The dose-dependent effect of caffeine supplementation on performance, reaction time and postural stability in CrossFit - a randomized placebo-controlled crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Caffeine (CAF) ingestion improves performance in a broad range of exercise tasks. Nevertheless, the CAF-induced, dose-dependent effect on discipline-specific performance and cognitive functions in CrossFit/High-Intensity Functional Training (HIFT) has not been sufficiently investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of acute supplementation of three different doses of CAF and placebo (PLA) on specific performance, reaction time (RTime), postural stability (PStab), heart rate (HR) and perceived exertion (RPE).

METHODS

In a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover design, acute pre-exercise supplementation with CAF (3, 6, or 9 mg/kg body mass (BM)) and PLA in 26 moderately trained CrossFit practitioners was examined. The study protocol involved five separate testing sessions using the Fight Gone Bad test (FGB) as the exercise performance evaluation and biochemical analyses, HR and RPE monitoring, as well as the assessment of RTime and PStab, with regard to CYP1A2 (rs762551) and ADORA2A (rs5751876) single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP).

RESULTS

Supplementation of 6 mgCAF/kgBM induced clinically noticeable improvements in FGBTotal results, RTime and pre-exercise motor time. Nevertheless, there were no significant differences between any CAF doses and PLA in FGBTotal, HRmax, HRmean, RPE, pre/post-exercise RTime, PStab variables or pyruvate concentrations. Lactate concentration was higher (p < 0.05) before and after exercise in all CAF doses than in PLA. There was no effect of CYP1A2 or ADORA2A SNPs on performance.

CONCLUSIONS

The dose-dependent effect of CAF supplementation appears to be limited to statistically nonsignificant but clinically considered changes on specific performance, RTime, PStab, RPE or HR. However, regarding practical CAF-induced performance implications in CrossFit/HIFT, 6 mgCAF/kgBM may be supposed as the most rational supplementation strategy.

Practical Application and Methodological Considerations on the Basics of Sports Nutrition in Basketball: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Observational and Interventional Studies

The current systematic review (PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022334707) of observational (OS) and interventional studies (IS) aimed at evaluating the state of scientific knowledge on the basics of sports nutrition, framing discipline-specific dietary recommendations, and indicating potential directions for future studies in various age, experience level, and able-bodied abilities groups of basketball players (BP). A systematic search of PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science ended on 20 December 2022. Records were excluded if reporting studies on animals, sport disciplines other than basketball, or supplementation protocols other than those related to macronutrients and hydration manipulations. Risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using Cochrane RoB_2 tools, 'JBI checklist for prevalence studies', and 'Quality assessment tool for before-after (pre-post) studies with no control group'. The relevant data was synthesized in tables and a narrative review was performed. Seventy-two records were included (2581 participants): 63 were on able-bodied BP (2433 participants) and 9 on para-athlete players (148 participants); 45 records were OS and 27 IS. The review disclosed widespread poor nutritional habits and knowledge and shortages in applying adequate nutritional and hydration practices in BP. Moreover, the systematic review revealed the lack of a sufficient number of investigations delivering reliable proof for framing discipline-specific and evidence-based recommendations on the basics of sports nutrition in basketball.

Self-Reported Use and Reasons among the General Population for Using Sports Nutrition Products and Dietary Supplements

The purpose of the present study was to determine the prevalence of dietary supplements (DS's) and sport nutrition product (SNPs) among the general population, to identify differences for gender, age, and exercise frequency, and to determine the main reasons for use. The study was designed as a web-based questionnaire in a representative sample (n = 1544) of the Dutch population. Sixty-two percent (n = 957) of the respondents reported having used DS's, SNPs, or both in the last twelve months. Women and older people reported the highest DS use. The highest use of SNPs was reported by regular exercising men and younger people with improving sporting performance as their main objective. Most frequently reported DS's were multivitamins (28%) and vitamin C (19%)-for SNPs, energy drinks (22%) and isotonic drinks (19%). Health considerations were the most important motivation (DS's 90% and SNPs 52%), but also performance was substantially reported (DS's 14% and SNPs 35%). A substantial group of sedentary respondents also reported the use of SNPs. This study confirms that DS's, SNPs, or both are widely used among the general population. Both health as performance are important reasons for use. It can be questioned whether the use of SNPs fits all respondents' physical activity needs.