1,252
Views
22
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

CYP1A2 genotype and acute effects of caffeine on resistance exercise, jumping, and sprinting performance

, , , , &
 

Abstract

Background

It has been suggested that polymorphisms within CYP1A2 impact inter-individual variation in the response to caffeine. The purpose of this study was to explore the acute effects of caffeine on resistance exercise, jumping, and sprinting performance in a sample of resistance-trained men, and to examine the influence of genetic variation of CYP1A2 (rs762551) on the individual variation in responses to caffeine ingestion.

Methods

Twenty-two men were included as participants (AA homozygotes n = 13; C-allele carriers n = 9) and were tested after the ingestion of caffeine (3 mg/kg of body mass) and a placebo. Exercise performance was assessed with the following outcomes: (a) movement velocity and power output in the bench press exercise with loads of 25, 50, 75, and 90% of one-repetition maximum (1RM); (b) quality and quantity of performed repetitions in the bench press exercise performed to muscular failure with 85% 1RM; (c) vertical jump height in a countermovement jump test; and (d) power output in a Wingate test.

Results

Compared to placebo, caffeine ingestion enhanced: (a) movement velocity and power output across all loads (effect size [ES]: 0.20–0.61; p <  0.05 for all); (b) the quality and quantity of performed repetitions with 85% of 1RM (ES: 0.27–0.85; p <  0.001 for all); (c) vertical jump height (ES: 0.15; p = 0.017); and (d) power output in the Wingate test (ES: 0.33–0.44; p <  0.05 for all). We did not find a significant genotype × caffeine interaction effect (p-values ranged from 0.094 to 0.994) in any of the analyzed performance outcomes.

Conclusions

Resistance-trained men may experience acute improvements in resistance exercise, jumping, and sprinting performance following the ingestion of caffeine. The comparisons of the effects of caffeine on exercise performance between individuals with the AA genotype and AC/CC genotypes found no significant differences.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. ID: ACTRN12619000885190.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank DNAFit Life Sciences for providing the genotype analysis.

Authors’ contributions

JG, DJB, and ZP conceived and designed the study. JG performed the experiments, analyzed the data, and wrote the first draft. ZP, DJB, CP, BJS, and PM critically revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

None.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was approved by the Victoria University Human Research Ethics Committee (HRE19–019). The research was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Craig Pickering is a former employee of DNAFit Ltd., a genetic testing company. He received no financial incentives for the preparation of this manuscript.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.