4.6 Article

Caffeine Increases Anaerobic Work and Restores Cycling Performance following a Protocol Designed to Lower Endogenous Carbohydrate Availability

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072025

关键词

-

资金

  1. Coordination of Improvement of Personnel of Superior Level (CAPES-PRODOC) [MEC/CAPES 29/2010]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose this study was to examine the effects of caffeine ingestion on performance and energy expenditure (anaerobic and aerobic contribution) during a 4-km cycling time trial (TT) performed after a carbohydrate (CHO) availability-lowering exercise protocol. After preliminary and familiarization trials, seven amateur cyclists performed three 4-km cycling TT in a double-blind, randomized and crossover design. The trials were performed either after no previous exercise (CON), or after a CHO availability-lowering exercise protocol (DEP) performed in the previous evening, followed by either placebo (DEP-PLA) or 5 mg.kg(-1) of caffeine intake (DEP-CAF) 1 hour before the trial. Performance was reduced (22.1%) in DEP-PLA vs CON (421.0 +/- 12.3 vs 412.4 +/- 9.7 s). However, performance was restored in DEP-CAF (404.6 +/- 17.1 s) compared with DEP-PLA, while no differences were found between DEP-CAF and CON. The anaerobic contribution was increased in DEP-CAF compared with both DEP-PLA and CON (67.4 +/- 14.91, 47. 3 +/- 14.6 and 55.3 +/- 14.0 W, respectively), and this was more pronounced in the first 3 km of the trial. Similarly, total anaerobic work was higher in DEP-CAF than in the other conditions. The integrated electromyographic activity, plasma lactate concentration, oxygen uptake, aerobic contribution and total aerobic work were not different between the conditions. The reduction in performance associated with low CHO availability is reversed with caffeine ingestion due to a higher anaerobic contribution, suggesting that caffeine could access an anaerobic reserve'' that is not used under normal conditions.

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