Flavia Pereira, Cassandra Evans, Jose Rojas, Jason Curtis, Alyana Andal, Hena Thakkar, Robert Rocanelli, Cesar Castillo Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Santana, Lia Jiannine, Jose Antonio
{"title":"Beyond the Buzz: Do Energy Drinks Offer More Than Caffeine for Mental and Physical Tasks?","authors":"Flavia Pereira, Cassandra Evans, Jose Rojas, Jason Curtis, Alyana Andal, Hena Thakkar, Robert Rocanelli, Cesar Castillo Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Santana, Lia Jiannine, Jose Antonio","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Energy drinks are marketed for enhancing mental and physical performance, often containing ingredients beyond caffeine. This study investigated whether an energy drink (ED), Gorilla Mind, exerted greater effects on sustained attention, mood, handgrip strength, and push-up performance than a caffeine-matched control drink (CAF) in exercise-trained individuals (n = 21, age: 22 ± 5.9 years). In a randomized, counterbalanced, crossover design, participants first completed tests assessing mood (Profile of Mood States; POMS), sustained attention (Psychomotor Vigilance Test; PVT), handgrip strength (HG), and 1-minute maximum push-up performance (PU). They then consumed either an ED or CAF drink (200mg caffeine) in a randomized order. After 45 minutes, the tests were repeated. Following a 1-week washout period, participants returned to consume the other drink and completed the same protocol. While the ED group improved reaction time (PVT), the Delta score between ED and CAF was not statistically significant (p = 0.3391). No significant differences were found between ED and CAF groups for other measures (POMS: p = 0.152, HG: p = 0.499, PU: p = 0.209). These findings suggest that the additional ingredients in the ED may not offer substantial benefits beyond caffeine for these measures in active individuals. It is important to note that the caffeine dose was, on average, less than 3.0 mg/kg body mass, which may have influenced the outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":14171,"journal":{"name":"International journal of exercise science","volume":"17 1","pages":"1208-1218"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11385283/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of exercise science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Energy drinks are marketed for enhancing mental and physical performance, often containing ingredients beyond caffeine. This study investigated whether an energy drink (ED), Gorilla Mind, exerted greater effects on sustained attention, mood, handgrip strength, and push-up performance than a caffeine-matched control drink (CAF) in exercise-trained individuals (n = 21, age: 22 ± 5.9 years). In a randomized, counterbalanced, crossover design, participants first completed tests assessing mood (Profile of Mood States; POMS), sustained attention (Psychomotor Vigilance Test; PVT), handgrip strength (HG), and 1-minute maximum push-up performance (PU). They then consumed either an ED or CAF drink (200mg caffeine) in a randomized order. After 45 minutes, the tests were repeated. Following a 1-week washout period, participants returned to consume the other drink and completed the same protocol. While the ED group improved reaction time (PVT), the Delta score between ED and CAF was not statistically significant (p = 0.3391). No significant differences were found between ED and CAF groups for other measures (POMS: p = 0.152, HG: p = 0.499, PU: p = 0.209). These findings suggest that the additional ingredients in the ED may not offer substantial benefits beyond caffeine for these measures in active individuals. It is important to note that the caffeine dose was, on average, less than 3.0 mg/kg body mass, which may have influenced the outcomes.