4.6 Review

Effects of Grape Juice Consumption in Practitioners of Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Journal

FOOD REVIEWS INTERNATIONAL
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/87559129.2023.2278844

Keywords

Antioxidants; exhaustion time; athletes; runners

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review assessed the effects of grape juice consumption on oxidative stress, inflammation, physical performance, muscle damage, and recovery in physical activity practitioners. The meta-analysis showed that acute or chronic consumption of 10/ml/kg/day or 400 ml of grape juice improved antioxidant status but had no effects on markers of oxidative stress, inflammation, physical performance, muscle damage, and recovery in physical activity practitioners.
The effects of grape juice consumption on oxidative stress, inflammation, physical performance, muscle damage, and recovery in physical activity practitioners were evaluated in clinical studies. However, to date, no studies have gathered these findings. Thus, we aimed to review all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of grape juice consumption on these markers. The searched databases were MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase (R), and Cochrane Central, considering an exhaustive search in the literature with keywords uva OR vitis. The PRISMA guideline was used to conduct and report the review. Seven RCTs with athletes (n = 3), recreational sportspeople (n = 3), and low-intensity physical activity practitioners (n = 1) were included. The qualitative results of the individual studies were controversial, and according to the meta-analysis, acute or chronic consumption of 10/ml/kg/day or 400 ml of grape juice improved antioxidant status but had no effects on markers of oxidative stress, inflammation, physical performance, muscle damage and recovery in physical activity practitioners.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available