Save
Email
Print
ShareScienceDaily (July 21, 2006) — An hour after consuming a high sugar, low caffeine drink you will tend to have slower reactions and experience more lapses in concentration than if you had simply drunk a decaffeinated, nil carbohydrate drink.
This was the finding of research performed at the University of Loughborough and published in this month's Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental.
Ten healthy adults had volunteered to restrict their sleep to 5 hours on the day before participating in the trial. An hour after eating a light lunch they were given either an energy drink (42g sugar + 30mg caffeine) or an identically tasting zero-sugar drink. They then performed a monotonous 90-minute test during the afternoon 'dip' that assessed their sleepiness and ability to concentrate.
For the first 30 minutes there was no difference in the reaction times or error rates, but 50 minutes after consuming the drinks, the performance of those who had had the energy drink started to slip, and they became significantly sleepier.
Other researched work shows that high energy drinks that contain caffeine will boost concentration.(1)
"A 'sugar rush' is not very effective in combating sleepiness - so avoid soft drinks that contain lots of sugar but little or no caffeine," explains Professor Jim Horne, who runs the Sleep Research Centre at the University of Loughborough. "A much better way to combat sleepiness is to have a drink that contains more useful amounts of caffeine and combine this with a short nap".
Recommend this story on Facebook, Twitter,
and Google +1:
Other bookmarking and sharing tools:
Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.
more 
