| Title |
Benefits of caffeine ingestion on sprint performance in trained and untrained swimmers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, July 1992
|
| DOI | 10.1007/bf00636227 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
K. Collomp, S. Ahmaidi, J. C. Chatard, M. Audran, Ch. Préfaut |
| Abstract |
The influence of specific training on benefits from caffeine (Caf) ingestion was examined during a sprint test in a group of highly trained swimmers (T) and compared with the response of a group of untrained occasional swimmers (UT). Seven T and seven UT subjects swam freestyle two randomly assigned 2 x 100 m distances, at maximal speed and separated by 20 min of passive recovery, once after Caf (250 mg) and once after placebo (Pla) ingestion. Anaerobic capacity was assessed by the mean velocity (meters per second) during each 100 m and blood was sampled from the fingertip just before and 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 min after each 100 m for resting and maximal blood lactate concentration ([la-]b,max) determination. The [la-]bmax was significantly enhanced by Caf in both T and UT subjects (P less than 0.01). However, only T subjects exhibited significant improvement in their swimming velocity (P less than 0.01) after Caf or any significant impairment during the second 100 m. In light of these results, it appears that specific training is necessary to benefit from the metabolic adaptations induced by Caf during supramaximal exercise requiring a high anaerobic capacity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 149 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 40 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 6% |
| Researcher | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 12% |
| Unknown | 44 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 52 | 34% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 5% |
| Unknown | 49 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 February 2021.
All research outputs
#2,297,406
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#764
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#508
of 17,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 17,580 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them