MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3018818815 · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000002363

Ergogenic Effect of Nitrate Supplementation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3018818815 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMeta-analysisNitrateMedicineInternal medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although over 100 studies and reviews have examined the ergogenic effects of dietary nitrate (NO3) supplementation in young, healthy men and women, it is unclear if participant and environmental factors modulate the well-described ergogenic effects-particularly relevant factors include biological sex, aerobic fitness, and fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) during exercise. To address this limitation, the literature was systematically reviewed for randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled studies reporting exercise performance outcome metrics with NO3 supplementation in young, healthy adults. Of the 2033 articles identified, 80 were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Random-effects meta-analysis demonstrated that exercise performance improved with NO3 supplementation compared with placebo (d = 0.174; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.120-0.229; P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses conducted on biological sex, aerobic fitness, and FiO2 demonstrated that the ergogenic effect of NO3 supplementation was as follows: 1) not observed in studies with only women (n = 6; d = 0.116; 95% CI, -0.126 to 0.358; P = 0.347), 2) not observed in well-trained endurance athletes (≥65 mL·kg·min; n = 26; d = 0.021; 95% CI, -0.103 to 0.144; P = 0.745), and 3) not modulated by FiO2 (hypoxia vs normoxia). Together, the meta-analyses demonstrated a clear ergogenic effect of NO3 supplementation in recreationally active, young, healthy men across different exercise paradigms and NO3 supplementation parameters; however, the effect size of NO3 supplementation was objectively small (d = 0.174). NO3 supplementation has more limited utility as an ergogenic aid in participants with excellent aerobic fitness that have optimized other training parameters. Mechanistic research and studies incorporating a wide variety of subjects (e.g., women) are needed to advance the study of NO3 supplementation; however, additional descriptive studies of young, healthy men may have limited utility.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it