance, Perceptual Responses, and Oxidative Stress After Short Sprint Interval Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the abundance of research investigating the efficacy of caffeine supplementation on exercise performance, the physiological and biochemical responses to caffeine supplementation during intermittent activities are less evident. This study investigated the acute effects of caffeine supplementation on measures of exercise performance, ratings of perceived exertion, and biomarkers of oxidative stress induced by an acute bout of sprint interval training. In a randomized crossover design, 12 healthy males (age: 26 ± 4 years, height: 177.5 ± 6 cm, body mass: 80.7 ± 7.6 kg) ingested 6 mg/kg of caffeine or placebo 60 min prior to performing sprint interval training (12 × 6 s "all-out sprints" interspersed by 60 s of rest). Performance scores and ratings of perceived exertion were assessed after every sprint. Blood samples were collected before supplementation, prior to and following each sprint, and 5 and 60 min after the last sprint. Caffeine had no effect on any performance measures, ratings of perceived exertion, or biomarkers of oxidative stress (p > .05). In conclusion, caffeine supplementation does not improve performance or decrease oxidative stress after an acute bout of sprint interval training.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".