Following critical evaluation of the available literature to date, The International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) position regarding caffeine intake is as follows: Supplementation with caffeine has been shown to acutely enhance various aspects of exercise performance in many but not all studies. Small to moderate benefits of caffeine use include, but are not limited to: muscular endurance, movement velocity and muscular strength, sprinting, jumping, and throwing performance, as well as a wide range of aerobic and anaerobic sport-specific actions. Aerobic endurance appears to be the form of exercise with the most consistent moderate-to-large benefits from caffeine use, although the magnitude of its effects differs between individuals. Caffeine has consistently been shown to improve exercise performance when consumed in doses of 3–6 mg/kg body mass. Minimal effective doses of caffeine currently remain unclear but they may be as low as 2 mg/kg body mass. Very high doses of caffeine (e.g. 9 mg/kg) are associated with a high incidence of side-effects and do not seem to be required to elicit an ergogenic effect. The most commonly used timing of caffeine supplementation is 60 min pre-exercise. Optimal timing of caffeine ingestion likely depends on the source of caffeine. For example, as compared to caffeine capsules, caffeine chewing gums may require a shorter waiting time from consumption to the start of the exercise session. Caffeine appears to improve physical performance in both trained and untrained individuals. Inter-individual differences in sport and exercise performance as well as adverse effects on sleep or feelings of anxiety following caffeine ingestion may be attributed to genetic variation associated with caffeine metabolism, and physical and psychological response. Other factors such as habitual caffeine intake also may play a role in between-individual response variation. Caffeine has been shown to be ergogenic for cognitive function, including attention and vigilance, in most individuals. Caffeine may improve cognitive and physical performance in some individuals under conditions of sleep deprivation. The use of caffeine in conjunction with endurance exercise in the heat and at altitude is well supported when dosages range from 3 to 6 mg/kg and 4–6 mg/kg, respectively. Alternative sources of caffeine such as caffeinated chewing gum, mouth rinses, energy gels and chews have been shown to improve performance, primarily in aerobic exercise. Energy drinks and pre-workout supplements containing caffeine have been demonstrated to enhance both anaerobic and aerobic performance.

We examined the neuromuscular adaptations following 3 and 6 weeks of 80 vs. 30% one repetition maximum (1RM) resistance training to failure in the leg extensors. Twenty-six men (age = 23.1 ± 4.7 years) were randomly assigned to a high- (80% 1RM; n = 13) or low-load (30% 1RM; n = 13) resistance training group and completed leg extension resistance training to failure 3 times per week for 6 weeks. Testing was completed at baseline, 3, and 6 weeks of training. During each testing session, ultrasound muscle thickness and echo intensity, 1RM strength, maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) strength, and contractile properties of the quadriceps femoris were measured. Percent voluntary activation (VA) and electromyographic (EMG) amplitude were measured during MVIC, and during randomly ordered isometric step muscle actions at 10–100% of baseline MVIC. There were similar increases in muscle thickness from Baseline to Week 3 and 6 in the 80 and 30% 1RM groups. However, both 1RM and MVIC strength increased from Baseline to Week 3 and 6 to a greater degree in the 80% than 30% 1RM group. VA during MVIC was also greater in the 80 vs. 30% 1RM group at Week 6, and only training at 80% 1RM elicited a significant increase in EMG amplitude during MVIC. The peak twitch torque to MVIC ratio was also significantly reduced in the 80%, but not 30% 1RM group, at Week 3 and 6. Finally, VA and EMG amplitude were reduced during submaximal torque production as a result of training at 80% 1RM, but not 30% 1RM. Despite eliciting similar hypertrophy, 80% 1RM improved muscle strength more than 30% 1RM, and was accompanied by increases in VA and EMG amplitude during maximal force production. Furthermore, training at 80% 1RM resulted in a decreased neural cost to produce the same relative submaximal torques after training, whereas training at 30% 1RM did not. Therefore, our data suggest that high-load training results in greater neural adaptations that may explain the disparate increases in muscle strength despite similar hypertrophy following high- and low-load training programs.

Muscle activation was greater at 80 % 1RM. However, differences in volume, metabolic byproduct accumulation, and muscle swelling may help explain the unexpected adaptations in hypertrophy vs. strength observed in previous studies.

Jenkins, NDM, Housh, TJ, Buckner, SL, Bergstrom, HC, Cochrane, KC, Hill, EC, Smith, CM, Schmidt, RJ, Johnson, GO, and Cramer, JT. Neuromuscular adaptations after 2 and 4 weeks of 80% versus 30% 1 repetition maximum resistance training to failure. J Strength Cond Res 30(8): 2174-2185, 2016-The purpose of this study was to investigate the hypertrophic, strength, and neuromuscular adaptations to 2 and 4 weeks of resistance training at 80 vs. 30% 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in untrained men. Fifteen untrained men (mean ± SD; age = 21.7 ± 2.4 years; weight = 84.7 ± 23.5 kg) were randomly assigned to either a high-load (n = 7) or low-load (n = 8) resistance training group and completed forearm flexion resistance training to failure 3 times per week for 4 weeks. Forearm flexor muscle thickness (MT) and echo intensity, maximal voluntary isometric (MVIC) and 1RM strength, and the electromyographic, mechanomyographic (MMG), and percent voluntary activation (%VA) responses at 10-100% of MVIC were determined at baseline, 2, and 4 weeks of training. The MT increased from baseline (2.9 ± 0.1 cm) to week 2 (3.0 ± 0.1 cm) and to week 4 (3.1 ± 0.1 cm) for the 80 and 30% 1RM groups. MVIC increased from week 2 (121.5 ± 19.1 Nm) to week 4 (138.6 ± 22.1 Nm) and 1RM increased from baseline (16.7 ± 1.6 kg) to weeks 2 and 4 (19.2 ± 1.9 and 20.5 ± 1.8 kg) in the 80% 1RM group only. The MMG amplitude at 80 and 90% MVIC decreased from baseline to week 4, and %VA increased at 20 and 30% MVIC for both groups. Resistance training to failure at 80 vs. 30% 1RM elicited similar muscle hypertrophy, but only 80% 1RM increased muscle strength. However, these disparate strength adaptations were difficult to explain with neuromuscular adaptations because they were subtle and similar for the 80 and 30% 1RM groups.

Pitch velocity (PV) is important for pitching success, and the pelvis and trunk likely influence pitch performance. The purposes of this study were to examine the differences in pelvis and trunk kinetics and kinematics in professional baseball pitchers who throw at lower versus higher velocities (HVPs) and to examine the relationships among pelvis and trunk kinetics and kinematics and PV during each phase of the pitch delivery. The pitch velocity, pelvis and trunk peak angular velocities, kinetic energies and torques, and elbow and shoulder loads were compared among HVPs (n = 71; PV ≥ 40.2 m/s) and lower velocities pitchers (n = 78; PV < 39.8 m/s), as were trunk and pelvis rotation, flexion, and obliquity among 7 phases of the pitching delivery. Relationships among the kinetic and kinematic variables and PVs were examined. Higher velocity pitchers achieved greater upper trunk rotation at hand separation (+7.2°, P < .001) and elbow extension (+5.81°, P = .002) and were able to generate greater upper trunk angular velocities (+36.6 m/s, P = .01) compared with lower velocity pitcher. Trunk angular velocity (r = .29) and upper trunk rotation at hand separation (r = .18) and foot contact (r = .17) were weakly related to PV. Therefore, HVPs rotate their upper trunk to a greater degree during the early phases of the pitching motion and subsequently generate greater trunk angular velocities and PV.

Background:Elbow injury rates among baseball pitchers are rapidly rising. However, this increase has been most dramatic among high school (HS) pitchers.Purpose:To examine pitch velocity and the kinetic and kinematic characteristics of HS versus professional (PRO) pitchers to identify potential differences that may play a role in the increased risk of ulnar collateral ligament injury in youth pitchers.Study Design:Controlled laboratory study.Methods:A total of 37 HS (mean ± SD: age, 16 ± 1 years) and 40 PRO (age, 21 ± 2 years) baseball pitchers completed maximal-effort baseball pitches during a single testing session, from which pitch velocity (PV), absolute and normalized elbow varus torque (EVTA and EVTN, respectively) during arm cocking and at maximum shoulder external rotation (MER), and 8 other elbow and shoulder torques or forces and rotational kinematics of the pelvis and trunk were analyzed, recorded, and compared.Results:PV was greater in PRO than HS athletes; EVTA was greater in PRO than HS athletes during arm cocking and at MER; but EVTN was similar during arm cocking and greater in HS than PRO athletes at MER. In PRO athletes, PV was not related to EVTA during arm cocking or MER (r = 0.01-0.05). Furthermore, in PRO athletes, EVTA during arm cocking and at MER were inversely related to upper trunk rotation at hand separation and foot contact and to pelvis rotation at elbow extension (r = –0.30 to –0.33). In contrast, in HS athletes, PV was strongly related to EVTA during arm cocking and MER (r = 0.76-0.77). Furthermore, in HS athletes, PV and EVTA during arm cocking and at MER were moderately or strongly related to the other elbow and shoulder torques and forces (r = 0.424-0.991), and EVTA was not related to upper trunk rotation or pelvis rotation throughout the throwing motion (r = –0.16 to 0.15).Conclusion:The kinetic and rotational kinematic differences observed between PRO and HS pitchers in this study may help explain the greater performance of PRO pitchers while allowing them to minimize EVT during pitching. HS pitchers, however, do not appear to be as capable of utilizing the forces generated by rotation of their trunk and pelvis to aid in pitching, and those who throw the hardest generate the greatest forces at the shoulder and elbow. As a result, they experience higher EVTs relative to their body size, which may place them at an increased risk of injury.Clinical Relevance:HS pitchers throw harder primarily by generating larger forces in the arm and shoulder. Thus, owing to the relative physical immaturity of HS versus PRO pitchers, these factors may place them at an increased risk of injury. Coaches may first wish to focus on improving the rotational kinematics of HS pitchers rather than first focusing on achieving greater pitch velocities.

Colquhoun, RJ, Gai, CM, Aguilar, D, Bove, D, Dolan, J, Vargas, A, Couvillion, K, Jenkins, NDM, and Campbell, BI. Training volume, not frequency, indicative of maximal strength adaptations to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 32(5): 1207-1213, 2018-To compare the effects of a high versus a moderate training frequency on maximal strength and body composition. Twenty-eight young, healthy resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to either: 3× per week (3×; n = 16) or 6× per week (6×; n = 12). Dependent variables (DVs) assessed at baseline and after the 6-week training intervention included: squat 1 repetition maximum (SQ1RM), bench press 1RM (BP1RM), deadlift 1RM (DL1RM), powerlifting total (PLT), Wilk's coefficient (WC), fat-free mass (FFM), and fat mass. Data for each DV were analyzed using a 2 × 2 between-within factorial repeated-measures analysis of variance. There was a main effect for time (p < 0.001) for SQ1RM (3×: +16.8 kg; 6×: +16.7 kg), BP1RM (3×: +7.8 kg; 6×: +8.8 kg), DL1RM (3×: +19 kg; 6×: +21 kg), PLT (3×: +43.6 kg; 6×: +46.5 kg), WC (3×: +27; 6×: +27.1), and FFM (3×: +1.7 kg; 6×: +2.6 kg). There were no group × time interactions or main effects for group. The primary finding was that 6 weeks of resistance training led to significant increases in maximal strength and FFM. In addition, it seems that increased training frequency does not lead to additional strength improvements when volume and intensity are equated. High-frequency (6× per week) resistance training does not seem to offer additional strength and hypertrophy benefits over lower frequency (3× per week) when volume and intensity are equated. Coaches and practitioners can therefore expect similar increases in strength and lean body mass with both 3 and 6 weekly sessions.

No abstract