↓ Skip to main content

Are the Current Guidelines on Caffeine Use in Sport Optimal for Everyone? Inter-individual Variation in Caffeine Ergogenicity, and a Move Towards Personalised Sports Nutrition

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
26 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
87 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
9 Facebook pages
video
4 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
157 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
477 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Are the Current Guidelines on Caffeine Use in Sport Optimal for Everyone? Inter-individual Variation in Caffeine Ergogenicity, and a Move Towards Personalised Sports Nutrition
Published in
Sports Medicine, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40279-017-0776-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Craig Pickering, John Kiely

Abstract

Caffeine use is widespread in sport, with a strong evidence base demonstrating its ergogenic effect. Based on existing research, current guidelines recommend ingestion of 3-9 mg/kg approximately 60 min prior to exercise. However, the magnitude of performance enhancement following caffeine ingestion differs substantially between individuals, with the spectrum of responses ranging between highly ergogenic to ergolytic. These extensive inter-individual response distinctions are mediated by variation in individual genotype, environmental factors, and the legacy of prior experiences partially mediated via epigenetic mechanisms. Here, we briefly review the drivers of this inter-individual variation in caffeine response, focusing on the impact of common polymorphisms within two genes, CYP1A2 and ADORA2A. Contemporary evidence suggests current standardised guidelines are optimal for only a sub-set of the athlete population. Clearer understanding of the factors underpinning inter-individual variation potentially facilitates a more nuanced, and individually and context-specific customisation of caffeine ingestion guidelines, specific to an individual's biology, history, and competitive situation. Finally, we identify current knowledge deficits in this area, along with future associated research questions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 87 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 477 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 477 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 102 21%
Student > Master 83 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 7%
Researcher 25 5%
Other 22 5%
Other 75 16%
Unknown 135 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 138 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 62 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 5%
Other 42 9%
Unknown 152 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 268. 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 28 October 2023.
All research outputs
#133,671
of 25,355,907 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#120
of 2,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,930
of 322,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#5
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,355,907 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 322,245 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.