Effects of caffeine gum on same-day and subsequent neuromuscular performance under a standardized resistance-priming condition in male basketball players.

Abstract

Purpose: This study examined whether 3 mg·kg^-1 (CAF3) and 6 mg·kg^-1 (CAF6) caffeine gum, administered before a standardized resistance-priming (RP) protocol, produced additional neuromuscular performance advantages over placebo (PLA) at 1 h, 24 h, and 48 h in male basketball players.Methods: Fifteen male basketball players completed three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover conditions: PLA+RP, CAF3+RP, and CAF6+RP. After 15 min of gum chewing, participants performed a standardized warm-up followed by RP consisting of 3 × 3 back squats at 85% 1RM. Mean concentric velocity (MV) was recorded during RP. Performance tests were conducted at 1 h, 24 h, and 48 h post-RP and included isometric mid-thigh pull peak force and 200-ms rate of force development, countermovement jump height, 20-m sprint, Y-shaped reactive agility, and Lane Agility Test. Data were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models adjusted for experimental period and administration sequence.Results: Significant dose × time interactions were observed for all performance outcomes except the Lane Agility Test. At 1 h, CAF3+RP and CAF6+RP produced superior performance compared with PLA+RP in isometric strength, explosive power, sprint, and reactive agility outcomes. No significant differences were observed between CAF3 and CAF6. At 24 h and 48 h, no additional between-condition advantages were found for either caffeine dose compared with PLA. Barbell MV during RP was higher under caffeine conditions than PLA, indicating greater RP training output.Conclusion: Within a standardized RP context, CAF3 and CAF6 caffeine gum were associated with improved same-day neuromuscular performance and higher RP barbell velocity compared with PLA, but no additional between-condition advantages were observed at 24 h or 48 h. Because this study did not include pre-intervention baseline testing, a caffeine-only condition, or a no-RP control condition, the findings should be interpreted as caffeine-related differences within an RP context rather than direct evidence of the independent effects of caffeine, RP, or their interaction.