MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nitrate supplementation enhances exercise performance: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2020· review· en· W3019177480 on OpenAlexaff
Riley J. Regimbal, Jonathon W. Senefeld, Chad C. Wiggins, Paolo B. Dominelli, Sarah E. Baker, Michael J. Joyner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerobic exercisePlaceboMeta-analysisMedicineTime trialVO2 maxHypoxia (environmental)Randomized controlled trialSubgroup analysisInternal medicinePhysical therapyOxygenHeart rateChemistryBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although over 100 studies and reviews have examined the ergogenic effects of dietary nitrate (NO 3 − ) supplementation ( e.g. beetroot juice) 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 (F i O 2 ) during exercise. To address this limitation, the literature was systematically reviewed for randomized, cross‐over, placebo‐controlled studies reporting exercise performance outcome metrics with NO 3 − supplementation in young, healthy adults. There were 2,033 articles identified, and 80 articles met inclusion criteria for the meta‐analysis. Random‐effects meta‐analysis demonstrated that exercise performance was improved with NO 3 − supplementation compared to placebo ( d =0.174, 95% CI [0.120–0.229], P <0.001). Subgroup analyses conducted on biological sex, aerobic fitness and F i O 2 demonstrated that the ergogenic effect of NO 3 − supplementation was: 1) not observed in studies with only women ( n =6, d=0.116, 95% CI [−0.126–0.358], P =0.347), 2) not observed in participants with moderate aerobic fitness (less than 45 mL·kg −1 ·min −1 ; n =4, d =0.168, 95% CI [−0.134–0.469], P =0.276) or elite aerobic fitness (65 mL·kg −1 ·min −1 or greater; n =26, d =0.021, 95% CI [−0.103–0.144], P =0.745) and 3) was not modulated by F i O 2 (hypoxia: n =17, d =0.214, 95% CI [0.054–0.375], P =0.009 vs. normoxia n =97, d =0.175, 95% CI [0.114–0.237], P <0.001). Together, the meta‐analyses demonstrated a clear ergogenic effect of NO 3 − supplementation in recreationally‐active, young, healthy men across many different exercise paradigms and NO 3 − supplementation parameters; however, the effect size of NO 3 − supplementation was objectively small . Although NO 3 − supplementation may be effective in moderately fit, healthy men, NO 3 − supplementation has limited utility as an ergogenic aid in participants 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 NO 3 − supplementation; however, additional descriptive studies of young healthy men may have limited utility. Figure 1 Figure 2

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.028
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207