Beyond the Buzz: Do Energy Drinks Offer More Than Caffeine for Mental and Physical Tasks?

Q1 Health Professions International journal of exercise science Pub Date : 2024-08-01 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01
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.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
热闹之外:除了咖啡因,能量饮料还能帮助完成脑力和体力任务吗?
能量饮料在市场上被用来提高智力和体能,通常含有咖啡因以外的成分。本研究调查了能量饮料(ED)"Gorilla Mind "与咖啡因匹配的对照饮料(CAF)相比,是否对运动训练者(n = 21,年龄:22 ± 5.9 岁)的持续注意力、情绪、手握力和俯卧撑成绩产生了更大的影响。在随机、平衡、交叉设计中,参与者首先完成情绪(情绪状态档案;POMS)、持续注意力(精神运动警觉性测试;PVT)、手握力(HG)和 1 分钟最大俯卧撑成绩(PU)的评估测试。然后,他们按照随机顺序饮用 ED 或 CAF 饮料(200 毫克咖啡因)。45 分钟后,重复测试。经过 1 周的冲洗期后,参与者再次饮用另一种饮料,并完成相同的测试。虽然 ED 组的反应时间(PVT)有所改善,但 ED 和 CAF 之间的 Delta 分数没有统计学意义(p = 0.3391)。在其他测量指标上,ED 组和 CAF 组之间没有发现明显差异(POMS:p = 0.152;HG:p = 0.499;PU:p = 0.209)。这些结果表明,对于活跃的人来说,ED 中的额外成分可能不会在咖啡因之外为这些指标带来实质性的益处。值得注意的是,咖啡因的平均剂量低于 3.0 毫克/千克体重,这可能会影响结果。
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 去求助
来源期刊
International journal of exercise science
International journal of exercise science Health Professions-Occupational Therapy
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Effects of Mental Fatigue Induced by the Stroop Test on Muscular Endurance Performance and Neuromuscular Activation in Division III Female Athletes. Validity, Reliability, and Sensitivity of a Commercially Available Velocity Measuring Device When Performing Selected Exercises. Effects of Different Warm-up Protocols on the Cardiopulmonary Responses to Exercise Testing in Youth. Relative Age Effect for Different Playing Positions in Adolescent Female Volleyball Players. A Comparison of Achilles Tendon Morphological Characteristics Based Upon VISA-A Score in Active Adults Over Age 50.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1