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 OpenAlexaff
Jonathon W. Senefeld, Chad C. Wiggins, Riley J. Regimbal, Paolo B. Dominelli, Sarah E. Baker, Michael J. Joyner

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.033
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations128
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207