Logo image
Back
Acute effects of commercial energy drink consumption on exercise performance and cardiovascular safety: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Acute effects of commercial energy drink consumption on exercise performance and cardiovascular safety: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial

Nile F Banks, Emily M Rogers, Nate J Helwig, Laura E Schwager, Justin P Alpers, Sydni L Schulte, Emma R Trachta, Christopher M Lockwood and Nathaniel D M Jenkins
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, Vol.21(1), 2297988
2024
DOI: 10.1080/15502783.2023.2297988
PMCID: PMC10783828
PMID: 38197606
url
https://doi.org/10.1080/15502783.2023.2297988View
Published (Version of record) Open Access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the acute effects of a non-caloric energy drink (C4E) compared to a traditional sugar-containing energy drink (MED) and non-caloric placebo (PLA) on exercise performance and cardiovascular safety. Thirty healthy, physically active males (25 ± 4 y) completed three experimental visits under semi-fasted conditions (5–10 h) and in randomized order, during which they consumed C4E, MED, or PLA matched for volume, appearance, taste, and mouthfeel. One hour after drink consumption, participants completed a maximal, graded exercise test (GXT) with measurement of pulmonary gases, an isometric leg extension fatigue test (ISOFTG), and had their cardiac electrical activity (ECG), leg blood flow (LBF), and blood pressure (BP) measured throughout the visit. Neither MED nor C4E had an ergogenic effect on maximal oxygen consumption, time to exhaustion, or peak power during the GXT (p > 0.05). Compared to PLA, MED reduced fat oxidation (respiratory exchange ratio (RER) +0.030 ± 0.01; p = 0.026) during the GXT and did not influence ISOFTG performance. Compared to PLA, C4E did not alter RER (p = 0.94) and improved impulse during the ISOFTG (+0.658 ± 0.25 V·s; p = 0.032). Relative to MED, C4E did not significantly improve gas exchange threshold (p = 0.05–0.07). Both MED and C4E increased systolic BP at rest (+7.1 ± 1.2 mmHg; p < 0.001 and + 5.7 ± 1.0 mmHg; p < 0.001, respectively), C4E increased SBP post-GXT (+13.3 ± 3.8 mmHg; p < 0.001), and MED increased SBP during recovery (+3.2 ± 1.1 mmHg; p < 0.001). Neither MED nor C4E influenced ECG measures (p ≥ 0.08) or LBF (p = 0.37) compared to PLA. C4E may be more efficacious for improving performance in resistance-type tasks without altering fat oxidation under semi-fasted conditions during fatiguing exercise bouts, but promotes similar changes in BP and HR to MED.
 Adult Blood Pressure Cross-Over Studies Energy Drinks Exercise Test Fatigue Humans Male Polyesters Young Adult

Details

Metrics

30 Record Views
2 Times Cited - Web of Science
Logo image