Study note • PMID 38197606
Acute effects of commercial energy drink consumption on exercise performance and cardiovascular safety: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial.
Worth trying if it fits your goal and context.
ELI5
In plain language
The aim of this study was to examine the acute effects of a non-caloric energy drink (C4E) compared to a traditional sugar-containing energy drink (MED) and non-caloric placebo (PLA)… (randomized trial; participants).
The abstract doesn’t indicate a clear change in Time-trial performance, Time to exhaustion under the tested conditions. Treat this as a signal, not a guarantee; confirm methods and context in the full paper.
Takeaways
What the abstract suggests
- • Study question: The aim of this study was to examine the acute effects of a non-caloric energy drink (C4E) compared to a traditional sugar-containing energy drink (MED) and non-caloric placebo (PLA)…
- • The abstract doesn’t indicate a clear change in Time-trial performance, Time to exhaustion under the tested conditions.
- • Population: participants.
- • Protocol cues (title/abstract): 10 h.
Protocol
Protocol (as reported)
- • Intervention/exposure: acute, commercial (vs placebo).
- • Dose/time/duration cues in abstract/title: 10 h.
- • Outcomes: Time-trial performance, Time to exhaustion.
- • Replication note: abstracts often omit adherence and timing; confirm details before changing training or supplementation.
Fit
Who it helps, and who should skip it
Who it helps
- • Athletes similar to the study population (participants) working on supplements.
- • Athletes who can measure Time-trial performance, Time to exhaustion with a repeatable workout or time-trial effort.
Who should skip
- • If you have symptoms or conditions that make the intervention risky, get professional guidance.
- • If you’re near race day and can’t safely test, defer the experiment.
Methods
What the study actually did
- • Design: randomized trial (placebo-controlled).
- • Population: participants.
- • Comparator: placebo.
- • Outcomes measured: Time-trial performance, Time to exhaustion.
- • Protocol cues mentioned: 10 h.
- • Source: PubMed PMID 38197606 (2024) — Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition.
Results excerpt
What the abstract reports
“Neither MED nor C4E influenced ECG measures (p >/= 0.08) or LBF (p = 0.37) compared to PLA.”
Note: excerpts are short; for full context, read the paper.
Limits
Limitations & bias
- • Abstract-only summaries can miss critical details (population, protocol, adherence, and context).
- • Single studies often don’t generalize to your event, history, and training load; treat results as a starting point.
- • If your context differs (elite vs recreational; cycling vs running), adjust expectations and be conservative.
- • This is performance information, not medical advice.
Coaching beta
Get a plan that adapts to your life.
Join the 26weeks.ai TestFlight beta for adaptive coaching, recovery-aware adjustments, and race-week reminders.
Keep going
Performance Science Lab
Research-backed protocols and evidence grades for endurance performance — built for athletes.
Supplements performance research
Supplements are optional. Only a few reliably move the needle, and context matters.
Caffeine for endurance performance: a practical protocol
Evidence-informed protocol: Caffeine for endurance performance: a practical protocol. Practical steps, who it helps, and what to watch out for.
Time-trial performance research for endurance athletes
Practical performance outcome used in many studies: closer to racing than lab-only metrics.
Time to exhaustion research for endurance athletes
A lab outcome that can still guide training: it often tracks fatigue resistance.