4.2 Article

Effect of Caffeine on Upper-Body Anaerobic Performance in Wrestlers in Simulated Competition-Day Conditions

Publisher

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/ijsnem.23.6.601

Keywords

brazilian jiujitsu; submission wrestling; ergogenic aid

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education and Research of the Republic of Estonia [1787]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Peak power (PP) and mean power (MP) attained in upper body sprint performance test are considered important factors for competitive success in wrestling. This study aimed to determine whether acute caffeine ingestion would better maintain PP and MP across a simulated competition day in wrestling. Methods: In a double-blind, counterbalanced, crossover study, 14 trained wrestlers ingested either placebo or 5 mg/kg caffeine and completed four 6-min upper body intermittent sprint performance tests with 30-min recovery periods between consecutive tests. PP and MP were recorded during and blood lactate concentration was measured before and after each test. Ratings of perceived fatigue (RPF) and exertion (RPE) were recorded before and after each test, respectively. Heart rate (HR) was monitored across the whole testing period. Results: Mean power decreased across four tests in both trials (p < .05), but the reduction in PP (from 277.2 +/- 34.6 W to 257.3 +/- 45.1 W; p < .05) only occurred in caffeine trial. Both pretest blood lactate concentration and HR were higher in caffeine than in placebo trial (p < .05) in the third and fourth tests. No between-trial differences occurred in RPF or RPE. Conclusions: Under simulated competition day conditions mimicking four consecutive wrestling matches, acute caffeine ingestion has a partially detrimental effect on upper body intermittent sprint performance in trained wrestlers. Elevated HR and blood lactate levels observed between tests after caffeine ingestion suggest that caffeine may impair recovery between consecutive maximal efforts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available