Caffeine, CYP1A2 Genotype, and Exercise Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to summarize and meta-analyze existing evidence regarding the influence of CYP1A2 genotypes on the acute effects of caffeine for exercise performance and to investigate the interaction between genotype, dosage, and timing of caffeine supplementation. METHODS: Six databases were searched for studies determining the effect of caffeine (except mouth rinsing) on exercise performance between CYP1A2 genotypes. Three-level meta-analyses were performed using standardized mean differences (SMD; Hedge's g ) to determine the effect of caffeine on exercise outcomes within and between CYP1A2 genotypes (AA, AC, and CC). Meta-regressions were performed for dose, timing, and presence of reported conflict of interests (RCOI). A meta-analysis was also performed with placebo values to assess for imbalances between genotypes. RESULTS: Thirteen studies, totaling 119 outcomes and 440 participants, were included (233 AA, 175 AC, ad 34 CC). Caffeine improved performance for AA (SMD = 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.21-0.39, P < 0.0001) and AC (SMD = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.06-0.25, P = 0.022) but worsened performance for CC (SMD = -0.22, 95% CI = -0.44 to -0.01, P < 0.0001). Dose affected only CC, with greater doses generating more positive SMD (CC-dose estimate: +0.19/1 mg·kg -1 body mass, 95% CI = 0.04-0.33, P = 0.01). Timing influenced only CC, with better performance with later onset of exercise after supplementation (CC-timing estimate: +0.01/min, 95% CI = 0.00-0.02, P = 0.02). RCOI only affected SMD of CC (CC-RCOI estimate: -0.57, 95% CI = -1.02 to -0.12, P = 0.01). After excluding studies with RCOI, no influence of genotype was seen (all P ≥ 0.19). Small, nonsignificant differences were seen in placebo between genotypes (SMD AA vs CC: -0.13; AA vs AC: -0.12; AC vs CC: -0.05; all P ≥ 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Caffeine improved performance for AA and AC but worsened performance for CC. Dose and timing moderated the efficacy of caffeine for CC only. Caution is advised because baseline differences and studies with RCOI could have influenced these results.

How Cool is That? The Effects of Menthol Mouth Rinsing on Exercise Capacity and Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Menthol (MEN) mouth rinsing (MR) has gained considerable interest in the athletic population for exercise performance; however, the overall magnitude of effect is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of menthol MEN MR and the impact it has on exercise capacity and performance. METHODS: Three databases were searched with articles screened according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Three-level meta-analyses were used to investigate the overall efficacy of MEN MR and the impact it has on exercise capacity and performance. Meta-regressions were then performed with 1) mean VO2peak, 2) MEN swilling duration; 3) the MEN concentration of MR solution, 4) the number of executed swills throughout a single experiment, 5) the use of flavoured sweetened, non-caloric, or non-flavoured neutral solutions as controls, 6) mean environmental temperature at the time of exercise tests, and 7) exercise type as fixed factors to evaluate their influence on the effects of MEN MR. RESULTS: Ten MEN MR studies included sufficient information pertaining to MEN MR and exercise performance and capacity. MR with MEN resulted in no significant change in capacity and performance (SMD = 0.12; 95% CI - 0.08, 0.31; p = 0.23, n = 1, tau21 < 0.0001, tau22 = < 0.0001, I2 = 0%). No significant influence was detected in meta-regressions for VO2peak, (estimate: 0.03; df = 8; 95% CI - 0.03, 0.09; p = 0.27), swilling duration (5 vs. 10 s: 0.00; df = 16; 95% CI - 0.41, 0.41; p = 1.0), MEN concentration (low [0.01%] vs. high [0.1%]: - 0.08; df = 15; 95% CI - 0.49, 0.32; p = 0.67), number of swills (estimate: 0.02; df = 13; 95% CI - 0.05, 0.09; p = 0.56), the use of flavoured sweetener or non-caloric as control (non-flavoured vs. flavoured: 0.12; df = 16; 95% CI - 0.30, 0.55; p = 0.55) or mean room temperature during exercise tests (estimate: 0.01; df = 16; 95% CI - 0.02, 0.04; p = 0.62). CONCLUSION: MEN MR did not significantly improve overall exercise capacity and performance, though those involved in endurance exercise may see benefits.