Common questions and misconceptions about caffeine supplementation: what does the scientific evidence really show?

Caffeine is a popular ergogenic aid that has a plethora of evidence highlighting its positive effects. A Google Scholar search using the keywords "caffeine" and "exercise" yields over 200,000 results, emphasizing the extensive research on this topic. However, despite the vast amount of available data, it is intriguing that uncertainties persist regarding the effectiveness and safety of caffeine. These include but are not limited to: 1. Does caffeine dehydrate you at rest? 2. Does caffeine dehydrate you during exercise? 3. Does caffeine promote the loss of body fat? 4. Does habitual caffeine consumption influence the performance response to acute caffeine supplementation? 5. Does caffeine affect upper vs. lower body performance/strength differently? 6. Is there a relationship between caffeine and depression? 7. Can too much caffeine kill you? 8. Are there sex differences regarding caffeine's effects? 9. Does caffeine work for everyone? 10. Does caffeine cause heart problems? 11. Does caffeine promote the loss of bone mineral? 12. Should pregnant women avoid caffeine? 13. Is caffeine addictive? 14. Does waiting 1.5-2.0 hours after waking to consume caffeine help you avoid the afternoon "crash?" To answer these questions, we performed an evidence-based scientific evaluation of the literature regarding caffeine supplementation.

The Effect of Acute and Chronic Thermotherapy on Type 2 Diabetic Skeletal Muscle Gene Expression and Inflammatory Markers.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a chronic illness associated with resistance to or defective insulin secretion. This study investigates the effects of thermotherapy on cell viability, gene expression and inflammation in skeletal muscle cell lines. METHODS: Healthy and T2D human skeletal muscle cell lines (HSMM and D-HSMM, respectively) were subjected to acute or chronic thermo-therapy (AT or CT, respectively). CT consisted of a 30 min exposure to 40 °C, three times a week for three weeks; AT was a one-time exposure. RESULTS: A significant decrease in D-HSMM cell viability percentage followed AT; however, no significant change occurred in CT. HSMM yielded the highest elevations of genes following CT. In D-HSMM, both treatments yielded gene upregulation. Both treatments significantly down-regulated IL-1ß, IL-6, IL-10 and TNF-α in HSMM. AT significantly decreased IL-1ß, IL-6 and upregulated IL-10 and TNF-α levels in D-HSMM, while CT yielded a reduction in IL-4, TNF-α and an upregulation of IL-6 and IL-10. CONCLUSIONS: An increase in gene expression indicates actin activity and cellular responses, suggesting an increase in transcriptional regulation. The upregulation of IL-6 and IL-10 in D-HSMM negatively correlated with a decrease in TNF-α and IL-1ß, indicating improved adverse inflammatory effects associated with the disease.

Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation combined with acute aerobic exercise does not alter the improved post-exercise insulin response in normoglycemic, inactive and overweight men.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine if omega-3 (n-3) supplementation combined with acute aerobic exercise would improve glucose and insulin responses in normoglycemic, inactive, overweight men. METHODS: In a random order, ten inactive and normoglycemic men (30.6 ± 10 years, 85.4 ± 11 kg, 26.7 ± 4 BMI) completed a rest (R) and exercise trial (EX) without n-3 supplementation. Following 42 days of n-3 supplementation, participants again completed a rest (R + n-3) and exercise trial (EX + n-3) with continued n-3 supplementation. The exercise trial consisted of 3 days of ~70 % VO2peak for 60 min/session. N-3 supplementation entailed 4.55 g/day of n-3 (EPA 2.45 g, DHA 1.61 g). A 75 g oral glucose tolerance (OGTT) test was administered 14-16 h after each trial. RESULTS: Relative to R (35,278 ± 9169 pmol/L), EX without n-3 reduced the incremental area under the curve for insulin (iAUCinsulin) during an OGTT by 21.3 % (27765 ± 4925 pmol/L, p = 0.018) and 20.6 % after the EX + n-3 trial (27,999 ± 8370 pmol/L; p = 0.007). In addition, EX (96 ± 21 pmol/L; p = 0.006) reduced C-peptide by 13.5 % when compared to R (111 ± 26 pmol/L). No difference was observed between R and n-3 trials for iAUCinsulin and iAUCC-peptide. Only EX improved insulin sensitivity index by 5.6 % (p = 0.02) when compared to R. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that n-3 supplementation does not add any additional benefit beyond the exercise induced insulin responses in inactive men. Furthermore, n-3 supplementation alone does not appear to impair insulin action in normoglycemic, inactive, overweight men.