| Literature DB >> 36235737 |
Mariana Sánchez Díaz1, Adrián Martín-Castellanos2, Valentín E Fernández-Elías1, Olga López Torres1, Jorge Lorenzo Calvo2.
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that polyphenol consumption enhances recovery of the muscle after exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD). However, EIMD markers have not been studied by sport type. The main aim of this research was to perform a systematic review to determine the efficacy of polyphenolic consumption in increasing muscle recovery for performing team sport skills. Eligible studies included, following PICOS structure, presented at least one of the following outcomes: maximal isometric voluntary contraction (MVIC); countermovement jump (CMJ); delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS); 20 m sprint test; creatine kinase (CK); and C-reactive protein (hsCRP). A structured search was carried out following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed using the PEDro scale tool. The review showed a possibly positive impact of polyphenol consumption on recovery after EIMD in team sports athletes. No differences were found between sexes. Considering the limitations, there is moderate to very low certainty of polyphenol supplementation effects on recovery of team sport females and males. A dose of 60 mL/day, divided into two times per day, ingested for >7 days may present positive effects on muscle function and muscle soreness in team sport athletes. However, further investigation is required, specifically in females.Entities:
Keywords: ergogenic aids; intermittent sports; muscle damage; sports nutrition
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36235737 PMCID: PMC9573146 DOI: 10.3390/nu14194085
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 6.706
Figure 1Selection of studies according to an adapted version of PRISMA 2020 flow diagram [24].
RCT design characteristics for all studies included in this review.
| Study Id | Population | Exposure to Polyphenols | Exercise | Outcomes Analyzed | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author/s-Year | Study Design | Characteristics | Kind | Polyphenolic Content | EIMD | Physical | Muscle Damage | Oxidative Stress |
| Jówko et al., 2012 [ | RCT | Local club soccer players ( | Green tea polyphenols (GTP) | * | Muscle-endurance test | n/a | Pre, 5 min and 24 h post: | Pre, 5 min and 24 h post: |
| Bell et al., 2016 [ | RCT | Semi-professional male soccer players ( | Montmorency tart cherry concentrate (MC) | * | 12 × 20 m sprint | 24, 48, 72 h post: | 0, 1, 3, 5, 24, 48, 72 h post: | 0, 1, 3, 5, 24, 48, 72 h post: |
| Clifford et al., 2016 [ | RCT | Collegiate male team sports players ( | Beetroot juice (BTJ) | - | 2 RST: | Pre, post, 24, 48 and 72 h after RST1 and post and 24 h after RST2: | Pre, post, 2.5, 24, 48 and 72 h after RST1 and post, 2.5 and 24 h after RST2: | Pre, post, 2.5, 24, 48 and 72 h after RST1 and post, 2.5 and 24 h after RST2: |
| Hadi et al., 2016 [ | RCT | University male soccer players ( | Green tea extract (GTE) | - | No specifications given | n/a | Pre and post (6 weeks): | Pre and post (6 weeks): |
| Assunção et al., 2018 [ | RCT | Elite high school male handball players ( | - | 4 w of periodization of medium-intensity endurance training, maximal power and speed, sport-specific strength and power and techno-tactical skills. | Pre and post (4 weeks): | Pre and post (4 weeks): | Pre and post (4 weeks): | |
| Kupusarevic et al., 2019 [ | RCT | Rugby union (RU) elite male players ( | Tart cherry juice (TCJ) | - | RU 80 min match | 24, 48, 72 h post: | n/a | n/a |
| Abbott et al., 2020 [ | RCT | Professional male soccer players ( | Tart cherry juice (TCJ) | - | 90-min soccer match | 12, 36, 60 h post: | n/a | n/a |
| Quinlan et al., 2019 [ | RCT | Team sports male ( | Tart cherry juice (TCJ) | - | LIST (6 × 15 min sections) followed by 12 × 20 m sprint. | Pre and 1, 24, 48 h post: | Pre and 1, 24, 48 h post: | n/a |
| Morehen et al., 2021 [ | RCT | Professional Rugby male players ( | Montmorency cherry juice (MC) | * | RU match | 24 pre, 24 and 48 h post: | n/a | n/a |
| Martins et al., 2020 [ | RCT | National competitors’ male volleyball players ( | Grape juice (GJ) | * | 3 volleyball match simulations | Pre and post each match: | Pre and post each match: | Pre and post each match: |
| Stankiewicz et al., 2021 [ | RCT | Semi-professional male soccer players ( | Chokeberry juice | * | Regular physical training program (microcycle) during the 7 w of supplementation. | Before and after 7 weeks: | n/a | 0, 3, 24 h post the beep test. |
* content stated in the study; - content not stated; n/a not applicable; ↔ no significant difference; ↑ significantly higher from the placebo group; ↓ significantly lower from the placebo group; abbreviations: RCT, randomized controlled trials; CK, creatine kinase; TBARS, thio-barbituric acid; UA, uric acid; TAS, total antioxidant status; SOD, superoxide dismutase; GAE, gallic acid equivalent; LIST, Loughborough intermittent shuttle test; MVIC, maximal isometric voluntary contraction; CMJ, countermovement jump; DOMS, delayed onset muscle soreness; hsCRP, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; LOOH, lipid hydro-peroxides; RST, repeated sprint test; RI, reactive strength index; PPT, pressure-pain threshold; PC, protein carbonyls; A-, ascorbyl free radical; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; TAC, total antioxidant capacity.
Risk of bias graph: Review of authors’ judgment on each risk of bias item from PEDro scale presented as percentages across all included studies.
| Jówko et al., 2012 [ | Bell et al., 2016 [ | Clifford et al., 2016 [ | Hadi et al., 2016 [ | Assunção et al., 2018 [ | Kupusarevic et al., 2019 [ | Abbott et al., 2020 [ | Quinlan et al., 2019 [ | Morehen et al., 2021 [ | Martins et al., 2020 [ | Stankiewicz et al., 2021 [ | Studies Meeting Criterion | |
| 1.Eligibility criteria |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
| 2.Randomized allocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
| 3.Concealed allocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
| 4.Comparable at baseline |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
| 5.Blinded subjects |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
| 6.Blinded therapists |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
| 7.Blinded assessors |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
| 8.Adequate follow-up |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
| 9.Intention to treat analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
| 10.Between-group comparisons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
| 11.Point estimates and variability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
| Total points | 10 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 7 |
Note: ● indicates low risk of bias, ● indicates high risk of bias.