Nathan Delang, Christopher Irwin, Gregory R Cox, Danielle McCartney, Ben Desbrow
{"title":"Belief in caffeine's ergogenic effect on cognitive function and endurance performance: A sham dose-response study.","authors":"Nathan Delang, Christopher Irwin, Gregory R Cox, Danielle McCartney, Ben Desbrow","doi":"10.1002/hup.2792","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to determine if belief in caffeine's ergogenic potential influences choice reaction time (CRT) and/or running performance. Twenty-nine healthy individuals (23.7 ± 5 years, 16 males) completed two trials (one week apart). Before the trials, participants indicated their \"belief\" in caffeine's ergogenic effects and previous \"experience\" using caffeine for performance. On arrival, participants randomly received either sham \"Low (100mg; LD)\" or \"High (300mg; HD)\" dose caffeine capsules 30-min before commencing the CRT test, followed by a 10km run. Paired samples t-tests determined differences between trials for CRT latency (Ex-Gaussian analysis; μ-, σ- and τ-) and running performance using the entire cohort and sub-groups exhibiting strong \"beliefs\"+/-\"experience\". Sham caffeine dose did not influence CRT (μ-, σ- and τ-respectively, LD: 400 ± 53ms vs. HD: 388 ± 41ms; LD: 35 ± 18ms vs. HD: 34 ± 17ms; LD: 50 ± 24ms vs. HD: 52 ± 19ms, all p's > 0.05). Neither belief (n = 6), nor belief + experience (n = 4), influenced this effect. Furthermore, caffeine dose did not influence run time (LD: 49.05 ± 3.75min vs. HD: 49.06 ± 3.85min, p = 0.979). Belief (n = 9) (LD: 48.93 ± 3.71min vs. HD: 48.9 ± 3.52min, p = 0.976), and belief + experience (n = 6) (LD: 48.68 ± 1.87min vs. HD: 49.55 ± 1.75min, p = 0.386) didn't influence this effect. A dose-response to sham caffeine ingestion was not evident on cognitive or endurance performance in healthy individuals, regardless of their convictions about caffeine's ergogenicity.</p>","PeriodicalId":13030,"journal":{"name":"Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental","volume":"36 5","pages":"e2792"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/hup.2792","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/hup.2792","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/5/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study aimed to determine if belief in caffeine's ergogenic potential influences choice reaction time (CRT) and/or running performance. Twenty-nine healthy individuals (23.7 ± 5 years, 16 males) completed two trials (one week apart). Before the trials, participants indicated their "belief" in caffeine's ergogenic effects and previous "experience" using caffeine for performance. On arrival, participants randomly received either sham "Low (100mg; LD)" or "High (300mg; HD)" dose caffeine capsules 30-min before commencing the CRT test, followed by a 10km run. Paired samples t-tests determined differences between trials for CRT latency (Ex-Gaussian analysis; μ-, σ- and τ-) and running performance using the entire cohort and sub-groups exhibiting strong "beliefs"+/-"experience". Sham caffeine dose did not influence CRT (μ-, σ- and τ-respectively, LD: 400 ± 53ms vs. HD: 388 ± 41ms; LD: 35 ± 18ms vs. HD: 34 ± 17ms; LD: 50 ± 24ms vs. HD: 52 ± 19ms, all p's > 0.05). Neither belief (n = 6), nor belief + experience (n = 4), influenced this effect. Furthermore, caffeine dose did not influence run time (LD: 49.05 ± 3.75min vs. HD: 49.06 ± 3.85min, p = 0.979). Belief (n = 9) (LD: 48.93 ± 3.71min vs. HD: 48.9 ± 3.52min, p = 0.976), and belief + experience (n = 6) (LD: 48.68 ± 1.87min vs. HD: 49.55 ± 1.75min, p = 0.386) didn't influence this effect. A dose-response to sham caffeine ingestion was not evident on cognitive or endurance performance in healthy individuals, regardless of their convictions about caffeine's ergogenicity.
期刊介绍:
Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental provides a forum for the evaluation of clinical and experimental research on both new and established psychotropic medicines. Experimental studies of other centrally active drugs, including herbal products, in clinical, social and psychological contexts, as well as clinical/scientific papers on drugs of abuse and drug dependency will also be considered. While the primary purpose of the Journal is to publish the results of clinical research, the results of animal studies relevant to human psychopharmacology are welcome. The following topics are of special interest to the editors and readers of the Journal:
-All aspects of clinical psychopharmacology-
Efficacy and safety studies of novel and standard psychotropic drugs-
Studies of the adverse effects of psychotropic drugs-
Effects of psychotropic drugs on normal physiological processes-
Geriatric and paediatric psychopharmacology-
Ethical and psychosocial aspects of drug use and misuse-
Psychopharmacological aspects of sleep and chronobiology-
Neuroimaging and psychoactive drugs-
Phytopharmacology and psychoactive substances-
Drug treatment of neurological disorders-
Mechanisms of action of psychotropic drugs-
Ethnopsychopharmacology-
Pharmacogenetic aspects of mental illness and drug response-
Psychometrics: psychopharmacological methods and experimental design