ArticleJournal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition2014
The influence of commercial energy shots on response time and power output in recreational cyclists.
Article in Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaffeine based energy shot products accounted for $1.3 billion in sales in 2011. Caffeine has been shown to confer numerous benefits during exercise and is oftentimes combined with ingredients such as carbohydrates and taurine in the hope of further performance improvement. The purpose of this project was to compare auditory response time, power output, and physiological responses between the ingestion of a CHO, PRO, caffeine supplement (CPC), a caffeine-taurine-niacin based supplement (CTN), and a placebo (PL) in commercially formulated products that make claims as to improving performance.
methodsFourteen subjects cycled an interval exercise of 70% VO2max for 13 minutes and 90% of VO2max for two minutes for a total of 120 minutes which was then followed by a six-minute power output (PO) task. Subjects ingested a total of 45 g CHO, 7.5 g PRO, and 375 mg caffeine for CPC while 512 mg caffeine and 1200 mg taurine were ingested for CTN throughout the exercise. The treatments were administered in a double blind, randomly assigned protocol. Response time was assessed by auditory response. Significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsAverage PO was significantly greater for CPC: 309 ± 60 W than CTN: 290 ± 57 W and PL: 282 ± 63 W. Response time was significantly faster for the CPC: 0.219 ± .049 s than CTN: 0.232 ± .060 s and PL: 0.228 ± .047 s. HR was significantly greater for CTN: 143 ± 16 bpm than CPC: 139 ± 16 bpm. RPE was significantly lower for CPC: 13.0 ± 1.7 than CTN: 13.5 ± 1.2 and PL: 13.8 ± 1.9. Blood glucose was greater for CPC: 5.5 ± 0.8 mM/L than CTN: 4.9 ± 0.7 mM/L and PL: 4.6 ± 1.1 mM/L. No significant differences were observed for RER.
conclusionsThe co-ingestion of CPC improved both cycling power output and auditory response time following 2 hours of moderate and high intensity interval cycling compared to CTN and PL. It is possible that the CPC treatment conferred not only a positive peripheral effect, but also a central effect. Even with a large caffeine dose, the combination of caffeine, taurine, niacin led to an inhibitory pattern which did not improve power output or response time performances over a PL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.