Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Effects of sodium phosphate and caffeine ingestion on repeated-sprint ability in male athletes
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Effects of sodium phosphate and caffeine ingestion on repeated-sprint ability in male athletes
Do you wish to request the book?
Effects of sodium phosphate and caffeine ingestion on repeated-sprint ability in male athletes
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Effects of sodium phosphate and caffeine ingestion on repeated-sprint ability in male athletes
2016
Overview
To assess the effects of sodium phosphate (SP) and caffeine supplementation on repeated-sprint performance.
Randomized, double-blind, Latin-square design.
Eleven team-sport males participated in four trials: (1) SP (50mgkg−1 of free fat-mass daily for six days) and caffeine (6mgkg−1 ingested 1h before exercise); SP+C, (2) SP and placebo (for caffeine), (3) caffeine and placebo (for SP) and (4) placebo (for SP and caffeine). After loading, participants performed a simulated team-game circuit (STGC) consisting of 2×30min halves, with 6×20-m repeated-sprint sets performed at the start, half-time and end of the STGC.
There were no interaction effects between trials for first-sprint (FS), best-sprint (BS) or total-sprint (TS) times (p>0.05). However, SP resulted in the fastest times for all sprints, as supported by moderate to large effect sizes (ES; d=0.51–0.83) and ‘likely’ to ‘very likely’ chances of benefit, compared with placebo. Compared with caffeine, SP resulted in ‘possible’ to ‘likely’ chances of benefit for FS, BS and TS for numerous sets and a ‘possible’ chance of benefit compared with SP+C for BS (set 2). Compared with placebo, SP+C resulted in moderate ES (d=0.50–0.62) and ‘possible’ to ‘likely’ benefit for numerous sprints, while caffeine resulted in a moderate ES (d=0.63; FS: set 3) and ‘likely’ chances of benefit for a number of sets.
While not significant, ES and qualitative analysis results suggest that SP supplementation may improve repeated-sprint performance when compared with placebo.
Publisher
Elsevier Ltd,Elsevier Limited
