High Dose of Caffeine Mouth Rinse Increases Resistance Training Performance in Men

Abstract

Caffeine mouth rinsing (CMR) has been shown to enhance exercise performance. However, no studies have analyzed the effects of different dosages of CMR on muscular performance. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of different dosages of CMR on strength (bench press 1 repetition maximum (1-RM)) and muscular endurance (60% of 1-RM repetitions to failure) in resistance-trained males. Fourteen resistance-trained males (age: 23 ± 2 years, height: 179 ± 3 cm, body mass: 83 ± 4 kg, BMI: 17 ± 2 kg/m2) completed four conditions in random order. The four conditions consisted of a mouth rinse with 25 mL solutions containing either 1% (250 mg) of CMR (low dose of CMR: LCMR), 2% (500 mg) of CMR (moderate dose of CMR: MCMR), 3% (750 mg) of CMR (high dose of CMR: HCMR) and sweetened water (placebo: PLA) for 5 s prior to a bench press strength and muscular endurance test. Maximal strength, muscular endurance, heart rate (HR) and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded for each condition. There were no significant differences in strength (p = 0.30) and HR (p = 0.83) between conditions. HCMR significantly increased muscular endurance performance (p = 0.01) and decreased RPE values (p = 0.01). In conclusion, CMR did not affect bench press 1-RM strength performance, but muscular endurance responses to CMR seems to be dose-dependent.

Ergogenic Aids to Improve Physical Performance in Female Athletes: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

“…The most used EA to improve resistance strength performance was CAF, which helped to improve repetitions until failure in lower body exercises. Something similar is shown in the literature, although most studies in men focus on bench presses or upper body exercises to measure this parameter [ 86 , 87 , 88 ]. As for BA, no significant results can be drawn regarding the effects of this EA on strength enhancement in women.…”

Spit It Out: Is Caffeine Mouth Rinse an Effective Ergogenic Aid? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Despite no overall effect, 5 studies showed ergogenic effects (3,8,34,37,56). The ergogenic effects of Caff-MR were apparent during 5 3 6-s repeated cycling sprints, 30-min self-paced cycling and arm cranking, and muscular endurance performance.…”

“…Across studies that showed improvements in performance with Caff-MR (3,8,34,37,56), participants were recreationally trained, while only Sinclair and Bottoms (56) did not specify the training level of the participants. In addition, the amount of caffeine rinsed per dose varied greatly, from 0.09 to 9.00 mg/ kg.…”

Not Another Caffeine Effect on Sports Performance Study—Nothing New or More to Do?

“…Mouth rinsing may hold particular benefits over other methods of administration, potentially mitigating issues with side effects of ingestion which may negatively influence performance. Attributed to similar mechanisms to the action of caffeinated chewing gum in the mouth, in a small number of cases caffeine mouth rinsing has been shown to elicit performance-enhancing effects on endurance activity [ 75 , 76 ], anaerobic exercise [ 77 ], muscular strength [ 78 ] and cognitive function [ 79 , 80 ]. However, the evidence is far less convincing when compared to the body of work examining the effects of caffeinated chewing gum with a recent systematic review demonstrating benefits in only 5 of the 15 included studies evaluating physical performance, with many of the included studies having low methodological quality [ 81 ].…”

“…Given that caffeine mouth rinsing holds some performance-enhancing potential, further work in this area should be considered, focusing on the frequency, duration and dose–response effects of caffeine mouth rinsing. To date, only a single study has evaluated the dose–response effect of caffeine mouth rinsing, demonstrating that a repeated 5 s rinsing of a 3% (750 mg) caffeine solution increased the number of repetitions unit failure in the bench press and reduced RPE, with no effect demonstrated with a 1% (250 mg) or 2% (500 mg) dose [ 78 ]. Results summarised in the recent systematic review on this topic have only considered doses up to 2% [ 81 ].…”