MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416953776 · doi:10.3390/sports13120427

No Ergogenic Effect of Caffeine or Sodium Bicarbonate on Resistance Exercise Performance: A Double-Blind Crossover Study with Sex-Based Analysis

2025· article· en· W4416953776 on OpenAlexaff
C. Barrett, E. Adeolu Lawson, Colin P. Major, Ashley Sandra May Shea, Karlie Squires, M. Squires, Reza Zare, Katie M. Heinrich, David G. Behm

Bibliographic record

VenueSports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoffee research and impacts
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaffeineSodium bicarbonateCrossover studyHeart ratePlaceboBlood pressureBicarbonate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Caffeine, a nervous system stimulant, and sodium bicarbonate, a metabolic buffer, have been shown to improve performance in high-intensity, particularly aerobic, exercises. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study compared the acute effects of caffeine and sodium bicarbonate on chest press (CP) and knee extension (KE) performance. Twelve resistance-trained young adults (seven females) completed three testing sessions during which they consumed caffeine (0.003 g/kg of body weight), sodium bicarbonate (0.3 g/kg of body weight), or placebo at 120, 90, and 60 min prior to testing. Testing consisted of six sets of CP and KE for as many repetitions as possible at 70% of the participants’ 1-repetition maximum load. A 60 s recovery between sets, and 2 min recovery was allocated between exercises. Blood pressure and blood lactate were recorded pre-, mid-, and post-test. Heart rate, ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), repetitions, and electromyography (EMG) were recorded for every set. No significant differences were found under any condition for RPE, EMG, and KE repetitions. A main effect for groups revealed was increased CP repetitions with sodium bicarbonate (7.42; 95%CI: 6.8–7.9) versus caffeine (6.7; 95%CI: 6.1–7.3) and control (7.1; 95%CI: 6.4–7.6) conditions. However, post hoc analysis did not achieve significance. Diastolic blood pressure was significantly (p = 0.03) greater with caffeine (79.2 mmHg; 95%CI: 74.6–83.7) than with sodium bicarbonate (72.7 mmHg; 95%CI: 67.5–77.9) and control (74.5 mmHg; 95%CI: 71.7–77.3). Females had significantly lower blood lactate measurements, higher CP repetitions, and lower heart rates, despite similar resting heart rates between the sexes. Caffeine (0.003 g/kg) or sodium bicarbonate (0.3 g/kg) did not provide acute ergogenic effects on CP or KE strength endurance (six sets of CP and KE at 70% 1-repetition maximum load) performance in young adult women and men.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSportsSame topicCoffee research and impactsFrench-language works237,207