4.4 Article

Enhancing Physical Performance in Male Volleyball Players With a Caffeine-Containing Energy Drink

Journal

Publisher

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2013-0448

Keywords

men; exercise; adverse effects

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are no scientific data about the effects of caffeine intake on volleyball performance. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a caffeine-containing energy drink to enhance physical performance in male volleyball players. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized experimental design was used. In 2 different sessions separated by 1 wk, 15 college volleyball players ingested 3 mg of caffeine per kg of body mass in the form of an energy drink or the same drink without caffeine (placebo). After 60 min, participants performed volleyball-specific tests: standing spike test, maximal squat jump (SJ), maximal countermovement jump (CMJ), 15-s rebound jump test (15RJ), and agility T-test. Later, a simulated volleyball match was played and recorded. In comparison with the placebo drink, the ingestion of the caffeinated energy drink increased ball velocity in the spike test (73 +/- 9 vs 75 +/- 10 km/h, P < .05) and the mean jump height in SJ (31.1 +/- 4.3 vs 32.7 +/- 4.2 cm, P < .05), CMJ (35.9 +/- 4.6 vs 37.7 +/- 4.4 cm, P < .05), and 15RJ (29.0 +/- 4.0 vs 30.5 +/- 4.6 cm, P < .05). The time to complete the agility test was significantly reduced with the caffeinated energy drink (10.8 +/- 0.7 vs 10.3 +/- 0.4 s, P < .05). In addition, players performed successful volleyball actions more frequently (24.6% +/- 14.3% vs 34.3% +/- 16.5%, P < .05) with the ingestion of the caffeinated energy drink than with the placebo drink during the simulated game. A caffeine-containing energy drink, with a dose equivalent to 3 mg of caffeine per kg body mass, might be an effective ergogenic aid to improve physical performance and accuracy in male volleyball players.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available