Comparing Acute Effects of Caffeine Delivery Forms on Cross-Training Performance: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Crossover Trial

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: The aim of this study was to compare the different forms of caffeine (CAF) administration in CrossFit<sup>®</sup> participants. The countermovement jump (CMJ), the rate of perceived exertion (RPE), the total number of repetitions, and the maximum (HR<sub>max</sub>) and mean heart rate (HR<sub>mean</sub>) were evaluated. <b>Methods</b>: Fourteen males with more than six months of continuous CrossFit<sup>®</sup> training (30.9 [5.62] years, 179 [1.33] cm, 78 [5.75] kg, 24.3 [1.33] kg·m<sup>-2</sup>) participated in this randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Participants were randomized in a repeated measures design using caffeine capsule (CC), caffeine chewing gum (CCG), and caffeine mouth rinse (CMR) protocols, along with a placebo group (PG). Participants were unaware of whether any of the delivery methods contained caffeine. A 7-day washout period before each crossover was used. To ensure ecological validity, we replicated the real-world practice of CAF ingestion 30 min prior to training, mirroring typical athlete pre-workout routines. The participants of CrossFit<sup>®</sup> performed the 'Cindy' protocol, and the CMJ as a primary outcome was measured pre- and post-intervention, while the RPE, HR, and the number of repetitions were tracked at the end of the workout for comparisons. <b>Results</b>: No significant differences were found between CAF forms in internal load measures (RPE, HR<sub>max</sub>, HR<sub>mean</sub>) or the number of repetitions. While no changes were observed with other CAF forms, CMR significantly improved the CMJ performance compared to the baseline (Δ: +3.5; Cohen's d<sub>unb</sub>: 0.51], which exceeded the estimated SWC by approximately three-fold. However, the inferential analysis revealed no significant main effects of the caffeine administration method on any measured outcomes. <b>Conclusions</b>: While CAF delivery forms did not improve internal load measures or performance parameters, such as the RPE, HR, or the total number of repetitions, the caffeine mouth rinse (CMR) showed a potentially meaningful improvement in CMJ performance after CrossFit<sup>®</sup> training in participants with a certain level of experience.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nutrients
Published
2026-02-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18040657
Primary Topic
Coffee research and impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparing Acute Effects of Caffeine Delivery Forms on Cross-Training Performance: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Crossover Trial

Salvador Vargas-Molina, Mora Murri, Fernando Martín, Manuel García-Sillero et al.
Nutrients
Coffee research and impacts
article

Comparing Acute Effects of Caffeine Delivery Forms on Cross-Training Performance: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Crossover Trial

Salvador Vargas-Molina, Mora Murri, Fernando Martín, Manuel García-Sillero, Javier Benitez-Porres, Diego A. Bonilla, Sergio Iglesias-Placed
article en

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: The aim of this study was to compare the different forms of caffeine (CAF) administration in CrossFit<sup>®</sup> participants. The countermovement jump (CMJ), the rate of perceived exertion (RPE), the total number of repetitions, and the maximum (HR<sub>max</sub>) and mean heart rate (HR<sub>mean</sub>) were evaluated. <b>Methods</b>: Fourteen males with more than six months of continuous CrossFit<sup>®</sup> training (30.9 [5.62] years, 179 [1.33] cm, 78 [5.75] kg, 24.3 [1.33] kg·m<sup>-2</sup>) participated in this randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Participants were randomized in a repeated measures design using caffeine capsule (CC), caffeine chewing gum (CCG), and caffeine mouth rinse (CMR) protocols, along with a placebo group (PG). Participants were unaware of whether any of the delivery methods contained caffeine. A 7-day washout period before each crossover was used. To ensure ecological validity, we replicated the real-world practice of CAF ingestion 30 min prior to training, mirroring typical athlete pre-workout routines. The participants of CrossFit<sup>®</sup> performed the 'Cindy' protocol, and the CMJ as a primary outcome was measured pre- and post-intervention, while the RPE, HR, and the number of repetitions were tracked at the end of the workout for comparisons. <b>Results</b>: No significant differences were found between CAF forms in internal load measures (RPE, HR<sub>max</sub>, HR<sub>mean</sub>) or the number of repetitions. While no changes were observed with other CAF forms, CMR significantly improved the CMJ performance compared to the baseline (Δ: +3.5; Cohen's d<sub>unb</sub>: 0.51], which exceeded the estimated SWC by approximately three-fold. However, the inferential analysis revealed no significant main effects of the caffeine administration method on any measured outcomes. <b>Conclusions</b>: While CAF delivery forms did not improve internal load measures or performance parameters, such as the RPE, HR, or the total number of repetitions, the caffeine mouth rinse (CMR) showed a potentially meaningful improvement in CMJ performance after CrossFit<sup>®</sup> training in participants with a certain level of experience.

NutrientsVol. 18(4)
Universitat de València (ES), University of the Basque Country (ES), Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ES), Spanish Biomedical Research Centre in Physiopathology of Obesity and Nutrition (ES), Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga (ES), Dynamic Systems (United States) (US), Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Victoria (ES), Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga (ES), Universidad de Málaga (ES), University of Wales Trinity Saint David (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 52%
Coffee research and impacts
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.