Six weeks of oral <i>Echinacea purpurea</i> supplementation does not enhance the production of serum erythropoietin or erythropoietic status in recreationally active males with above-average aerobic fitness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of 6 weeks of oral Echinacea purpurea supplementation on serum erythropoietin (EPO) and erythropoietic status. Twenty-four males (mean ± SE; age = 25.2 ± 1.4 years, height = 178.1 ± 1.4 cm, body mass = 78.1 ± 1.6 kg, body fat = 12.7 ± 0.9%, maximal oxygen uptake = 52.9 ± 0.9 mL·kg −1 ·min −1 ) were randomly grouped using a matched-pair, double-blind design and self-administered 8000 mg·day −1 of either E. purpurea (n = 12) or placebo (n = 12) for 42 consecutive days. Blood samples were collected prior to supplementation (day 0) and every 2 weeks during the supplementation period (days 14, 28, and 42) and were analyzed for EPO, red blood cell count, hemoglobin concentration, hematocrit, mean corpuscular volume, and mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration. Separate 2 × 4 (group × time) factorial ANOVA with repeated measures on time were used to determine statistical differences with significance set at p ≤ 0.05. There were no significant interaction, group, or time effects observed for EPO or erythropoietic status markers for any of the measurement points (p ≤ 0.05). The present study indicated that 6 weeks of oral E. purpurea supplementation in recreationally active males with above average aerobic fitness did not enhance EPO or erythropoietic status. These findings are in contrast with previous reports of E. purpurea supplementation in untrained participants with average fitness levels, but consistent with observations in trained endurance athletes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".