Next Article in Journal
Understanding Micronutrient Access through the Lens of the Social Ecological Model: Exploring the Influence of Socioeconomic Factors—A Qualitative Exploration
Next Article in Special Issue
Efficacy of Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis LY-66 and Lactobacillus plantarum PL-02 in Enhancing Explosive Strength and Endurance: A Randomized, Double-Blinded Clinical Trial
Previous Article in Journal
Research on Application of Japanese Quince (Chaenomeles L.) and Pork Collagen in Dark Chocolate—Benefits in Prevention of Inflammation In Vitro Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Caffeinated Coffee on Cross-Country Cycling Performance in Recreational Cyclists
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 16
Issue 11
10.3390/nu16111760
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sex Differences in the Ergogenic Response of Acute Caffeine Intake on Muscular Strength, Power and Endurance Performance in Resistance-Trained Individuals: A Randomized Controlled Trial

by
Juan Jesús Montalvo-Alonso
1,
Carmen Ferragut
1,
Marta del Val-Manzano
1,
David Valadés
1,
Justin Roberts
2 and
Alberto Pérez-López
1,*
1
Universidad de Alcalá, Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Departamento de Ciencias Biomédicas, Área de Educación Física y Deportiva, 28801 Madrid, Spain
2
Cambridge Centre for Sport and Exercise Sciences, School of Psychology and Sport Science, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2024, 16(11), 1760; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16111760
Submission received: 25 April 2024 / Revised: 30 May 2024 / Accepted: 31 May 2024 / Published: 4 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Nutrition for Muscular Strength, Power and Endurance)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: This study assessed the impact of acute caffeine intake on muscular strength, power, and endurance performance between resistance-trained male and female individuals according to load in upper- and lower-body exercises. Methods: Here, 76 resistance-trained individuals (38 females, 38 males) participated in a study comparing caffeine and a placebo. Each received either 3 mg/kg of caffeine or a placebo 60 min before tests measuring muscular strength and power through bench press and back squat exercises at different intensities (25%, 50%, 75%, 90% 1RM). Muscular endurance at 65% 1RM was also assessed by performing reps until reaching task failure. Results: Compared to placebo, caffeine increased mean, peak and time to reach peak velocity and power output (p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.242–0.293) in the muscular strength/power test in males and females. This effect was particularly observed in the back squat exercise at 50%, 75% and 90% 1RM (2.5–8.5%, p < 0.05, g = 1.0–2.4). For muscular endurance, caffeine increased the number of repetitions, mean velocity and power output (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.177–0.255) in both sexes and exercises (3.0–8.9%, p < 0.05, g = 0.15–0.33). Conclusions: Acute caffeine intake resulted in a similar ergogenic effect on muscular strength, power, and endurance performance in upper- and lower-body exercises for male and female resistance-trained participants.

1. Introduction

In the last three decades, the acute ergogenic effect of caffeine on sports performance has been analyzed in numerous studies, becoming one of the sports supplements with the greatest proven benefits [1]. Scientific evidence shows that acute caffeine intake improves muscle strength, power and endurance in upper- and lower-body exercises [2]. However, most of the evidence to date has involved male participants, with female participants being largely underrepresented [3,4]. Additionally, the sex differences in the acute effect of caffeine on muscular strength and power performance have been scarcely explored [4]. Therefore, from the available literature, it is unclear if the ergogenic effects of caffeine translate to female athletes, particularly trained resistance athletes.
Overall, upper- and lower-body strength is greater in males than females by 157% and 60%, respectively, relative to total body mass, in both recreationally active [5] and trained males and females (matched for training status) [6]. Relative to body mass, lower-body strength for female participants is also greater than upper-body strength, a phenomenon absent in males [7]. Despite these differences, in mass-relative terms, males and females increase strength similarly in response to resistance training [8,9]. A neuromuscular overview revealed absolute differences in motor unit (MU) activation between sexes [10,11]. Generally, males exhibit larger type II fibers than females, requiring greater action potential amplitudes to reach a higher threshold and recruit MU, allowing a higher contractile force production than females [12]. Thus, males rely on lower firing rates to modulate contractile force than females [12]. This difference in the neuromuscular profile between males and females may explain the differences observed in the force–velocity curve [13,14], where mean velocity and power are greater in males compared to females at a range of 30% to 70% 1RM [13]. However, when normalizing for strength, no sex differences have been observed in the back squat exercise, at least in terms of power production [14].
Caffeine (1,3,7-trimethylxanthine) is a potent stimulant known to enhance physical performance across a wide range of exercise and sports activities. When consumed at doses of 3 to 6 mg/kg of body mass, caffeine can notably improve muscular strength and power output in individuals trained in resistance exercises [2,15,16,17]. Specifically, it increases mean velocity production (Vmean) by 2.9% during bench press exercises at 30% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) [15], and by 5.4% to 8.5% in both bench press and back squat exercises at 25% and 50% 1RM, though this effect is not observed at higher intensities like 75% or 90% 1RM [16]. Similarly, improvements are seen at 25%, 50%, and 75% 1RM, but not at 90% 1RM [17]. However, these studies focused on male participants, and when female participants were involved, differences at 75% and 90% 1RM (but not at 25% and 50% 1RM) were found in Vmean and mean power production (Wmean), which may highlight potential sex differences [2]. Furthermore, a meta-analysis by Warren et al. [18] demonstrated that doses of 5 to 6 mg/kg of body mass led to a significant 14% improvement in muscular endurance across 19 out of 23 studies. This ergogenic effect was particularly evident in resistance-trained individuals who underwent bench press and back squat exercises until task failure at 60% 1RM [19] and at 85% 1RM [2], although sex-specific differences were not explored in that study.
There is a consensus that the ergogenic effect of caffeine occurs mainly through a central mechanism by antagonizing adenosine receptors, thereby facilitating increased muscle fiber conducting velocity and motor unit recruitment [20], although these effects may vary across different muscle groups [21,22,23,24], presumably eliciting a greater increase in force production in large compared to small muscle groups. Previous studies have supported this idea in isokinetic tasks [25], and indirectly in isotonic tasks [2]. Furthermore, one cannot avoid a potential peripheral ergogenic effect of caffeine, stimulating the inhibition of phosphodiesterase and calcium ion (Ca2+) release from the sarcoplasmic reticulum, increasing sodium–potassium pump activity or antagonizing benzodiazepine receptors in skeletal muscle [26]. However, most of this evidence is extracted from male participants, and the potential sex differences in caffeine ergogenicity and its mechanism of action in males and females remain scarcely studied.
Hence, the purpose of this study was to investigate how acute caffeine consumption affects muscular strength, power, and endurance performance in resistance-trained individuals, specifically focusing on potential differences between males and females across various loads and upper- and lower-body exercises. It was hypothesized that acute caffeine ingestion would improve strength, power and endurance at moderate to high loads, particularly in greater muscle size groups, to a similar extent in both sexes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Here, 76 resistance-trained participants (38 females and 38 males) of the same ethnicity (white) who were moderate caffeine consumers (5.6 ± 4.25 mg/kg/day) [27] and had completed a supervised and structured resistance training program (females 3.0 ± 1.7 y, males 2.5 ± 1.3 y), including bench press (1RM/kg females 1.09 ± 0.11 and males 1.18 ± 0.20) and back squat exercise (1RM/kg females 1.41 ± 0.25 and males 1.59 ± 0.26), were recruited for this investigation using social networks and posters mainly from sport facilities near the laboratory. The inclusion/exclusion criteria for this study were as follows: (a) participants aged between 18 and 35 years; (b) absence of neuromuscular, musculoskeletal, neurological, immunological, or cardio-metabolic disorders; (c) a minimum of 6 months of experience in resistance training, with a training frequency of at least 3 days per week over the past 3 months, as confirmed by a questionnaire; (d) no use of medication, drugs, stimulants, or other sports supplements during the trial. Twenty out of the thirty-eight female participants began the trial during the follicular phase of their menstrual cycle.
Prior to enrollment in the study, participants were thoroughly briefed on all experimental procedures, potential risks, and any associated discomfort. Following this explanation, participants provided written informed consent before proceeding with the study. The study design and protocol adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the University Ethical Committee of Investigation.

2.2. Experimental Design

A triple-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, counterbalanced and randomized experimental design was used in this investigation. Participants attended the laboratory on three separate occasions. During the initial visit, participants underwent assessments related to their dietary habits, physical activity, and body composition. Additionally, this visit included a familiarization session where a personal trainer evaluated the participants’ bench press and back squat exercises. The trainer also determined each participant’s one-repetition maximum (1RM) for both exercises. Bench press and back squat exercises were chosen as they target major muscle groups in the upper and lower body, respectively, and have been previously used to investigate the performance-enhancing effects of caffeine on muscular strength, power, and endurance [28]. Data obtained from visit one were not used to test the hypothesis of the study.
During visits two and three, participants took part in two separate trials with a minimum of 72 h between each to ensure full recovery. During visit two, participants were randomly assigned to receive either 3 mg/kg of body mass of caffeine (CAF) or a placebo (PL). Then, during visit three, participants received the opposite supplement from that which they had had in visit two, following a crossover design. The sequence of these trials was randomized for each participant using www.randomized.org to determine the experimental condition order. To maintain blinding throughout the study, an external researcher assigned an alphanumeric code to each sequence. These codes were kept by the external researcher, to blind participants and researchers during the trials and data analysis. The codes were revealed only after the completion of statistical analysis

2.3. Experimental Protocol

2.3.1. Body Composition, Dietary and Physical Activity Habits

One week prior to the initial experimental trial, participants attended a familiarization session at the laboratory. During each visit, body composition was assessed using electric bioimpedance (Tanita MC-780MA, Tanita Corporation of America Inc., Arlington Heights, IL, USA). Body mass measurements were used to calculate individualized supplement dosages
Dietary habits were evaluated using a 24-h dietary recall, and physical activity habits were assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) [29]. Starting 24 h before the familiarization session and continuing until the conclusion of the experimental trial, participants were instructed to abstain from consuming caffeine, stimulants, alcohol, and engaging in strenuous exercise. They were also asked to maintain a consistent sleep schedule and dietary pattern. Sleep patterns were evaluated using a self-report questionnaire, while dietary and fluid intakes were recorded using a 24-h recall questionnaire. The dietary intake from the 24 h preceding each laboratory visit was replicated. Additionally, both the familiarization and experimental trials were conducted at the same time of day to minimize the influence of circadian rhythms on the study outcomes.

2.3.2. Supplementation Protocol

The supplementation protocol began 60 min prior to the trial [30]. Participants consumed either caffeine (CAF) at a dosage of 3 mg/kg of body mass (HSN, Granada, Spain) or a placebo (PLA) consisting of 3 mg/kg of maltodextrin (HSN, Granada, Spain). The supplements were dissolved in 150 mL of tap water and flavored with a calorie-free additive to mask the supplements’ flavor/bitterness and smell (MyProtein, Northwich, UK). The beverages were served in opaque shaker bottles to ensure that participants and researchers were unaware of which supplement was being consumed

2.3.3. One-Repetition Maximum (1RM)

Bench press and back squat exercises’ one-repetition maximum (1RM) were obtained to determine the load (kg) corresponding to 25%, 50%, 75% and 90% 1RM for each participant, performed using a standard Smith machine (Multipower, Technogym, Barcelona, Spain). To determine the loads corresponding to 25%, 50%, 75%, and 90% of their one-repetition maximum (1RM) for bench press and back squat exercises, participants underwent a 1RM test using a standard Smith machine (Multipower, Technogym, Spain). The procedure of the 1RM test began with an initiation load of 20 kg for males and 10 kg for females. This load was incrementally increased by 15–10 kg until the Vmean reached 0.5 m/s for bench press and 0.8 m/s for back squat, as measured by a linear transducer (Encoder, Chronojump Boscosystem, Barcelona, Spain). Smaller increments (≤5 kg) were then used to fine-tune and determine the 1RM. Following a 20-min passive recovery period, participants engaged in a familiarization session where they performed the same tests in the same sequence as in the experimental trials. A pilot study was used to determine the recovery time to ensure that participants were mentally and physically prepared for the subsequent tests. Then, participants underwent a standardized warm-up consisting of 10 min of dynamic stretches and joint mobilization exercises before proceeding to the muscular power, strength, and endurance tests.

2.3.4. Muscular Strength and Power Test

The test consisted of measuring bar velocity displacement using a Smith machine (Multipower, Technogym, Spain), equipped with a linear encoder attached to the bar (Encoder, Chronojump Boscosystem, Italy) [31,32], to assess velocity and power output at four incremental loads corresponding to 25%, 50%, 75%, and 90% of the participants’ one-repetition maximum (1RM) for bench press and back squat exercises. During each trial, participants undertook three attempts at 25% 1RM, two attempts at 50% 1RM, and one attempt each at 75% and 90% 1RM. For each attempt, participants were instructed to control the eccentric phase, pause for 2 s in the isometric phase, and then perform the concentric phase with maximal velocity achievable, maintaining a consistent range of motion for each exercise. A recovery period of three minutes was provided between sets to ensure participants’ readiness for subsequent attempts and to minimize fatigue effects during the testing session. This standardized protocol was followed to accurately evaluate performance across varying loads and exercise intensities.

2.3.5. Muscular Endurance Test

Participants were instructed to perform one set of bench press and back squat exercises at 65% 1RM, aiming to complete as many repetitions as possible until reaching task failure. During each repetition, participants were asked to control the eccentric phase, hold for 2 s in the isometric phase, and then perform the concentric phase with maximal velocity, maintaining a consistent range of motion for each exercise. After completing a set or exercise type, participants rested passively for 5 min before proceeding to the next set or exercise. This recovery period was implemented to minimize fatigue and optimize performance during each exercise session.

2.3.6. Isometric Strength and Vertical Jump

The isometric handgrip and isometric mid-thigh pull tests were performed using a handgrip and back/legs dynamometers (Grip-D, Takei Scientific Instruments Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) [33,34,35]. These isometric tests were selected to measure maximal force production in single- and multi-joint exercises since individuals produce greater force in maximal isometric than in concentric actions. Each test consisted of three repetitions where participants exerted maximal muscular tension for 5 s per attempt, followed by 30 s of passive recovery between repetitions. Additionally, countermovement jump (CMJ) tests were conducted on a force platform (Kistler 9229A, Winterthur, Switzerland). Participants performed three CMJ attempts without using arm swing, with 1 min of passive recovery between attempts. The average and best jump heights achieved by each participant were recorded during these tests

2.3.7. Questionnaires and Scales

Upon completion of the familiarization session and experimental trials, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding their perception of power, endurance, energy, exertion, as well as any discomfort experienced in the heart, muscles, or gastrointestinal system [36]. This questionnaire employed a 1- to 10-point scale for each item, where a rating of 1 indicated the minimal amount and 10 indicated the maximal amount of the respective item. Participants were briefed beforehand on the meaning of each point on the scale. Furthermore, participants’ mood was assessed using a condensed version of the Profile of Mood States questionnaire (POMS) [37,38,39] and the Subjective Vitality Scale (SVS) [37,40]. They were presented with 29 mood-related items and asked to rate their current feelings on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely) in response to the question, “How do you feel at this moment?” This assessment covered six scales: tension, depression, anger, vigor, fatigue, and confusion. Lastly, the questionnaire included a specific query to evaluate the effectiveness of the blinding procedure employed during the study to ensure that participants remained unaware of which supplement they had received.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The sample size calculation determined that 58 participants (29 females and 29 males) was sufficient to achieve the study’s objective, with a desired effect size of 0.3 (α = 0.05; 1 − β = 0.80), calculated using G*Power software (v3.1, Dusseldorf University, Dusseldorf, Germany). In total, 76 participants were recruited and completed the study protocol.
Data analysis was conducted using the statistical software SPSS v29.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), and figures were created using GraphPad Prism (v8, GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA). The normality of the data was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test (p > 0.05). Muscular strength and power outcomes were analyzed using a four-way repeated measures ANOVA according to supplement (CAF vs. PLA), sex (female vs. male), load (25%, 50%, 75%, and 90% of 1RM), and exercise type (bench press vs. back squat). Muscular endurance was analyzed using a three-way repeated measures ANOVA based on supplement (CAF vs. PLA), sex (female vs. male), and exercise type (bench press vs. back squat). Mauchly’s test of sphericity was applied prior to ANOVA, and if the assumption of sphericity was violated, the degrees of freedom were adjusted using the Huynh–Feldt correction. Post hoc analyses were conducted using the Holm–Bonferroni correction method when significant differences were observed. Furthermore, the McNemar test was utilized to identify differences in side effects experienced after consuming the beverages.
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD), and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated using partial eta squared (ηp2) for the two-way repeated measures ANOVA and Hedges’s g for partial comparisons.

3. Results

Table 1 shows differences among experimental conditions regarding body composition, dietary intake habits and physical activity habits. No supplement effects were found in any of the variables analyzed, except in tension, where CAF intake increased this value in females (+27%, p < 0.05; ηp2 > 0.152). As expected, sex differences were found in total energy intake (+36% in males vs. females, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.436), body mass (+23% in male vs. females, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.634), fat mass (+28% in male vs. females, p = 0.004, ηp2 = 0.213) and fat-free mass (+31% in male vs. females, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.436).
Moreover, 48% (37 of 76) of the participants correctly guessed the order of the trials. Also, 50% (19 of 38) of female participants and 47% (18 of 38) of male participants guessed the supplements ingested, not reporting statistical differences between sexes.

3.1. Muscular Strength and Power

Differences in mean and peak velocity (Vmean and Vpeak) between CAF and PLA trials according to sex, exercise type and load are illustrated in Figure 1. An overall supplement effect was detected for Vmean (p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.261) and Vpeak (p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.242), although no supplement by sex interaction effect was found for Vmean (p = 0.682; ηp2 = 0.170) or Vpeak (p = 0.712; ηp2 = 0.137). Nonetheless, for Vmean, a supplement by exercise type interaction effect (p = 0.049; ηp2 = 0.086), and for Vpeak a supplement by load interaction effect, were found (p = 0.050; ηp2 = 0.084). Partial comparison revealed that Vmean increased in the back squat exercise in males and females at 50% 1RM (males 4.5%, p = 0.001, g = 1.70; females 4.6%, p < 0.001, g = 1.87), 75% 1RM (males 5.2%, p = 0.001, g = 1.80; females 5.7%, p < 0.001, g = 2.04) and 90% 1RM (males 7.9%, p = 0.001, g = 2.36; females 7.8%, p = 0.030, g = 1.48). However, in the bench press exercise, Vmean increased in females at 25% 1RM (5.2%, p < 0.001, g = 2.14) and 75% 1RM (3.9%, p = 0.027, g = 1.28), an increase that was not statistically significant in males at 25% 1RM (2.5%, p > 0.05) and 75% 1RM (2.1%, p > 0.05).
In Vpeak, a similar effect pattern was found when partial comparisons were evaluated. Vpeak increased in the back squat exercise in males and females at 50% 1RM (males 2.5%, p = 0.019, g = 1.27; females 2.8%, p = 0.005, g = 1.61), 75% 1RM (males 3.9%, p = 0.001, g = 2.33; females 3.9%, p = 0.002, g = 1.35) and 90% 1RM (males 4.3%, p = 0.023, g = 1.69; females 5.8%, p = 0.005, g = 2.11).
Moreover, in time to reach Vpeak, supplement (p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.993), supplement by exercise type (p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.296), supplement by load (p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.297) and supplement by exercise type by load (p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.296) interactions were found. This effect was observed in both sexes, but only in the back squat exercise at 50% (males 2.5%, p < 0.001, g = 1.87; females 2.9%, p = 0.001, g = 1.79), 75% 1RM (males 4.6%, p = 0.009, g = 1.58; females 3.8%, p = 0.003, g = 1.96) and 90% 1RM (males 2.7%, p < 0.001, g = 2.4; females 2.7%, p < 0.001, g = 0.94).
Differences in mean and peak power (Wmean and Wpeak) between CAF and PLA trials according to sex, exercise type and load are illustrated in Figure 2. A supplement effect was detected for Wmean (p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.293) and Wpeak (p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.242), but no supplement by sex effect was found for Wmean (p = 0.957; ηp2 < 0.01) or Wpeak (p = 0.774; ηp2 = 0.01). However, for Wmean, a supplement by exercise type by load interaction effect was observed (p = 0.045; ηp2 = 0.141). Partial comparison revealed that Wmean increased in the bench press exercise in females at 50% 1RM (4.1%, p = 0.030, g = 1.07) and 75% 1RM (3.9%, p = 0.033, g = 1.00), an increase that was not statistically significant in males at 50% 1RM (2.4%, p > 0.05) and 75% 1RM (3.0%, p > 0.05). In the back squat exercise, Wmean increased in males and females at 50% 1RM (males 5.3%, p = 0.002, g = 1.35; females 4.6%, p = 0.040, g = 1.27), 75% 1RM (males 5.7%, p = 0.001, g = 1.41; females 5.5%, p < 0.001, g = 1.53) and 90% 1RM (males 8.5%, p = 0.002, g = 2.43; females 6.5%, p = 0.028, g = 1.68).
For Wpeak, a similar effect pattern was found when partial comparisons were evaluated. Wpeak increased in the bench press exercise in females at 50% 1RM (4.4%, p < 0.001, g = 1.35) and 75% 1RM (3.2%, p = 0.026, g = 1.08), an increase that was not statistically significant in males at 50% 1RM (2.2%, p > 0.05) and 75% 1RM (2.1%, p > 0.05). In the back squat exercise, Wpeak increased in males and females at 50%1RM (males 3.5%, p = 0.022, g = 1.01; females 3.4%, p = 0.012, g = 1.15), 75% 1RM (males 5.1%, p = 0.003, g = 1.50; females 5.1%, p = 0.003, g = 1.51) and 90% 1RM (males 4.8%, p = 0.034, g = 1.52; females 6.0%, p = 0.006, g = 1.96).
Moreover, in time to reach Wpeak, supplement (p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.273) and supplement by exercise type effects were identified (p = 0.002; ηp2 = 0.132). This effect was observed in both sexes but only in the back squat exercise at 50% (males 6.9%, p < 0.001, g = 2.03; females 6.0%, p = 0.001, g = 1.96), 75% 1RM (males 5.5%, p = 0.008, g = 1.73; females 6.1%, p = 0.004, g = 1.88) and 90% 1RM (males 10.3%, p = 0.001, g = 2.69; females 7.0%, p = 0.029, g = 2.53). No sex differences were found in this variable.

3.2. Muscular Endurance

Differences in muscular endurance between CAF and PLA trials according to sex, load and exercise type are shown in Figure 3. Supplement effect was detected in the number of repetitions (Reps, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.177), Vmean (p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.255), Wmean (p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.198) and Wpeak (p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.187). However, no supplement by sex effect was found. Partial comparison revealed that reps increased in both sexes for the bench press (males 8.1%, p = 0.001, g = 0.325; females 6.0%, p = 0.003, g = 0.254) and back squat exercise (males 8.9%, p = 0.001, g = 0.310; females 7.9%, p = 0.041, g = 0.199). This effect was also observed in Vmean for the bench press (males 3.5%, p = 0.005, g = 0.251; females 3.0%, p = 0.040, g = 0.211) and back squat exercise (males 3.6%, p = 0.010, g = 0.184; females 4.0%, p = 0.009, g = 0.312) and in Wmean for the bench press (males 3.0%, p = 0.013, g = 0.154; females 3.8%, p = 0.011, g = 0.160) and back squat exercise (males 4.3%, p = 0.004, g = 0.181; females 3.1%, p = 0.050, g = 0.190). For Wpeak, CAF increased performance compared to PLA for the bench press (males 3.9%, p = 0.006, g = 0.199; females 3.4.%, p = 0.050, g = 0.111) but not the back squat exercise (males 1.9% and females 1.7%, p > 0.05). No statistically significant supplement effect was found in Vpeak, time to reach Vpeak or time to reach Wpeak.

3.3. Isometric Strength and Vertical Jump

A supplement effect was detected in isometric handgrip strength in the dominant hand (p = 0.016, ηp2 = 0.159); an effect that was observed in males (3.1%, p = 0.027, g = 0.219) but not in female participants (1.6%, p = 0.158). No other supplement or supplement by sex effect was found in isometric handgrip strength in the non-dominant hand (p = 0.461), the isometric mid-thigh pull test (~1.9%, p = 0.117) or the CMJ test (~2.5%, p = 0.462).

3.4. Questionnaires and Scales

CAF stimulated a statistically significant increase in perceived power in both sexes (3.2 ± 0.7 vs 2.9 ± 0.7; p = 0.040; g = 0.312), but no differences were found in endurance (3.2 ± 0.8 vs 3.1 ± 0.7; p = 0.020) or fatigue perception compared to placebo (3.2 ± 0.9 vs 3.4 ± 0.9; p = 0.089). Moreover, compared to PLA, no statistical differences in side effects were found for CAF in mood state, nervousness, activeness, insomnia, gastrointestinal discomfort, headache or irritability.

4. Discussion

The study aimed to investigate the sex differences in the acute effect of CAF on upper- and lower-body muscular strength, power, and endurance performance at different loads in resistance-trained athletes. The key finding of this investigation was that the acute consumption of a low dose of caffeine (3 mg/kg) resulted in improvements in muscular strength, power, and endurance, characterized by increases in mean and peak velocity and power production. Interestingly, these effects were consistent across both sexes and were particularly pronounced during lower-body exercises, specifically the back squat, especially at moderate to high loads (50–90% 1RM).
Previous studies have compared the acute effects of CAF on aerobic and anaerobic performance in both male and female individuals, and reported similar ergogenic effects in both sexes [41,42,43]. However, no study has evaluated the sex differences in the ergogenic effect of CAF on muscular strength, power and endurance performance. Several studies have shown an increase in Vmean, Vpeak, Wmean or Wpeak in upper- and lower-body strength and power exercises after acute ingestion of 3–6 mg/kg of CAF at a large range of loads from 25% 1RM to 90% 1RM [2,15,16,17]. However, the vast majority of this evidence has been obtained from male participants, with female participants being underrepresented. Nonetheless, some studies have evaluated the ergogenicity of CAF in females (2 to 6 mg/kg of BM) on muscular strength, power or endurance performance [23,44,45,46,47,48]. These studies evaluated muscular strength only at 1RM of leg press in 10 teenage female karate athletes [44], 1RM of bench press in 21 resistance-trained females [46] and 15 young resistance-training females [23,47], 1RM in squat and bench press in 8 young resistance-trained females [48] and 1RM of pull-down, back squat and bench press in 8 resistance-trained females [45]. These studies revealed an ergogenic effect of CAF that was more pronounced in the upper- than the lower-body 1RM test. However, the potential ergogenic effect of CAF on more points of the force–velocity curve has been scarcely studied. Filip-Stachnik et al. [49] observed an increase in the mean velocity of the bench press after 6 mg/kg CAF compared to the control trial but not to the placebo trial. Romero-Moraleda et al. [50] found an ergogenic effect of 3 mg/kg of BM of CAF in half squat exercise at 60%1RM from 1.4 to 5.0% but not at 20, 40, or 80%1RM in 13 trained athletes. Ruiz-Fernández et al. [2] reported a similar ergogenic effect of CAF between male and female resistance-trained participants in muscular strength and power by increasing mean velocity and power output, particularly at high loads (≥75% 1RM), and in lower- compared to upper-body exercises (back squat vs. bench press). However, in this study, sex differences were not reported [2]. In the present study, we found that female resistance-trained athletes’ responses to acute CAF intake were similar in back squat exercises compared to males, improving mean and peak velocity and power production at 50%, 75% and 90% 1RM. This is aligned with previous studies using low doses of CAF; Ruiz-Fernández et al. [2] found an increase in Vmean and Wmean at 75% and 90% 1RM in the same exercise, and Romero-Moraleda et al. [50] found an ergogenic effect at 60% 1RM, despite the fact that in this study the exercise selected was a half squat. In contrast, when the bench press exercise was analyzed, our study reported that the ergogenic effect of CAF (1.5 to 4.1%) was similar to that in previous studies [2,15,16,17], but less pronounced when compared to the effect caused by this substance in the back squat exercise of this study. Nonetheless, despite no sex differences being found in the bench press exercise, only females reported a statistically significant ergogenic effect of CAF in mean and peak velocity at 25% and 75% 1RM, and in mean and peak power output at 50 and 75% 1RM. Previous studies have reported that females’ responses to resistance training are higher than males in upper-body exercises for untrained populations, exhibiting a higher capacity to increase strength [7]. However, the participants of this study cannot be categorized as untrained since they were involved in a resistance training program for >2 years and reported a relative 1RM to bench press (1RM/kg of body mass) of >1.00. Another potential explanation could be the slight differences in strength between sexes in this exercise (bench press 1RM/kg, females, 1.09 ± 0.11 and males 1.18 ± 0.20), since strength can influence velocity and power production at loads higher than 60% 1RM [14]. Nonetheless, further studies are required to explore the potential differences in muscular strength and power found in female participants in upper-body exercises.
We found a significant supplement by exercise type effect in Vmean and a supplement by exercise type and by load effect in Wmean in both cases, showing a greater ergogenic effect of CAF in the back squat compared to the bench press exercise. There is a consensus that CAF acts through a central mechanism by antagonizing adenosine receptors, thereby increasing muscle fiber conducting velocity and motor unit recruitment [20]. However, these effects can vary depending on the muscle group involved [21]. Studies evaluating the impact of caffeine on elbow flexor muscles have not shown an ergogenic effect [51], whereas those focusing on knee extensor muscles (such as the quadriceps) have demonstrated performance improvements [22,23]. Notably, muscle activation during maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) tends to be lower in larger muscle groups (like the knee extensors) compared to smaller muscle groups (such as ankle plantar flexors) [24]. Therefore, if caffeine’s ergogenic effect occurs through the CNS, we would expect a greater increase in force production in larger muscle groups due to enhanced motor unit recruitment and muscle fiber conduction velocity. Conversely, if CAF acts directly on muscles, its effect should be similar across different muscle groups [24,25]. Previous research has supported this concept in isokinetic settings [25] and indirectly in dynamic tasks [2]. In this study, we compared the effects of caffeine during back squat (mainly involving the quadriceps) and bench press exercises (primarily engaging the pectorals). Our findings reveal a more pronounced ergogenic effect of low doses of caffeine (3 mg/kg of body mass) on muscular strength and power, indicated by increasing Vmean and Wmean, relative to muscle group size (quadriceps vs. pectorals). Consequently, our results support the hypothesis that CAF enhances force and power production by stimulating the CNS, leading to a greater increase in motor unit recruitment in larger muscle groups compared to smaller muscle groups, with these effects appearing to be consistent regardless of sex.
Our study also evaluated muscular endurance, reporting that CAF increased the number of repetitions, Vmean, Wmean and Wpeak in both male and female resistance-trained participants to a similar extent. Muscle endurance is a critical quality in resistance exercise involving several sports modalities since it allows for the maintenance of force and power production to a given load for an extended time. According to previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, CAF has been shown to enhance muscular endurance by approximately 6–7% [52]. This improvement is primarily attributed to an increase in the number of repetitions completed per set following the acute consumption of CAF. However, although no study has compared the ergogenic effect of CAF according to sex, some studies have evaluated the effect of the ergogenicity of CAF in females (2 to 6 mg/kg of BM) on muscular endurance performance [23,44,46,47,48]. Unfortunately, these studies were focused on examining muscular endurance by performing one set at 40% 1RM in 8 young resistance-trained females [48], one set at 50% 1RM in 21 resistance-trained females [46] or one set at 60% in 10 teenage female karate athletes [44] and 15 young resistance-training females [23,47]. However, other evidence expands these effects to velocity and power production at 85% 1RM for bench press [53] and back squat exercises [2]. Our results align with these studies since, compared to PLA, CAF intake was improved in male and female participants muscular endurance at 65% 1RM by increasing the number of repetitions in bench press (8.1% vs. 6.0%) and back squat (8.9 and 7.9%), Vmean in bench press (3.5% and 3.0%) and back squat (3.6 vs. 4.0%) and Wmean in bench press (3.0% vs. 3.8%) and back squat exercises (4.3% and 3.1%). Larger fiber cross-sectional areas with more type II fiber characteristics are commonly found in males, whereas females have smaller fibers with more type I fiber characteristics [12,54]. At higher absolute isokinetic velocities, males produce more repetitions to fatigue than females. Conversely, females need less time to recover than males after moderate and fast isokinetic exercise [55]. However, sex differences in muscle fatigue under dynamic contractions are task-specific [56], and our study supports this notion since females reported a greater number of repetitions than males in both exercises (p < 0.05), despite producing a lower mean velocity and power output. Nevertheless, despite the sex differences in muscular endurance performance, CAF produced a similar ergogenic effect on this task, improving the number of repetitions, mean velocity and power production. Altogether, these results indirectly affirm that the mechanism of action of CAF can be mainly attributed to a central rather than local mechanism, probably due to greater motor unit activation [20]. This is further emphasized by the fact that if local mechanisms of CAF were responsible, sex differences in muscular endurance performance should be found due to the differences in muscle fiber distribution between males and females [12,54].
The major limitation of the present study was the impossibility of measuring plasma levels of caffeine and the CYP1A2 polymorphism. This measurement would have provided valuable information regarding sex differences in this supplement’s absorption and metabolization effect. Nonetheless, despite these limitations, this study provides data about the ergogenic effect of caffeine on muscular strength, power, and endurance performance in 38 female participants, a population largely underrepresented in the literature. Besides this, the present study provided direct evidence about the sex differences in the acute effects of caffeine on muscular strength, power, and endurance performance.

5. Conclusions

Low doses of CAF (3 mg/kg) have a similar ergogenic effect on muscular strength, power and endurance performance in upper- and lower-body exercises between male and female resistance-trained participants. Moreover, the ergogenic effect of CAF was more pronounced in mean and peak velocity and power output at moderate–high loads (50–90% 1RM) in the lower body (back squat exercise) irrespective of sex. Further studies are required to explore potential sex differences in muscular strength and power in upper-body exercises. This finding supports the use of CAF by sports nutritionists and dietitians to enhance muscular strength, power, or endurance performance in both male and female athletes, particularly in those actions that require the mobilization of moderate-to-high loads and involve larger muscle size groups.

Author Contributions

J.J.M.-A. and A.P.-L. conceived the experiment and J.J.M.-A. and A.P.-L. designed the experiment. J.J.M.-A., C.F., M.d.V.-M., D.V. and A.P.-L. collected the data. J.J.M.-A. and A.P.-L. analyzed and interpreted the data, with a review from J.R. J.J.M.-A. and A.P.-L. drafted the initial manuscript, with review/editing from J.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The present study was supported by a research grant from the University of Alcalá (PIUAH23/CSJ-015 and UAH INFR B 2019-006) and Ayudas a la Investigación en Nutrición de iSanidad (2023/00088/001).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the University Ethical Committee of Investigation (CEIP2021/6/138). Approval date: 2 December 2021.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the commitment and dedication to testing of the 76 trained participants who took part in this investigation. The present study was performed in the laboratory (044.01.047.0) of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Guest, N.S.; VanDusseldorp, T.A.; Nelson, M.T.; Grgic, J.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; Jenkins, N.D.M.; Arent, S.M.; Antonio, J.; Stout, J.R.; Trexler, E.T.; et al. International society of sports nutrition position stand: Caffeine and exercise performance. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2021, 18, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ruiz-Fernandez, I.; Valades, D.; Dominguez, R.; Ferragut, C.; Perez-Lopez, A. Load and muscle group size influence the ergogenic effect of acute caffeine intake in muscular strength, power and endurance. Eur. J. Nutr. 2023, 62, 1783–1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sims, S.T.; Kerksick, C.M.; Smith-Ryan, A.E.; Janse de Jonge, X.A.K.; Hirsch, K.R.; Arent, S.M.; Hewlings, S.J.; Kleiner, S.M.; Bustillo, E.; Tartar, J.L.; et al. International society of sports nutrition position stand: Nutritional concerns of the female athlete. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2023, 20, 2204066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Mielgo-Ayuso, J.; Marques-Jimenez, D.; Refoyo, I.; Del Coso, J.; Leon-Guereno, P.; Calleja-Gonzalez, J. Effect of Caffeine Supplementation on Sports Performance Based on Differences between Sexes: A Systematic Review. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Weber, C.L.; Chia, M.; Inbar, O. Gender differences in anaerobic power of the arms and legs—A scaling issue. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2006, 38, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Bishop, P.; Cureton, K.; Collins, M. Sex difference in muscular strength in equally-trained men and women. Ergonomics 1987, 30, 675–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Roberts, B.M.; Nuckols, G.; Krieger, J.W. Sex Differences in Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2020, 34, 1448–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Gentil, P.; Steele, J.; Pereira, M.C.; Castanheira, R.P.; Paoli, A.; Bottaro, M. Comparison of upper body strength gains between men and women after 10 weeks of resistance training. PeerJ 2016, 4, e1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Abe, T.; DeHoyos, D.V.; Pollock, M.L.; Garzarella, L. Time course for strength and muscle thickness changes following upper and lower body resistance training in men and women. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2000, 81, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Miller, A.E.; MacDougall, J.D.; Tarnopolsky, M.A.; Sale, D.G. Gender differences in strength and muscle fiber characteristics. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 1993, 66, 254–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hannah, R.; Minshull, C.; Buckthorpe, M.W.; Folland, J.P. Explosive neuromuscular performance of males versus females. Exp. Physiol. 2012, 97, 618–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Trevino, M.A.; Sterczala, A.J.; Miller, J.D.; Wray, M.E.; Dimmick, H.L.; Ciccone, A.B.; Weir, J.P.; Gallagher, P.M.; Fry, A.C.; Herda, T.J. Sex-related differences in muscle size explained by amplitudes of higher-threshold motor unit action potentials and muscle fibre typing. Acta Physiol. 2019, 225, e13151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Nieto-Acevedo, R.; Romero-Moraleda, B.; Diaz-Lara, F.J.; Rubia, A.; Gonzalez-Garcia, J.; Mon-Lopez, D. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Differences in Mean Propulsive Velocity between Men and Women in Different Exercises. Sports 2023, 11, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Askow, A.T.; Merrigan, J.J.; Neddo, J.M.; Oliver, J.M.; Stone, J.D.; Jagim, A.R.; Jones, M.T. Effect of Strength on Velocity and Power During Back Squat Exercise in Resistance-Trained Men and Women. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2019, 33, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Wilk, M.; Filip, A.; Krzysztofik, M.; Gepfert, M.; Zajac, A.; Del Coso, J. Acute Caffeine Intake Enhances Mean Power Output and Bar Velocity during the Bench Press Throw in Athletes Habituated to Caffeine. Nutrients 2020, 12, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Pallares, J.G.; Fernandez-Elias, V.E.; Ortega, J.F.; Munoz, G.; Munoz-Guerra, J.; Mora-Rodriguez, R. Neuromuscular responses to incremental caffeine doses: Performance and side effects. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2013, 45, 2184–2192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mora-Rodriguez, R.; Pallares, J.G.; Lopez-Gullon, J.M.; Lopez-Samanes, A.; Fernandez-Elias, V.E.; Ortega, J.F. Improvements on neuromuscular performance with caffeine ingestion depend on the time-of-day. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2015, 18, 338–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Warren, G.L.; Park, N.D.; Maresca, R.D.; McKibans, K.I.; Millard-Stafford, M.L. Effect of caffeine ingestion on muscular strength and endurance: A meta-analysis. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2010, 42, 1375–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Duncan, M.J.; Stanley, M.; Parkhouse, N.; Cook, K.; Smith, M. Acute caffeine ingestion enhances strength performance and reduces perceived exertion and muscle pain perception during resistance exercise. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2013, 13, 392–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bazzucchi, I.; Felici, F.; Montini, M.; Figura, F.; Sacchetti, M. Caffeine improves neuromuscular function during maximal dynamic exercise. Muscle Nerve 2011, 43, 839–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Black, C.D.; Waddell, D.E.; Gonglach, A.R. Caffeine’s Ergogenic Effects on Cycling: Neuromuscular and Perceptual Factors. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2015, 47, 1145–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Behrens, M.; Mau-Moeller, A.; Weippert, M.; Fuhrmann, J.; Wegner, K.; Skripitz, R.; Bader, R.; Bruhn, S. Caffeine-induced increase in voluntary activation and strength of the quadriceps muscle during isometric, concentric and eccentric contractions. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 10209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Norum, M.; Risvang, L.C.; Bjornsen, T.; Dimitriou, L.; Ronning, P.O.; Bjorgen, M.; Raastad, T. Caffeine increases strength and power performance in resistance-trained females during early follicular phase. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2020, 30, 2116–2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Shield, A.; Zhou, S. Assessing voluntary muscle activation with the twitch interpolation technique. Sports Med. 2004, 34, 253–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Timmins, T.D.; Saunders, D.H. Effect of caffeine ingestion on maximal voluntary contraction strength in upper- and lower-body muscle groups. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 3239–3244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Davis, J.K.; Green, J.M. Caffeine and anaerobic performance: Ergogenic value and mechanisms of action. Sports Med. 2009, 39, 813–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Filip, A.; Wilk, M.; Krzysztofik, M.; Del Coso, J. Inconsistency in the Ergogenic Effect of Caffeine in Athletes Who Regularly Consume Caffeine: Is It Due to the Disparity in the Criteria That Defines Habitual Caffeine Intake? Nutrients 2020, 12, 1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Raya-Gonzalez, J.; Rendo-Urteaga, T.; Dominguez, R.; Castillo, D.; Rodriguez-Fernandez, A.; Grgic, J. Acute Effects of Caffeine Supplementation on Movement Velocity in Resistance Exercise: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2020, 50, 717–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Craig, C.L.; Marshall, A.L.; Sjostrom, M.; Bauman, A.E.; Booth, M.L.; Ainsworth, B.E.; Pratt, M.; Ekelund, U.; Yngve, A.; Sallis, J.F.; et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2003, 35, 1381–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Benowitz, N.L. Clinical pharmacology of caffeine. Annu. Rev. Med. 1990, 41, 277–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Moreno-Villanueva, A.; Pino-Ortega, J.; Rico-Gonzalez, M. Validity and reliability of linear position transducers and linear velocity transducers: A systematic review. Sports Biomech. 2021, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Perez-Castilla, A.; Piepoli, A.; Delgado-Garcia, G.; Garrido-Blanca, G.; Garcia-Ramos, A. Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Seven Commercially Available Devices for the Assessment of Movement Velocity at Different Intensities during the Bench Press. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2019, 33, 1258–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cadenas-Sanchez, C.; Sanchez-Delgado, G.; Martinez-Tellez, B.; Mora-Gonzalez, J.; Lof, M.; Espana-Romero, V.; Ruiz, J.R.; Ortega, F.B. Reliability and Validity of Different Models of TKK Hand Dynamometers. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2016, 70, 7004300010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Wang, R.; Hoffman, J.R.; Tanigawa, S.; Miramonti, A.A.; La Monica, M.B.; Beyer, K.S.; Church, D.D.; Fukuda, D.H.; Stout, J.R. Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull Correlates with Strength, Sprint, and Agility Performance in Collegiate Rugby Union Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016, 30, 3051–3056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Khamoui, A.V.; Brown, L.E.; Nguyen, D.; Uribe, B.P.; Coburn, J.W.; Noffal, G.J.; Tran, T. Relationship between force-time and velocity-time characteristics of dynamic and isometric muscle actions. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2011, 25, 198–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Perez-Lopez, A.; Salinero, J.J.; Abian-Vicen, J.; Valades, D.; Lara, B.; Hernandez, C.; Areces, F.; Gonzalez, C.; Del Coso, J. Caffeinated energy drinks improve volleyball performance in elite female players. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2015, 47, 850–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jodra, P.; Lago-Rodriguez, A.; Sanchez-Oliver, A.J.; Lopez-Samanes, A.; Perez-Lopez, A.; Veiga-Herreros, P.; San Juan, A.F.; Dominguez, R. Effects of caffeine supplementation on physical performance and mood dimensions in elite and trained-recreational athletes. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2020, 17, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Andrade, E.; Arce, C.; De Francisco, C.; Torrado, J.; Garrido, J. Abbreviated version in spanish of the POMS questionnaire for adult athletes and general population. Rev. Psicol. Dep. 2016, 22, 95–102. [Google Scholar]
  39. Petrowski, K.; Albani, C.; Zenger, M.; Brahler, E.; Schmalbach, B. Revised Short Screening Version of the Profile of Mood States (POMS) From the German General Population. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 631668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Castillo, I.; Tomas, I.; Balaguer, I. The Spanish-Version of the Subjective Vitality Scale: Psychometric Properties and Evidence of Validity. Span. J. Psychol. 2017, 20, E26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chen, H.Y.; Wang, H.S.; Tung, K.; Chao, H.H. Effects of Gender Difference and Caffeine Supplementation on Anaerobic Muscle Performance. Int. J. Sports Med. 2015, 36, 974–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Lara, B.; Salinero, J.J.; Giraldez-Costas, V.; Del Coso, J. Similar ergogenic effect of caffeine on anaerobic performance in men and women athletes. Eur. J. Nutr. 2021, 60, 4107–4114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Skinner, T.L.; Desbrow, B.; Arapova, J.; Schaumberg, M.A.; Osborne, J.; Grant, G.D.; Anoopkumar-Dukie, S.; Leveritt, M.D. Women Experience the Same Ergogenic Response to Caffeine as Men. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2019, 51, 1195–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Arazi, H.; Hoseinihaji, M.; Eghbali, E.T. The effects of different doses of caffeine on performance, rating of perceived exertion and pain perception in teenagers female karate athletes. Braz. J. Pharm. Sci. 2016, 52, 685–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fett, C.A.; Aquino, N.M.; Schantz Junior, J.; Brandao, C.F.; de Araujo Cavalcanti, J.D.; Fett, W.C. Performance of muscle strength and fatigue tolerance in young trained women supplemented with caffeine. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2018, 58, 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Filip-Stachnik, A.; Wilk, M.; Krzysztofik, M.; Lulinska, E.; Tufano, J.J.; Zajac, A.; Stastny, P.; Del Coso, J. The effects of different doses of caffeine on maximal strength and strength-endurance in women habituated to caffeine. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2021, 18, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Goldstein, E.; Jacobs, P.L.; Whitehurst, M.; Penhollow, T.; Antonio, J. Caffeine enhances upper body strength in resistance-trained women. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2010, 7, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sabblah, S.; Dixon, D.; Bottoms, L. Sex differences on the acute effects of caffeine on maximal strength and muscular endurance. Comp. Exerc. Physiol. 2015, 11, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Filip-Stachnik, A.; Krzysztofik, M.; Del Coso, J.; Wilk, M. Acute effects of two caffeine doses on bar velocity during the bench press exercise among women habituated to caffeine: A randomized, crossover, double-blind study involving control and placebo conditions. Eur. J. Nutr. 2022, 61, 947–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Romero-Moraleda, B.; Del Coso, J.; Gutierrez-Hellin, J.; Lara, B. The Effect of Caffeine on the Velocity of Half-Squat Exercise during the Menstrual Cycle: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Trevino, M.A.; Coburn, J.W.; Brown, L.E.; Judelson, D.A.; Malek, M.H. Acute effects of caffeine on strength and muscle activation of the elbow flexors. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 513–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Ferreira, T.T.; da Silva, J.V.F.; Bueno, N.B. Effects of caffeine supplementation on muscle endurance, maximum strength, and perceived exertion in adults submitted to strength training: A systematic review and meta-analyses. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 61, 2587–2600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Grgic, J.; Pickering, C.; Bishop, D.J.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; Mikulic, P.; Pedisic, Z. CYP1A2 genotype and acute effects of caffeine on resistance exercise, jumping, and sprinting performance. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2020, 17, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Staron, R.S.; Hagerman, F.C.; Hikida, R.S.; Murray, T.F.; Hostler, D.P.; Crill, M.T.; Ragg, K.E.; Toma, K. Fiber type composition of the vastus lateralis muscle of young men and women. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 2000, 48, 623–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Gomes, M.; Santos, P.; Correia, P.; Pezarat-Correia, P.; Mendonca, G.V. Sex differences in muscle fatigue following isokinetic muscle contractions. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 8141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hunter, S.K. Sex differences in fatigability of dynamic contractions. Exp. Physiol. 2016, 101, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nutrients 16 01760 g001
Figure 1. Muscular strength and power test differences in mean and peak velocity (Vmean and Vpeak) between CAF and PLA trials according to sex, exercise type and load. Vmean performed in the bench press at 25% 1RM (A), 50% 1RM (B), 75% 1RM (C), 90% 1RM (D) and the back squat exercise at 25% 1RM (E), 50% 1RM (F), 75% 1RM (G) and 90% 1RM (H). Vpeak performed in the bench press at 25% 1RM (I), 50% 1RM (J), 75% 1RM (K), 90% 1RM (L) and the back squat exercise at 25% 1RM (M), 50% 1RM (N), 75% 1RM (O) and 90% 1RM (P). * p < 0.05 CAF compared to PLA. Abbreviations: CAF, caffeine; PLA, placebo; Vmean, mean velocity; Vpeak, peak velocity.
Figure 1. Muscular strength and power test differences in mean and peak velocity (Vmean and Vpeak) between CAF and PLA trials according to sex, exercise type and load. Vmean performed in the bench press at 25% 1RM (A), 50% 1RM (B), 75% 1RM (C), 90% 1RM (D) and the back squat exercise at 25% 1RM (E), 50% 1RM (F), 75% 1RM (G) and 90% 1RM (H). Vpeak performed in the bench press at 25% 1RM (I), 50% 1RM (J), 75% 1RM (K), 90% 1RM (L) and the back squat exercise at 25% 1RM (M), 50% 1RM (N), 75% 1RM (O) and 90% 1RM (P). * p < 0.05 CAF compared to PLA. Abbreviations: CAF, caffeine; PLA, placebo; Vmean, mean velocity; Vpeak, peak velocity.
Nutrients 16 01760 g001
Nutrients 16 01760 g002
Figure 2. Muscular strength and power tests differences in mean and peak velocity (Wmean and Wpeak) between CAF and PLA trials according to sex, exercise type and load. Wmean performed in the bench press at 25% 1RM (A), 50% 1RM (B), 75% 1RM (C), 90% 1RM (D) and the back squat exercise at 25% 1RM (E), 50% 1RM (F), 75% 1RM (G) and 90% 1RM (H). Wpeak performed in the bench press at 25% 1RM (I), 50% 1RM (J), 75% 1RM (K), 90% 1RM (L) and the back squat exercise at 25% 1RM (M), 50% 1RM (N), 75% 1RM (O) and 90% 1RM (P). * p < 0.05 CAF compared to PLA. Abbreviations: CAF, caffeine; PLA, placebo; Wmean, mean power output; Wpeak, peak power output.
Figure 2. Muscular strength and power tests differences in mean and peak velocity (Wmean and Wpeak) between CAF and PLA trials according to sex, exercise type and load. Wmean performed in the bench press at 25% 1RM (A), 50% 1RM (B), 75% 1RM (C), 90% 1RM (D) and the back squat exercise at 25% 1RM (E), 50% 1RM (F), 75% 1RM (G) and 90% 1RM (H). Wpeak performed in the bench press at 25% 1RM (I), 50% 1RM (J), 75% 1RM (K), 90% 1RM (L) and the back squat exercise at 25% 1RM (M), 50% 1RM (N), 75% 1RM (O) and 90% 1RM (P). * p < 0.05 CAF compared to PLA. Abbreviations: CAF, caffeine; PLA, placebo; Wmean, mean power output; Wpeak, peak power output.
Nutrients 16 01760 g002
Nutrients 16 01760 g003
Figure 3. Muscular endurance test differences in the number of repetitions, mean and peak velocity and power output between CAF and PLA trials according to sex and exercise. Number of repetitions performed in bench press (A) and back squat exercise (B). Mean velocity (Vmean) performed in the bench press (C) and back squat exercise (D). Peak velocity output (Vpeak) performed in the bench press (E) and back squat exercise (F). Mean power output (Wmean) performed in the bench press (G) and back squat exercise (H). Peak power output (Wpeak) performed in the bench press (I) and back squat exercise (J). * p < 0.05 CAF compared to PLA. Abbreviations: CAF, caffeine; PLA, placebo; Vmean, mean velocity; Vpeak, peak velocity; Wmean, mean power output; Wpeak, peak power output.
Figure 3. Muscular endurance test differences in the number of repetitions, mean and peak velocity and power output between CAF and PLA trials according to sex and exercise. Number of repetitions performed in bench press (A) and back squat exercise (B). Mean velocity (Vmean) performed in the bench press (C) and back squat exercise (D). Peak velocity output (Vpeak) performed in the bench press (E) and back squat exercise (F). Mean power output (Wmean) performed in the bench press (G) and back squat exercise (H). Peak power output (Wpeak) performed in the bench press (I) and back squat exercise (J). * p < 0.05 CAF compared to PLA. Abbreviations: CAF, caffeine; PLA, placebo; Vmean, mean velocity; Vpeak, peak velocity; Wmean, mean power output; Wpeak, peak power output.
Nutrients 16 01760 g003
Table 1. Body composition, dietary and physical activity habits in each experimental group.
Table 1. Body composition, dietary and physical activity habits in each experimental group.
CAF
(N = 76)		PLA
(N = 76)		ANOVA Effects
Females
(N = 38)		Males
(N = 38)		Females
(N = 38)		Males
(N = 38)		Sex (Partial η2)Supplement (Partial η2)Sex × Supplement (Partial η2)
Mean ± SDMean ± SDMean ± SDMean ± SD
Body composition
 Body mass (kg)59.9 ± 7.178.5 ± 11.760.0 ± 7.278.2 ± 11.9<0.001 (0.634)0.564 (0.009)0.955 (0.003)
 Fat mass (kg)12.6 ± 3.49.9 ± 5.112.7 ± 3.29.8 ± 5.20.004 (0.213)0.882 (0.001)0.257 (0.035)
 Fat-free mass (kg)47.3 ± 5.568.6 ± 7.947.3 ± 5.768.3 ± 7.9<0.001 (0.815)0.991 (<0.001)0.758 (0.003)
Dietary habits
 Energy intake (kcal)1270 ± 3361972 ± 8471264 ± 3541959 ± 846<0.001 (0.436)0.415 (0.019)0.929 (0.008)
 Protein (g/kg)1.30 ± 0.501.59 ± 0.891.28 ± 0.501.56 ± 0.850.186 (0.048)0.306 (0.047)0.560 (0.010)
 Carbohydrate (g/kg)2.28 ± 0.782.49 ± 1.502.27 ± 0.862.39 ± 1.280.761 (0.003)0.538 (0.011)0.818 (0.054)
 Fat (g/kg)0.82 ± 0.331.24 ± 0.910.84 ± 0.391.25 ± 0.860.290 (0.126)0.989 (0.017)0.833 (0.045)
Physical Activity habits
 METs-min/week5027 ± 7576048 ± 8994906 ± 5576725 ± 9240.916 (<0.001)0.775 (0.003)0.478 (0.018)
 Sedentary time (h/day)7.40 ± 5.577.95 ± 7.787.38 ± 5.918.20 ± 6.420.379 (0.023)0.346 (0.039)0.349 (0.026)
Data are provided as mean ± standard deviation. Abbreviations: MET, metabolic equivalent of task; CAF, caffeine; PLA, placebo.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Montalvo-Alonso, J.J.; Ferragut, C.; del Val-Manzano, M.; Valadés, D.; Roberts, J.; Pérez-López, A. Sex Differences in the Ergogenic Response of Acute Caffeine Intake on Muscular Strength, Power and Endurance Performance in Resistance-Trained Individuals: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients 2024, 16, 1760. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16111760

AMA Style

Montalvo-Alonso JJ, Ferragut C, del Val-Manzano M, Valadés D, Roberts J, Pérez-López A. Sex Differences in the Ergogenic Response of Acute Caffeine Intake on Muscular Strength, Power and Endurance Performance in Resistance-Trained Individuals: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients. 2024; 16(11):1760. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16111760

Chicago/Turabian Style

Montalvo-Alonso, Juan Jesús, Carmen Ferragut, Marta del Val-Manzano, David Valadés, Justin Roberts, and Alberto Pérez-López. 2024. "Sex Differences in the Ergogenic Response of Acute Caffeine Intake on Muscular Strength, Power and Endurance Performance in Resistance-Trained Individuals: A Randomized Controlled Trial" Nutrients 16, no. 11: 1760. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16111760

APA Style

Montalvo-Alonso, J. J., Ferragut, C., del Val-Manzano, M., Valadés, D., Roberts, J., & Pérez-López, A. (2024). Sex Differences in the Ergogenic Response of Acute Caffeine Intake on Muscular Strength, Power and Endurance Performance in Resistance-Trained Individuals: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients, 16(11), 1760. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16111760

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop