MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411609193 · doi:10.1007/s13668-025-00672-x

Evidence-Based Supplementation Strategies for Wrestlers: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4411609193 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

VenueCurrent Nutrition Reports · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicExercise and Physiological Responses
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreatineMedicineCochrane LibraryPhysical therapyFood scienceInternal medicineMeta-analysisChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Wrestling is a popular combat sport that requires muscular strength, power, agility, and endurance. Weight classes have motivated wrestlers to compete at a lower weight to optimise power-to-weight ratio and performance. To achieve these characteristics, athletes may use dietary supplements, however, their efficacy in wrestlers has not been systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to systematically review the literature to determine the efficacy of dietary supplements to improve body composition, physiological status, and performance in wrestlers. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, ProQuest Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus on the 21st of January 2024 and updated on the 6th of January 2025. Studies were included if the participants were healthy wrestlers ingesting any type of dietary supplement in comparison to a control. Data associated with intervention type and characteristics, target populations, outcomes, and analysis methods were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 24 eligible original articles were included that assessed various supplementation strategies on body composition, exercise performance, and metabolic markers in wrestlers. Individual studies revealed significant effects of sodium citrate, creatine monohydrate, spirulina, green tea and oolong tea extracts, and branched-chain amino acids on body mass or composition. β-Hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate (HMB-FA), creatine monohydrate, and iron supplementation improved recovery and may improve exercise performance. Beet-root juice supplementation enhanced muscular strength and balance. BCAA supplementation produced mixed results on muscle damage biomarkers and performance, while sodium citrate, creatine, and spirulina can act as buffering agents. Thyme tea appears to improve antioxidant capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, individual studies show some promise for several dietary supplements to alter body mass and body composition, improve exercise recovery and performance, delay fatigue, and modify serum biomarkers; nevertheless, effect sizes were often small, and results were often mixed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.246 · 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