4.7 Review

Ergogenic potential of foods for performance and recovery: a new alternative in sports supplementation? A systematic review

期刊

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN FOOD SCIENCE AND NUTRITION
卷 62, 期 6, 页码 1480-1501

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2020.1844137

关键词

Antioxidant; functional foods; athletic performance; exercise training; sports nutrition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies have shown that certain foods have an ergogenic effect on sports performance. These studies provide new insights for athletes and coaches to optimize their performance. While food may have equal or superior ergogenic activity compared to supplements, more research is needed to form a body of evidence.
In recent years, there have been studies in the literature reporting the ergogenic effect of some different foods on sports performance. Given the reasonable number of studies in which some food has shown improvement in some physiological variables related to physical performance, a review is pertinent in order to produce a compilation of these studies, providing new elements for athletes and coaches which aim to optimize their performance. Thus, the objective of this work was to present a systematic review of the findings regarding the potential ergogenic effect of food for athletes. Researchers performed a double-blind research in Medline/PubMed considering articles published until January 2019 which resulted in 71 articles. Increased time until exhaustion, improved aerobic capacity and strength recovery were the most commonly reported physical effects. In general, food showed equal or superior ergogenic activity over supplements. Although the number of foods investigated is reasonable, there is still no body of evidence for each studied food, except beets. The current data support the possibility of certain foods being able to enhance athletic performance, as well as serving as an energy source. However, a larger volume of studies is needed to form a body of evidence on each of these foods.

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

4.7
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