4.6 Article

Effects of a Caffeine-Containing Energy Drink on Simulated Soccer Performance

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031380

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: To investigate the effects of a caffeine-containing energy drink on soccer performance during a simulated game. A second purpose was to assess the post-exercise urine caffeine concentration derived from the energy drink intake. Methodology/Principal Findings: Nineteen semiprofessional soccer players ingested 630 +/- 52 mL of a commercially available energy drink (sugar-free Red Bull (R)) to provide 3 mg of caffeine per kg of body mass, or a decaffeinated control drink (0 mg/kg). After sixty minutes they performed a 15-s maximal jump test, a repeated sprint test (7x30 m; 30 s of active recovery) and played a simulated soccer game. Individual running distance and speed during the game were measured using global positioning satellite (GPS) devices. In comparison to the control drink, the ingestion of the energy drink increased mean jump height in the jump test (34.7 +/- 4.7 v 35.8 +/- 5.5 cm; P<0.05), mean running speed during the sprint test (25.6 +/- 2.1 v 26.3 +/- 1.8 km . h(-1); P<0.05) and total distance covered at a speed higher than 13 km . h(-1) during the game (1205 +/- 289 v 1436 +/- 326 m; P<0.05). In addition, the energy drink increased the number of sprints during the whole game (30 +/- 10 v 24 +/- 8; P<0.05). Post-exercise urine caffeine concentration was higher after the energy drink than after the control drink (4.1 +/- 1.0 v 0.1 +/- 0.1 mu g . mL(-1); P<0.05). Conclusions/significance: A caffeine-containing energy drink in a dose equivalent to 3 mg/kg increased the ability to repeatedly sprint and the distance covered at high intensity during a simulated soccer game. In addition, the caffeinated energy drink increased jump height which may represent a meaningful improvement for headers or when players are competing for a ball.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据