Soccer pass performance following caffeine intake with deliberate or maintenance practice

Clinical Snapshot

Key Findings

• P Value: p > 0.05 for all caffeine vs placebo comparisons

• Effect Size: Not reported for primary comparison

• Primary Outcome: No significant differences in soccer passing performance (LSPT, OTPT, LPT) between caffeine and placebo conditions

• Nnt Or Sensitivity: Not applicable - no significant treatment effect demonstrated

• Confidence Interval: Not provided

Clinical Application

Highly feasible - low-dose caffeine from coffee is readily available and well-tolerated Relevant to Australian football academies and youth programs. Caffeine supplementation aligns with Sports Medicine Australia guidelines for adolescent athletes when used appropriately Adolescent male football players with average technical ability

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The impact of caffeine on strength and endurance performance is well acknowledged, yet its influence on skill performance remains contentious. A potential scenario in which caffeine augments the efficacy of practice could be useful for sports brokers who diligently pursue every nuance to enhance performance. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to examine the impact of 3 mg·kg-1 of caffeinated coffee intake combined with deliberate (DP) or maintenance practice (MP) on passing performance in adolescent football players. The study also discusses how DP and MP affect passing accuracy without considering caffeine or placebo conditions, as well as how athletes perceive DP and MP and whether caffeine supplementation influences these perceptions. METHODS: Fourteen adolescent male football players (14.07 ± 0.26 years; 174.28 ± 3.12 cm; 57.21 ± 8.40 kg) participated in a double-blind, randomized, counterbalanced, and crossover research design. For the experimental protocols, each participant visited an artificial turf pitch on four occasions, separated by 48 h. They received 3 mg·kg-1 of caffeine sourced from coffee with DP (1), caffeinated coffee intake with MP (2), decaffeinated coffee with DP (3), and decaffeinated coffee with MP (4). Upon concluding the practice regimes, the athletes promptly expressed their evaluations of the practice on a scale of 1-10. The Loughborough Soccer Passing Test (LSPT), the One-Touch Passing Test (OTPT), and the Long Passing Test (LPT) were administered to evaluate participants' passing proficiency at both the beginning and end of each session. RESULTS: There was no difference in LSPT, OTPT, or LPT values following caffeine (CAF) and placebo (PLA) supplementation after DP or MP. Regardless of CAF-PLA conditions, although both practices improve the LSPT original time, penalty time, and performance time, only MP increases the LPT score (21.9%; p = 0.03). Caffeine also has no additional modifier effect on practice perceptions. DP is considered more mentally challenging than MP (4.18 ± 2.3 & 1.9 ± 1.2; p > 0.05), but both practices are similar in terms of relevancy, enjoyment, and physicality. CONCLUSION: 3 mg·kg-1 of caffeinated coffee has no additional effects on DP or MP for passing performance. Regardless of CAF or PLA intake, both practices improve short-term passing, yet only MP appears effective for enhancing long-term passing in players with average technical ability. Accordingly, coaches may consider incorporating these strategies into pre-match warm-ups or structured training programs. Moreover, CAF did not influence players' perceptions of the training sessions, particularly when physical demand was minimal. Similarly, when comparing DP and MP, athletes reported similar perceptions, suggesting that the practical application of DP in field-based settings may diverge from its original theoretical framework. Further research needs to clarify how DP principles are implemented and perceived in real-world practice.