Multi-Ingredient Preworkout Supplementation Compared With Caffeine and a Placebo Does Not Improve Repetitions to Failure in Resistance-Trained Women.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 PHYSIOLOGY
Mariah Snyder, Christi Brewer, Katrina Taylor
{"title":"Multi-Ingredient Preworkout Supplementation Compared With Caffeine and a Placebo Does Not Improve Repetitions to Failure in Resistance-Trained Women.","authors":"Mariah Snyder, Christi Brewer, Katrina Taylor","doi":"10.1123/ijspp.2023-0415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There has been an increase in the use of commercially available multi-ingredient preworkout supplements (MIPS); however, there are inconsistencies regarding the efficacy of MIPS in resistance-trained women.\n\n\nPURPOSE\nTo determine the effect of varying doses of MIPS compared with caffeine only (C) and a placebo (PL) on resistance-training performance in trained women.\n\n\nMETHODS\nTen women (21.5 [2.3] y) completed 1-repetition-maximum tests at baseline for leg press and bench press. A within-group, double-blind, and randomized design was used to assign supplement drinks (ie, PL, C, MIPS half scoop [MIPS-H], and MIPS full scoop [MIPS-F]). Repetitions to failure were assessed at 75% and 80% to 85% of 1-repetition maximum for bench and leg press, respectively. Total performance volume was calculated as load × sets × repetitions for each session. Data were analyzed using a 1-way repeated-measures analysis of variance and reported as means and SDs.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThere were no differences in repetitions to failure for bench press (PL: 14.4 [3.2] repetitions, C: 14.4 [2.9] repetitions, MIPS-H: 14.2 [2.6] repetitions, MIPS-F: 15.1 [3.1] repetitions; P = .54) or leg press (PL: 13.9 [7.8] repetitions, C: 10.8 [5.9] repetitions, MIPS-H: 13.1 [7.1] repetitions, MIPS-F: 12.4 [10.7] repetitions; P = .44). Furthermore, there were no differences in total performance volume across supplements for bench press (PL: 911.2 [212.8] kg, C: 910.7 [205.5] kg, MIPS-H: 913.6 [249.3] kg, MIPS-F: 951.6 [289.6] kg; P = .39) or leg press (PL: 4318.4 [1633.6] kg, C: 3730.0 [1032.5] kg, MIPS-H: 4223.0 [1630.0] kg, MIPS-F: 4085.5 [2098.3] kg; P = .34).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nOverall, our findings suggest that caffeine and MIPS do not provide ergogenic benefits for resistance-trained women in delaying muscular failure.","PeriodicalId":14295,"journal":{"name":"International journal of sports physiology and performance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of sports physiology and performance","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2023-0415","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There has been an increase in the use of commercially available multi-ingredient preworkout supplements (MIPS); however, there are inconsistencies regarding the efficacy of MIPS in resistance-trained women. PURPOSE To determine the effect of varying doses of MIPS compared with caffeine only (C) and a placebo (PL) on resistance-training performance in trained women. METHODS Ten women (21.5 [2.3] y) completed 1-repetition-maximum tests at baseline for leg press and bench press. A within-group, double-blind, and randomized design was used to assign supplement drinks (ie, PL, C, MIPS half scoop [MIPS-H], and MIPS full scoop [MIPS-F]). Repetitions to failure were assessed at 75% and 80% to 85% of 1-repetition maximum for bench and leg press, respectively. Total performance volume was calculated as load × sets × repetitions for each session. Data were analyzed using a 1-way repeated-measures analysis of variance and reported as means and SDs. RESULTS There were no differences in repetitions to failure for bench press (PL: 14.4 [3.2] repetitions, C: 14.4 [2.9] repetitions, MIPS-H: 14.2 [2.6] repetitions, MIPS-F: 15.1 [3.1] repetitions; P = .54) or leg press (PL: 13.9 [7.8] repetitions, C: 10.8 [5.9] repetitions, MIPS-H: 13.1 [7.1] repetitions, MIPS-F: 12.4 [10.7] repetitions; P = .44). Furthermore, there were no differences in total performance volume across supplements for bench press (PL: 911.2 [212.8] kg, C: 910.7 [205.5] kg, MIPS-H: 913.6 [249.3] kg, MIPS-F: 951.6 [289.6] kg; P = .39) or leg press (PL: 4318.4 [1633.6] kg, C: 3730.0 [1032.5] kg, MIPS-H: 4223.0 [1630.0] kg, MIPS-F: 4085.5 [2098.3] kg; P = .34). CONCLUSIONS Overall, our findings suggest that caffeine and MIPS do not provide ergogenic benefits for resistance-trained women in delaying muscular failure.
与咖啡因和安慰剂相比,多种成分的预锻炼补充剂并不能提高抗阻训练女性的失败重复率。
目的:与仅含咖啡因(C)和安慰剂(PL)相比,确定不同剂量的 MIPS 对训练有素的女性阻力训练成绩的影响。方法:10 名女性(21.5 [2.3] 岁)在基线完成了腿部推举和卧推的 1 次重复最大测试。采用组内、双盲和随机设计分配补充饮料(即 PL、C、MIPS 半勺[MIPS-H]和 MIPS 全勺[MIPS-F])。卧推和腿部推举的失败重复次数分别为单次最大重复次数的 75% 和 80% 至 85%。每次训练的总训练量按负荷 × 组数 × 重复次数计算。数据采用单向重复测量方差分析法进行分析,并以均值和标差的形式报告。结果卧推的失败重复次数没有差异(PL:14.4 [3.2] 次,C:14.4 [2.9]次,MIPS-H:14.2 [2.6]次,MIPS-F:15.1 [3.1]次;P = .54)或腿部推举(PL:13.9 [7.8]次,C:10.8 [5.9]次,MIPS-H:13.1 [7.1]次,MIPS-F:12.4 [10.7]次;P = .44)。此外,在卧推(PL:911.2 [212.8] kg,C:910.7 [205.5] kg,MIPS-H:913.6 [249.3] kg,MIPS-F:951.6 [289.6] kg;P = .39)或腿部推举(PL:4318.4 [1633.总之,我们的研究结果表明,咖啡因和 MIPS 并不能为阻力训练女性提供延缓肌肉衰竭的益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
12.10%
发文量
199
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (IJSPP) focuses on sport physiology and performance and is dedicated to advancing the knowledge of sport and exercise physiologists, sport-performance researchers, and other sport scientists. The journal publishes authoritative peer-reviewed research in sport physiology and related disciplines, with an emphasis on work having direct practical applications in enhancing sport performance in sport physiology and related disciplines. IJSPP publishes 10 issues per year: January, February, March, April, May, July, August, September, October, and November.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信