相信咖啡因对认知功能和耐力表现的促能作用:一项假剂量反应研究。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental Pub Date : 2021-09-01 Epub Date: 2021-05-03 DOI:10.1002/hup.2792
Nathan Delang, Christopher Irwin, Gregory R Cox, Danielle McCartney, Ben Desbrow
{"title":"相信咖啡因对认知功能和耐力表现的促能作用:一项假剂量反应研究。","authors":"Nathan Delang,&nbsp;Christopher Irwin,&nbsp;Gregory R Cox,&nbsp;Danielle McCartney,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"Belief in caffeine's ergogenic effect on cognitive function and endurance performance: A sham dose-response study.\",\"authors\":\"Nathan Delang,&nbsp;Christopher Irwin,&nbsp;Gregory R Cox,&nbsp;Danielle McCartney,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

这项研究的目的是确定咖啡因对人体机能的潜在影响是否会影响选择反应时间(CRT)和/或跑步表现。29名健康个体(23.7±5岁,男性16名)完成两项试验(间隔一周)。在试验之前,参与者表明了他们对咖啡因的“信念”,以及之前使用咖啡因的“经验”。到达时,参与者随机接受假“低剂量”(100mg;“高”(300毫克;在开始CRT测试前30分钟服用咖啡因胶囊,然后跑10公里。配对样本t检验确定了试验间CRT潜伏期的差异(前高斯分析;μ-, σ-和τ-)和运行性能使用整个队列和子组表现出强烈的“信念”+/-“经验”。假性咖啡因剂量对CRT (μ-、σ-和τ-)无影响,LD为400±53ms, HD为388±41ms;LD: 35±18ms, HD: 34±17ms;LD: 50±24女士与高清:52±19女士,所有p > 0.05)。信念(n = 6)和信念+经验(n = 4)都没有影响这种效果。此外,咖啡因剂量不影响运行时间(LD: 49.05±3.75min vs. HD: 49.06±3.85min, p = 0.979)。信念(n = 9) (LD: 48.93±3.71min vs. HD: 48.9±3.52min, p = 0.976)、信念+经验(n = 6) (LD: 48.68±1.87min vs. HD: 49.55±1.75min, p = 0.386)对该效果无影响。在健康个体中,不管他们是否相信咖啡因的作用,假咖啡因摄入对认知或耐力表现的剂量反应并不明显。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Belief in caffeine's ergogenic effect on cognitive function and endurance performance: A sham dose-response study.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Antipsychotic-Treated Schizophrenia Patients Develop Inflammatory and Oxidative Responses Independently From Obesity: However, Metabolic Disturbances Arise From Schizophrenia-Related Obesity Patient outcome following selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor prescribing in primary care in Wales (UK) Issue Information Safety and efficacy of Withania somnifera for anxiety and insomnia: Systematic review and meta-analysis
×
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