Examination of a pre-exercise, high energy supplement on exercise performance.

Jay R Hoffman, Jie Kang, Nicholas A Ratamess, Mattan W Hoffman, Christopher P Tranchina, Avery D Faigenbaum
Author Information
  1. Jay R Hoffman: Department of Health and Exercise Science, The College of New Jersey, PO Box 7718, Ewing, New Jersey 08628, USA. hoffmanj@tcnj.edu.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a pre-exercise high energy drink on reaction time and anaerobic power in competitive strength/power athletes. In addition, the effect of the pre-exercise drink on subjective feelings of energy, fatigue, alertness and focus was also explored.
METHODS: Twelve male strength/power athletes (21.1 +/- 1.3 y; 179.8 +/- 7.1 cm; 88.6 +/- 12.1 kg; 17.6 +/- 3.3% body fat) underwent two testing sessions administered in a randomized and double-blind fashion. During each session, subjects reported to the Human Performance Laboratory and were provided with either 120 ml of a high energy drink (SUP), commercially marketed as Redline Extreme(R) or 120 ml of a placebo (PL) that was similar in taste and appearance but contained no active ingredients. Following consumption of the supplement or placebo subjects rested quietly for 10-minutes prior to completing a survey and commencing exercise. The survey consisted of 4 questions asking each subject to describe their feelings of energy, fatigue, alertness and focus for that moment. Following the completion of the questionnaire subjects performed a 2-minute quickness and reaction test on the Makoto testing device (Makoto USA, Centennial CO) and a 20-second Wingate Anaerobic Power test. Following a 10-minute rest subjects repeated the testing sequence and after a similar rest period a third and final testing sequence was performed. The Makoto testing device consisted of subjects reacting to both a visual and auditory stimulus and striking one out of 30 potential targets on three towers.
RESULTS: Significant difference in reaction performance was seen between SUP and PL in both average number of targets struck (55.8 +/- 7.4 versus 51.9 +/- 7.4, respectively) and percent of targets struck (71.9 +/- 10.5% versus 66.8 +/- 10.9%, respectively). No significant differences between trials were seen in any anaerobic power measure. Subjective feelings of energy (3.5 +/- 0.5 versus 3.1 +/- 0.5) and focus (3.8 +/- 0.5 versus 3.3 +/- 0.7) were significantly higher during SUP compared to PL, respectively. In addition, a trend towards an increase in average alertness (p = 0.06) was seen in SUP compared to P.
CONCLUSION: Results indicate a significant increase in reaction performance, with no effect on anaerobic power performance. In addition, ingestion of this supplement significantly improves subjective feelings of focus and energy in male strength/power athletes.

References

  1. Jpn J Pharmacol. 1982 Oct;32(5):803-11 [PMID: 6983619]
  2. J Adolesc Health. 2004 Jun;34(6):508-16 [PMID: 15145408]
  3. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2007 Dec;17(6):608-23 [PMID: 18156665]
  4. Equine Vet J Suppl. 1999 Jul;(30):499-504 [PMID: 10659307]
  5. Drugs. 1995 Jan;49(1):37-50 [PMID: 7705215]
  6. Int J Sport Nutr. 1995 Jun;5 Suppl:S84-99 [PMID: 7550260]
  7. Altern Med Rev. 1999 Jun;4(3):144-61 [PMID: 10383479]
  8. Rev Med Interne. 1999 Oct;20(10):912-8 [PMID: 10573727]
  9. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 Jan;40(1):15-24 [PMID: 18091024]
  10. J Assoc Physicians India. 2003 Sep;51:891-5 [PMID: 14710977]
  11. Anal Chim Acta. 2007 Jun 12;593(1):98-102 [PMID: 17531829]
  12. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2004 Feb;14(1):104-20 [PMID: 15129934]
  13. J Strength Cond Res. 2007 May;21(2):456-9 [PMID: 17530975]
  14. Planta Med. 2003 May;69(5):425-8 [PMID: 12802723]
  15. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1998 Sep;85(3):883-9 [PMID: 9729561]
  16. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005 Dec;37(12):2113-9 [PMID: 16331138]
  17. Eur J Clin Invest. 1988 Dec;18(6):587-94 [PMID: 2906290]
  18. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2004 Sep;229(8):698-704 [PMID: 15337824]
  19. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001 Aug;33(8):1399-403 [PMID: 11474345]
  20. Neurotoxicology. 2004 Jan;25(1-2):243-50 [PMID: 14697899]
  21. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992 Jan;55(1 Suppl):219S-227S [PMID: 1345885]
  22. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2004 Dec;14(6):626-46 [PMID: 15657469]
  23. J Strength Cond Res. 2008 May;22(3):874-82 [PMID: 18438227]
  24. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1991 Dec;71(6):2292-8 [PMID: 1778925]
  25. Life Sci. 2004 Jan 9;74(8):1027-38 [PMID: 14672758]
  26. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2003 Mar;(76):1-4 [PMID: 12647510]
  27. J Nutr. 2005 Jun;135(6 Suppl):1539S-46S [PMID: 15930466]
  28. J Adolesc Health. 2006 Sep;39(3):367-73 [PMID: 16919798]
  29. Eur J Pharmacol. 1998 May 22;349(2-3):163-9 [PMID: 9671094]
  30. Planta Med. 2001 Oct;67(7):628-33 [PMID: 11582540]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0+/-energy31testingsubjects0reactionfeelingsfocus87SUPperformanceversus5effectpre-exercisehighdrinkanaerobicpowerstrength/powerathletesadditionalertnessPLFollowingsupplement4Makototargetsseenrespectivelysubjectivefatiguemale6120mlplacebosimilarsurveyexerciseconsistedperformedtestdevicerestsequenceaveragestruck910significantsignificantlycomparedincreaseBACKGROUND:purposestudyexaminetimecompetitivealsoexploredMETHODS:Twelve21y179cm8812kg173%bodyfatunderwenttwosessionsadministeredrandomizeddouble-blindfashionsessionreportedHumanPerformanceLaboratoryprovidedeithercommerciallymarketedRedlineExtremeRtasteappearancecontainedactiveingredientsconsumptionrestedquietly10-minutespriorcompletingcommencingquestionsaskingsubjectdescribemomentcompletionquestionnaire2-minutequicknessUSACentennialCO20-secondWingateAnaerobicPower10-minuterepeatedperiodthirdfinalreactingvisualauditorystimulusstrikingone30potentialthreetowersRESULTS:Significantdifferencenumber5551percent715%669%differencestrialsmeasureSubjectivehighertrendtowardsp=06PCONCLUSION:ResultsindicateingestionimprovesExamination

Similar Articles

Cited By