4.7 Article

Challenging the Myth of Non-Response to the Ergogenic Effects of Caffeine Ingestion on Exercise Performance

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu11040732

Keywords

individual responses; responders; exercise performance; ergogenic aids

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ergogenicity of caffeine on several exercise and sport situations is well-established. However, the extent of the ergogenic response to acute caffeine ingestion might greatly vary among individuals despite using the same dosage and timing. The existence of one or several individuals that obtained minimal ergogenic effects or even slightly ergolytic effects after caffeine intake (i.e., non-responders) has been reported in several previous investigations. Nevertheless, the concept non-responding to caffeine, in terms of physical performance, relies on investigations based on the measurement of one performance variable obtained once. Recently it has been suggested that correct identification of the individual ergogenic effect induced by caffeine intake requires the repeated measurement of physical performance in identical caffeine-placebo comparisons. In this communication, we present data from an investigation where the ergogenic effect of acute caffeine intake (3 mg/kg) was measured eight times over a placebo in the same individuals and under the same conditions by an incremental cycling test to volitional fatigue and an adapted version of the Wingate cycling test. The ergogenic response to caffeine varied from 9% to 1% among individuals, but all participants increased both cycling power in the incremental test and Wingate mean power at least three to eight times out of eight the caffeine-placebo comparisons. These data expand the suggestion of a minimal occurrence of caffeine non-responders because it shows that all individuals responded to caffeine when caffeine is compared to a placebo on multiple and repeated testing sessions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available