4.2 Review

Effects of Quercetin Supplementation on Endurance Performance and Maximal Oxygen Consumption: A Meta-Analysis

出版社

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/ijsnem.23.1.73

关键词

flavonoids; aerobic capacity; exercise capacity; ergogenic aids; sports supplements

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lately, the effect of quercetin supplementation (QS) on endurance performance (EP) and maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) has been receiving much scientific and media attention. Therefore, a meta-analysis was performed to determine QS's ergogenic value on these variables. Studies were located with database searches (PubMed and SPORTDiscus) and cross-referencing. Outcomes represent mean percentage changes in EP (measured via power output) and VO2max between QS and placebo. Random-effects model meta-regression, mixed-effects model analog to the ANOVA, random-effects weighted mean effect summary, and magnitude-based inferences analyses were used to delineate the effects of QS. Seven research articles (representing 288 subjects) were included, producing 4 VO2max and 10 EP effect estimates. Mean QS daily intake and duration were, respectively, 960 +/- 127 mg and 26 +/- 24 d for the EP outcome and 1,000 +/- 0 mg and 8 +/- 23 d for the VO2max outcome. EP was assessed during exercise with a mean duration of 79 +/- 82 mm. Overall, QS improved EP by 0.74% (95% CI: 0.10-1.39, p = .02) compared with placebo. However, only in untrained individuals (0.83% +/- 0.78%, p = .02) did QS significantly improve EP (trained individuals: 0.09% +/- 2.15%, p = .92). There was no relationship between QS duration and EP (p = .69). Overall, QS increased VO2max by 1.94% (95% CI: 0.30-3.59, p = .02). Magnitude-based inferences suggest that the effect of QS on EP and VO2max is likely to be trivial for both trained and untrained individuals. In conclusion, this meta-analysis indicates that QS is unlikely to prove ergogenic for aerobic-oriented exercises in trained and untrained individuals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据