4.6 Article

Effects of sodium phosphate and caffeine ingestion on repeated-sprint ability in male athletes

期刊

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN SPORT
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 272-276

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2015.04.001

关键词

Dietary supplements; Aerobic exercise; Sports performance; Team-sports

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives.: To assess the effects of sodium phosphate (SP) and caffeine supplementation on repeated sprint performance. Design: Randomized, double-blind, Latin-square design. Methods: Eleven team-sport males participated in four trials: (1) SP (50 mg kg(-1) of free fat-mass daily for six days) and caffeine (6 mg kg-1 ingested 1 h before exercise); SP + C, (2) SP and placebo (for caffeine), (3) caffeine and placebo (for SP) and (4) placebo (for SP and caffeine). After loading, participants performed a simulated team-game circuit (STGC) consisting of 2 x 30 min halves, with 6 x 20-m repeated-sprint sets performed at the start, half-time and end of the STGC. Results: There were no interaction effects between trials for first-sprint (FS), best-sprint (BS) or total sprint (TS) times (p > 0.05). However, SP resulted in the fastest times.for all sprints, as supported by moderate to large effect sizes'(ES; d= 0.51-0.83) and 'likely' to 'very likely' chances of benefit, compared with placebo. Compared with caffeine, SP resulted in 'possible' to 'likely' chances of benefit for FS, BS and TS for numerous sets and a 'possible' chance of benefit compared with SP + C for BS (set 2). Compared with placebo, SP + C resulted in moderate ES (d = 0.50-0.62) and 'possible' to 'likely' benefit for numerous sprints, while caffeine resulted in a moderate ES (d = 0.63; FS: set 3) and 'likely' chances of benefit for a number of sets. Conclusions: While not significant, ES and qualitative analysis results suggest that SP supplementation may improve repeated-sprint performance when compared with placebo. (C) 2015 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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