Search

Caffeine is a psycho-active stimulant that can improve physical and cognitive performance. We systematically reviewed the evidence on the effects of acute caffeine ingestion on physiological parameters, physical and technical-skill performance during high-performance team-sport match-play. Following PRISMA guidelines, studies were identified using scientific databases (PubMed, Web-of-Science, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus) in February 2021. Of 281 results, 13 studies met inclusion, totalling 213 participants. Included studies adopted the randomised double-blinded cross-over design, involving caffeine and control conditions. In studies reporting physiological variables, responses to caffeine included higher peak (n=6/ 8 [n/ total studies measuring the variable]) and mean (n=7/ 9) heart rates, increased blood glucose (n=2/ 2) and lactate (n=2/ 2) concentrations. Improvements in physical performance were widely documented with caffeine, including greater distance coverage (n=7/ 7), high-speed distance coverage (n=5/ 7) and impact frequencies (n=6/ 8). From three studies that assessed technical-skills, it appears caffeine may benefit gross-skill performance, but have no effect, or negatively confound finer technical-skill outcomes. There is compelling evidence that ingesting moderate caffeine doses (~3 to 6 mg·kg−1) ~60 minutes before exercise may improve physical performance in team-sports, whereas evidence is presently too scarce to draw confident conclusions regarding sport-specific skill performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study assessed the effects of glucose-fructose co-ingestion during recovery from high-intensity rugby training on subsequent performance. Nine professional, senior academy Rugby Union players performed two trials in a double-blind, randomized, crossover design. Identical rugby training sessions were separated by a 3-hour recovery period, during which participants ingested protein (0.3 g×kg BM×h-1) and carbohydrate-containing (0.8 g×kg BM×h-1) recovery drinks, comprised of glucose polymers (GLUCOSE ONLY) or a glucose-fructose mixture (GLUCOSE+FRUCTOSE). Performance outcomes were determined from global positioning systems combined with accelerometry and heart rate monitoring. Mean speed during sessions 1 (am) and 2 (pm) of GLUCOSE ONLY was (mean±SD) 118±6 and 117±4 m×min-1, respectively. During GLUCOSE+FRUCTOSE, mean speed during session 1 and 2 was 117±4 and 116±5 m×min-1, respectively (time x trial interaction, p = 0.61). Blood lactate concentrations were higher throughout recovery in GLUCOSE+FRUCTOSE (mean ±SD: 1-h 3.2 ±2.0 mmol×L-1; 3-h 2.1 ±1.2 mmol×L-1) compared to GLUCOSE ONLY (1-h 2.0 ±1.0 mmol×L-1; 3-h 1.4 ±1.0 mmol×L-1; trial effect p = 0.05). Gastrointestinal discomfort low in both conditions. These data suggest glucose-fructose mixtures consumed as protein-carbohydrate recovery drinks following rugby training do not enhance subsequent performance compared to glucose-based recovery drinks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ingesting carbohydrate plus protein following prolonged exercise may restore exercise capacity more effectively than ingestion of carbohydrate alone. The objective of the present study was to determine whether this potential benefit is a consequence of the protein fraction per se or simply due to the additional energy it provides. Six active males participated in three trials, each involving a 90-min treadmill run at 70% maximal oxygen uptake (run 1) followed by a 4-h recovery. At 30-min intervals during recovery, participants ingested solutions containing: (1) 0.8 g carbohydrate · kg body mass (BM)-1 · h-1 plus 0.3 g · kg-1 · h-1 of whey protein isolate (CHO-PRO); (2) 0.8 g carbohydrate · kg BM-1 · h-1 (CHO); or (3) 1.1 g carbohydrate · kg BM-1 · h-1 (CHO-CHO). The latter two solutions matched the CHO-PRO solution for carbohydrate and for energy, respectively. Following recovery, participants ran to exhaustion at 70% maximal oxygen uptake (run 2). Exercise capacity during run 2 was greater following ingestion of CHO-PRO and CHO-CHO than following ingestion of CHO (P ≤ 0.05) with no significant difference between the CHO-PRO and CHO-CHO treatments. In conclusion, increasing the energy content of these recovery solutions extended run time to exhaustion, irrespective of whether the additional energy originated from sucrose or whey protein isolate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]