4.7 Review

Does Branched-Chain Amino Acids (BCAAs) Supplementation Attenuate Muscle Damage Markers and Soreness after Resistance Exercise in Trained Males? A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13061880

关键词

branched-chain amino acids; muscle damage; muscle soreness; creatine kinase; lactate dehydrogenase; resistance exercise; inflammatory response; meta-analysis

资金

  1. University of Taipei (Taiwan)
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology (Taiwan) [MOST 108-2410-H845-023-MY2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This meta-analysis suggests that BCAAs supplementation can reduce CK levels and muscle soreness in trained males after resistance exercise, but does not show a positive effect on plasma LDH levels.
Previous studies have reported the positive effects of branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) supplementation on lowering plasma markers of muscle damage and subjective soreness after resistance exercise. However, a variety of factors can potentially moderate its efficacy. This meta-analysis aimed to summarize the evidence regarding the effect of BCAAs supplementation on plasma muscle damage markers and soreness after resistance exercise in only trained males, by considering the plasma lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and creatine kinase (CK). Randomized controlled trials were identified through a computerized literature search for the period 2010-2020. The pooled data were analyzed with the random-effects model and heterogeneity using I-2. Cochrane Collaboration tools was used for the assessment of risk of bias. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. A positive effect was found for CK at <24, 24, and 48 h after exercise and for muscle soreness at <24 h only. However, the positive effect was not evident for plasma LDH at any follow-up time. Different outcomes for post-exercise responses may suggest that BCAAs supplementation can attenuate muscle damage and ameliorate muscle soreness after resistance exercise in trained males.

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