4.4 Article

Effects of Caffeine on Repetitions to Failure and Ratings of Perceived Exertion During Resistance Training

出版社

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2.3.250

关键词

ergogenic aid; heart rate; strength training

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Ergogenic effects of caffeine on aerobic or endurance exercise are well documented. Conversely, the ergogenic value of caffeine on high-intensity, primarily anaerobic performance is not well understood even though the proposed mechanisms of action for caffeine permit a strong theoretical basis for application to this type of exercise. Purpose: This study examined effects of caffeine (Ca) on number repetitions (reps), ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), and peak heart rate (PHR) during resistance-training exercise with reps performed to volitional failure. Methods: Subjects (N = 17) were tested for 10-rep maximum in bench press (BP) and leg press (LP). In sessions 2 and 3, Ca (similar to 6 mg/kg) or placebo (Pl) was ingested 1 hr beforehand in a double-blind manner and counterbalanced order. Subjects performed 3 sets to failure (BP and LP) with reps, PHR, and RPE recorded each set. Repeated-measures ANOVAs, 2 (trial) x 3 (set), were used to analyze dependent measures with the Tukey honestly significant difference used when necessary as the post hoc test. Results: In BP, no significant differences (Ca vs Pl) were observed (reps, RPE, PHR). During set 3 of LP training, Ca was associated with significantly higher reps (12.5 +/- 4.2 vs 9.9 +/- 2.6) and PHR (158.5 +/- 11.9 vs 151.8 +/- 13.2). No significant RPE differences were found during LP. Conclusions: The findings of similar RPE concurrent with higher reps suggest that caffeine can blunt pain responses, possibly delaying fatigue in high-intensity resistance training. Ergogenic effects might be limited to the later sets in a resistance-training session. Further research is warranted regarding ergogenic effects of caffeine during resistance training and potential mechanisms of action.

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

4.4
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