Acute beneficial effects of a functional energy shot on cognitive performance and mood states during cognitively demanding task performance: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial

This study investigated the acute effects of a specific functional energy shot, named "Ryde: Energize," on cognitive performance and mood states.

The **intervention** was the functional energy shot, which contained a blend of active ingredients:

Caffeine

Ginseng

Vitamins (specific types and doses not detailed in the abstract)

Taurine

The **comparator** was a placebo shot. This placebo was specifically designed to match the flavor of the active energy shot but did not contain any of the active ingredients (caffeine, ginseng, vitamins, or taurine). This is crucial for blinding participants and ensuring that any perceived effects are due to the active ingredients, not just the taste or expectation.

The **outcome measures** focused on two main areas:

1. **Cognitive performance:** This was assessed using a "Cognitive Demand Battery." The abstract indicates that this battery measured:

* Global cognitive performance (an overall measure of cognitive function).

* Task-specific accuracy (how correctly participants performed specific cognitive tasks).

* Task-specific speed (how quickly participants performed specific cognitive tasks).

* Working memory performance, specifically the speed of completing working memory tasks.

2. **Mood states:** These were assessed using "mood assessments" and included measures of:

* Perceived mental fatigue (how tired participants felt mentally).

* Perceived alertness (how awake and attentive participants felt).

* Perceived energy (how energetic participants felt).

* Vigor (a measure of mental and physical energy, enthusiasm, and liveliness).

* Overall mood disturbance (a general measure of negative mood states).

The study aimed to determine if the energy shot could enhance mental energy and reduce the negative effects commonly associated with performing mentally demanding tasks for extended periods.

The study included **37 healthy males and females**.

**Age range:** Participants were between 18 and 30 years old. This specific age range means the findings are most directly applicable to young adults and may not generalize to older populations or adolescents.

**Health status:** All participants were described as "healthy," implying they did not have any significant medical conditions that could interfere with cognitive function or mood, or interact adversely with the shot's ingredients.

**Setting:** The study was conducted in a controlled laboratory setting, where participants attended on separate testing occasions. This controlled environment helps minimize external factors that could influence results, such as distractions or varying daily routines.

The relatively small sample size of 37 participants means that while the study design (crossover) helps to increase statistical power by having each participant act as their own control, the generalizability of the findings to the broader population might still be limited.

The study employed a "Cognitive Demand Battery" and "mood assessments" to quantify the effects of the energy shot. While the abstract does not specify the exact names of the instruments or scales used, we can infer the types of measurements involved:

**For Cognitive Performance:**

**Cognitive Demand Battery:** This is a collection of standardized tests designed to measure various aspects of cognitive function, particularly under conditions of mental load or demand. Such batteries typically include tasks that assess:

* **Attention:** Sustained attention (e.g., vigilance tasks), selective attention (e.g., Stroop test), and divided attention.

* **Working Memory:** The ability to hold and manipulate information in the mind over short periods (e.g., N-back tasks, digit span tasks, complex span tasks). The abstract specifically mentions "working memory tasks showed faster performance," indicating these were a key component.

* **Processing Speed:** How quickly an individual can perform mental tasks (e.g., simple reaction time, choice reaction time, symbol digit modalities test). The abstract refers to "task-specific speed."

* **Accuracy:** The percentage of correct responses on cognitive tasks. The abstract refers to "task-specific accuracy."

* **Global Performance:** This likely refers to a composite score derived from multiple tasks within the battery, providing an overall measure of cognitive function.

These tasks are typically administered on computers, allowing for precise measurement of response times, accuracy, and other performance metrics. The use of a standardized battery ensures consistency and reliability in measuring cognitive changes.

**For Mood States:**

**Mood Assessments:** These typically involve self-report questionnaires or visual analog scales (VAS) where participants rate their current feelings or states. Common scales used in such studies include:

* **Visual Analog Scales (VAS):** Participants might rate their "alertness," "energy," or "fatigue" on a continuous line, often anchored with descriptors like "not at all" at one end and "extremely" at the other. This allows for a nuanced, continuous measure of subjective experience.

* **Profile of Mood States (POMS):** This is a widely used psychological rating scale that assesses transient mood states. It typically measures six factors: Tension-Anxiety, Depression-Dejection, Anger-Hostility, Vigor-Activity, Fatigue-Inertia, and Confusion-Bewilderment. The abstract specifically mentions "vigor, fatigue and overall mood disturbance," which are direct components or derivatives of POMS scores. "Overall mood disturbance" is often calculated by summing negative mood factors and subtracting positive ones (like vigor).

These self-report measures capture the subjective experience of participants, which is crucial for understanding how the energy shot impacts how individuals feel during mentally demanding tasks.

The assessments were conducted at specific time points: pre-dose (baseline) and then 30 minutes post-dose, continuing over approximately 2 hours. This allowed the researchers to track the acute onset and duration of the shot's effects.

This study employed a **randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial** design. This is considered one of the most robust study designs for investigating the effects of an intervention, especially in nutrition and pharmacology.

**How they ran the study:**

1. **Participants:** 37 healthy males and females aged 18-30 years were recruited.

2. **Intervention and Placebo:** Participants consumed either the functional energy shot (Ryde: Energize) or a flavor-matched placebo shot. The active shot contained caffeine, ginseng, vitamins, and taurine, while the placebo contained none of these active ingredients.

3. **Crossover Design:** Each participant served as their own control. This means every participant received *both* the active energy shot and the placebo shot, but on separate testing occasions.

* On one occasion, they received the active shot.

* On another occasion, they received the placebo shot.

* The order in which they received the active shot versus the placebo was **randomized**. This helps to balance out any potential "order effects" (e.g., if participants perform better on the second test session simply because they are more familiar with the tasks).

4. **Washout Period:** The two testing occasions were separated by "one-week apart." This "washout period" is critical in a crossover design. It ensures that any effects of the first substance consumed (whether active or placebo) have completely cleared from the participant's system before they consume the second substance. This prevents carryover effects from confounding the results of the second session.

5. **Blinding:** The study was **double-blind**. This means:

* **Participants were blind:** They did not know whether they were receiving the active energy shot or the placebo on any given occasion. This prevents the "placebo effect," where expectations alone can influence perceived outcomes.

* **Researchers/Assessors were blind:** The individuals administering the shots and conducting the assessments also did not know which substance each participant received. This prevents unconscious bias from influencing how data is collected or interpreted.

6. **Assessment Timeline:** On each testing occasion, participants completed cognitive and mood assessments at three key time points:

* **Pre-dose:** To establish a baseline for each participant on that specific day.

* **30 minutes post-dose:** To capture the initial acute effects as the ingredients are absorbed.

* **Over the course of approximately 2 hours post-dose:** To track the sustained effects during a period of mentally demanding tasks.

**Why this design matters:**

**Randomization:** By randomly assigning the order of intervention and placebo, the researchers minimize the risk of systematic differences between the groups (e.g., one group being inherently better at cognitive tasks) that could bias the results. It helps ensure that, on average, the groups are comparable at baseline.

**Placebo Control:** The use of a placebo that matches the active shot in taste and appearance is crucial. It isolates the effects of the active ingredients from the psychological effects of simply taking a "special" drink or the sensory experience of consumption.

**Double-Blinding:** This is the gold standard for minimizing bias. It prevents both participant expectations and researcher biases from influencing the outcomes, ensuring that any observed effects are truly due to the intervention itself.

**Crossover Design:** This design is particularly powerful because each participant serves as their own control. This significantly reduces inter-individual variability (differences between people) and increases the statistical power of the study. It means fewer participants are needed to detect an effect compared to a parallel-group design, and it provides a more precise estimate of the intervention's effect *within* an individual. For someone running an n=1 experiment, this design is highly relevant as it mirrors the process of comparing one's own performance with and without an intervention.

**What this design can and cannot prove:**

**Can Prove:** This design is excellent for establishing a **causal relationship** between the functional energy shot and the observed changes in cognitive performance and mood. Because of the rigorous controls (randomization, blinding, placebo, crossover), we can be reasonably confident that the active ingredients in the shot *caused* the improvements, rather than other factors. It can also demonstrate the *acute* effects of the shot within