ABSTRACT
Guarana (GUA), a Brazilian seed extract, contains caffeine and other bioactive compounds that may have psychoactive effects. To assess the acute effects of GUA compared to a low dose of caffeine (CAF) on cognitive and mood parameters, twenty participants completed a double-blind, crossover experiment where they ingested capsules containing the following: (1) 100 mg CAF, (2) 500 mg GUA containing 130 mg caffeine, or (3) placebo (PLA). Cognitive tests (Simon and 2N-Back Task) were performed at the baseline (pre-ingestion) and 60 min after ingestion. The response time for the cognitive tests and heart rate variability were unaffected (p > 0.05) by treatment, although 2N-Back was overall faster (p = 0.001) across time. The accuracy in the 2N-Back Task showed a significant interaction effect (p = 0.029) due to higher post-ingestion versus pre-ingestion levels (p = 0.033), but only with the PLA. The supplements also had no effect on cognitive measures following physical fatigue (n = 11). There was an interaction effect on perceived mental energy, where the pre-ingestion of GUA had lower mental pep ratings compared to post-ingestion (p = 0.006) and post-exercise (p = 0.018) levels. Neither the acute ingestion of GUA nor low dose of CAF influenced cognitive performance or provided consistent benefit on mood or mental workload through vagal modulation. Additional investigations are beneficial to determining the lowest effective dose for CAF or GUA to influence mood and/or cognitive performance.
Subject(s)
Affect , Caffeine , Cognition , Cross-Over Studies , Heart Rate , Paullinia , Humans , Caffeine/administration & dosage , Caffeine/pharmacology , Paullinia/chemistry , Male , Double-Blind Method , Cognition/drug effects , Adult , Young Adult , Female , Heart Rate/drug effects , Affect/drug effects , Vagus Nerve/physiology , Vagus Nerve/drug effects , Plant Extracts/pharmacology , Plant Extracts/administration & dosage , Dietary SupplementsABSTRACT
Guarana (GUA) seed extract, containing caffeine (CAF) and additional bioactive compounds, may positively affect mental performance, but evidence regarding exercise is limited. This investigation assessed acute GUA ingestion compared with CAF on endurance performance. Eleven endurance-trained noncyclists and cyclists (VËO2peak = 49.7 ± 5.9, 60.4 ± 4.6 ml·kg·min-1) completed a double-blind, crossover experiment after ingesting (a) 100 mg CAF, (b) 500 mg GUA (containing 130 mg CAF), or (c) placebo (P) prior to 60-min fixed cycling workload (FIX) + 15-min time trial. Oxygen uptake, heart rate, respiratory exchange ratio, blood glucose, and lactate were not different (p ≥ .052) during FIX. A significant interaction (p = .042) for perceived exertion was observed at 50-min FIX with lower rating (p = .023) for GUA versus CAF but not compared with P. Work accumulated over 15-min time trial was greater (p = .038) for GUA versus P due to higher early (1-11 min) work outputs. Work performance favored (effect size = 0.18; 95% confidence interval [0.003, 0.355], p = .046) GUA (241.4 ± 39.9 kJ) versus P (232.1 ± 46.6 kJ), but CAF (232.3 ± 43.9) was not different from GUA (effect size = 0.19; 95% confidence interval [-0.022, 0.410], p = .079) or P. Postexercise strength loss was not attenuated with GUA (-5.6 ± 8.5%) or CAF (-8.3 ± 9.4%) versus P (-10.3 ± 5.1%). Acute GUA ingestion improved work performance relative to P, but effects were trivial to small and unrelated to altered substrate oxidation or muscular strength. Ergogenicity may involve central mechanisms reducing perceived effort with GUA (containing 130 mg caffeine). Due to issues related to identical matching of dosage, whether GUA confers additional benefits beyond its CAF content cannot be determined at present.