Novel low-dose caffeine products improve ratings of perceived exertion in twenty participants, suggesting potential benefits for fitness.
Background: Caffeine is an ergogenic aid shown to delay fatigue, increase arousal, and improve performance. Recommended doses are 3–6 mg/kg BM, although evidence supports lower doses (<3 mg/kg). Some conflicting results have highlighted that lower doses may still be ergogenic, and with new pouch and gum products, further research is warranted. Method: This study investigated the effects of novel low-dose caffeine products on muscular endurance, strength, and power. A repeated-measure, crossover design (pouch 80 mg, gum 80 mg, control gum 0 mg) was employed, recruiting nineteen participants (age 22.4 + 4.8 yrs; weight 72.8 + 16.9 kg; relative caffeine dose 1.1 mg/kg). Participants completed a battery of tests, including 60% 1 RM single leg press (LP) and shoulder press (SP) to exhaustion, counter-movement jump, and isometric mid-thigh pull, in addition to providing ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) during endurance tests. One-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on all measures associated with physical tasks, with a two-way repeated measures ANOVA conducted for RPE. Results: No significance was observed among conditions for physical tests. However, effect sizes, employing Cohen’s D classification, identified a moderate (d = 0.55) and small (d = 0.45) effect for the caffeine pouch compared to the placebo and caffeine gum for the LP respectively. Further, small effects for the pouch compared to the placebo were observed (d = 0.33) for the SP. Significant differences were produced for RPE during the LP (p = 0.022), with post hoc analysis identifying significant differences between the placebo vs. caffeine pouch (p = 0.032). Conclusion: Low-dose caffeine has the potential to produce meaningful effects on strength endurance, likely linked to caffeine mechanisms reducing RPE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hulton et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: