↓ Skip to main content

Dispelling the myth that habitual caffeine consumption influences the performance response to acute caffeine supplementation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Applied Physiology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 9,133)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
31 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
292 X users
facebook
32 Facebook pages
video
3 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
134 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
286 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
Dispelling the myth that habitual caffeine consumption influences the performance response to acute caffeine supplementation
Published in
Journal of Applied Physiology, May 2017
DOI 10.1152/japplphysiol.00260.2017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lívia de Souza Gonçalves, Vitor de Salles Painelli, Guilherme Yamaguchi, Luana Farias de Oliveira, Bryan Saunders, Rafael Pires da Silva, Erika Maciel, Guilherme Giannini Artioli, Hamilton Roschel, Bruno Gualano

Abstract

To investigate the influence of habitual caffeine intake on exercise performance to acute caffeine supplementation. A double-blind, crossover, counterbalanced study was performed. Forty endurance-trained cyclists were allocated into tertiles according to their daily caffeine intake: low (58 ± 29 mg(.)d(-1)), moderate (143 ± 25 mg(.)d(-1)), and high consumers (351 ± 139 mg(.)d(-1)). Participants completed three trials in which they performed simulated cycling time-trials in the fastest time possible following ingestion of: caffeine (CAF: 6 mg(.)kg(-1) BM), placebo (PLA), and no supplement (CON). Mixed-model analysis revealed time-trial performance was significantly improved in CAF compared to PLA and CON (29.92±2.18 min vs 30.81±2.67 and 31.14±2.71 min; P = <0.0002). ANCOVA revealed no influence of habitual caffeine intake as a covariate on exercise performance (P=0.47). Time-trial performance was not significantly different between tertiles (P=0.75). No correlation was observed between habitual caffeine intake and absolute changes (CAF - CON) in time-trial performance with caffeine (P=0.524). Individual analysis showed that eight, seven and five individuals improved above the variation of the test in CAF in the low, moderate and high tertiles. A Fisher's Exact Test did not show any significant differences in the number of individuals who improved in CAF between the tertiles (P>0.05). Blood lactate and ratings of perceived exertion were not different between trials and tertiles (P>0.05). Performance effects of acute caffeine supplementation during a ~30 min cycling TT performance were not influenced by the level of habitual caffeine consumption.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 292 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 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 286 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 18%
Student > Bachelor 49 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 9%
Researcher 18 6%
Other 17 6%
Other 54 19%
Unknown 72 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 95 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 4%
Other 34 12%
Unknown 82 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 478. 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 July 2023.
All research outputs
#56,858
of 25,726,194 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Physiology
#22
of 9,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,206
of 326,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Physiology
#1
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,726,194 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 9,133 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 326,381 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 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.