4.5 Article

Effects of oral administration of caffeine and D-ribose on mental fatigue

Journal

NUTRITION
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 233-238

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2007.12.002

Keywords

mental fatigue; caffeine; D-ribose; Uchida-Kraepelin psychodiagnostic test; advanced trail making test; branched-chain amino acids

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: We examined the effects of administering two different candidate antifatigue substances, caffeine and D-ribose, on mental fatigue. Methods: In a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, three-way crossover design, 17 healthy volunteers were randomized to oral caffeine (200 mg/d), D-ribose (2000 mg/d), or placebo for 8 d. As fatigue-inducing mental tasks, subjects performed a 30-min Uchida-Kraepetin psychodiagnostic test and a 30-min advanced trail-making test on four occasions. Results: During the tasks, the task performance of the caffeine group was better than that of the placebo group. However, after the fatigue-inducing tasks, although subjective perception of fatigue, motivation, or sleepiness was not significantly different, plasma branched-chain amino acid levels in the caffeine group were lower than those of the placebo group. Administration of D-ribose had no effect. Conclusion: Because plasma branched-chain amino acid levels are decreased by mental fatigue, these results suggest that administration of caffeine improved task performance through the enhancement of central nervous system activity without increasing the sensation of fatigue. However, further decreases in branched-chain amino acid levels indicate that caffeine might promote deeper fatigue than placebo. Unfortunately, research subsequent to our study design has shown that D-ribose dosing higher than we used is needed to see a clinical effect and therefore no conclusions can be made from this study as to the efficacy of D-ribose. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available