Next Article in Journal
Effectiveness of Psychobiotic Bifidobacterium breve BB05 in Managing Psychosomatic Diarrhea in College Students by Regulating Gut Microbiota: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial
Previous Article in Journal
Post Natal Microbial and Metabolite Transmission: The Path from Mother to Infant
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 16
Issue 13
10.3390/nu16131991
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Echinacea Supplementation Does Not Impact Aerobic Capacity and Erythropoiesis in Athletes: A Meta-Analysis

by
Stephanie Deccy
1,2,
Callie Bartkowiak
1,2,
Nathan Rodricks
1,2 and
Kristopher Paultre
1,2,3,4,*
1
Department of Family Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33136, USA
2
Jackson Health Systems, Miami, FL 33136, USA
3
Department of Orthopedics and Student Healthcare Clinic, University of Miami Health Systems, Miami, FL 33146, USA
4
Club Sports, Department of Wellness and Recreation, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33146, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2024, 16(13), 1991; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16131991
Submission received: 25 May 2024 / Revised: 14 June 2024 / Accepted: 19 June 2024 / Published: 22 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dietary Supplements and Exercise Performance)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Athletes are increasingly relying on natural supplements to improve athletic performance. Echinacea, a common herbal supplement, has been studied for its potential erythropoietin-enhancing effects, with mixed results in the literature. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to determine whether echinacea supplementation has erythropoietic or ergogenic effects in athletes. A search strategy was developed to identify trials studying the impact of echinacea supplementation on erythropoiesis and maximal oxygen uptake. The database search yielded 502 studies, 496 of which were excluded in the two-reviewer screening process. Six studies with a total of 107 athletes were included in the analysis. For hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, there were small, positive effect sizes when comparing the difference in pre- and post-intervention levels between the echinacea and placebo groups, at 0.38 (p = 0.02, 95% CI −0.04–0.80, I2 = 70%) and 0.34 (p < 0.01, 95% CI −0.10–0.78, I2 = 86%), respectively, though they did not reach statistical significance. There was also no statistically significant change in erythropoietin (effect size −0.29, p = 0.05, 95% CI −0.75–0.17, I2 = 67%) or maximal oxygen uptake (effect size −0.20, p = 0.95, 95% CI −0.60–0.21, I2 = 0%). Echinacea supplementation did not influence erythropoietin, hemoglobin, hematocrit, or maximal oxygen uptake in athletes; however, the evidence base is limited.

1. Introduction

Echinacea purpurea is a member of the sunflower family that has long been used for its anti-inflammatory and pro-immunity effects, with a myriad of uses in holistic medicine ranging from a common cold remedy to anxiolytic psychotropic effects [1]. Echinacea’s most well-studied application is for the prevention and treatment of the common cold; a systematic review encompassing 14 studies and 1600 patients concluded that echinacea proved beneficial in decreasing both the incidence and duration of the common cold [2]. While echinacea’s role in immune health is well-characterized, it has also been investigated for possible ergogenic and erythropoietic properties. The mechanism of echinacea’s impact on erythropoiesis is poorly understood, however the basic science literature has shown an increase in pro-inflammatory cytokines (i.e., IL-1, TNF-alpha, IL-6) and oxygen radicals by macrophages exposed to echinacea vs. control [3,4]. Erythropoiesis is influenced by cytokines such as IL-6 and TNF-alpha, which possess pro-inflammatory qualities; the body’s inflammatory response has been studied as a catalyst for an alternative “stress erythropoiesis” pathway for increased red blood cell production during periods of physical stress [5,6]. Animal studies have demonstrated convincing findings with respect to echinacea’s erythropoietic potential; for example, in a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study conducted in horses, 42 days of echinacea supplementation to the horse feed increased both the size and concentration of peripheral red blood cells as well as hemoglobin (Hb) concentration compared to the placebo group [7]. In another study in rabbits, a dose-dependent, statistically significant increase in Hb concentration was observed during 3 months of echinacea supplementation; compared to the control rabbit population Hb level of 10.56 mg/dL, the low, medium, and high-dose echinacea groups were found to have average Hb levels of 11.19, 11.72, and 13.11 mg/dL, respectively [8].
Erythropoietin (EPO) and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have been shown to positively influence aerobic capacity via the stimulation of red blood cell production, resulting in improved oxygen delivery to peripheral tissue. Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 Max), which is the maximal rate at which oxygen is used by muscle tissue during exercise, is a commonly used metric to quantify aerobic fitness and has predictive value with respect to race performance in runners [9,10,11]. EPO and its downstream effects on Hb and hematocrit (Hct) levels are directly linked to VO2 Max, particularly for trained endurance athletes, as VO2 Max in muscle tissue has been shown to change from utilization limitation to diffusion limitation in response to endurance training [12]. A recent meta-analysis including 10 studies with 238 patients demonstrated a benefit of EPO supplementation compared to placebo across a variety of athletic performance metrics including clinical measures such as hematological changes and pulmonary capacity as well as performance-related metrics like maximal power output and time to exhaustion; these effects were observed predominantly during maximal exercise intensities [13]. Consequently, EPO and ESAs have garnered particular attention in the athletic community as a means of performance enhancement, with the World Athletic Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) designating substances known to increase EPO as banned in and out of competition under substance category S2, class 1 [14]. Further complicating WADA’s efforts for clean sport, novel, effective, and increasingly difficult to detect ESAs are being developed [15].
As a result, athletes are increasingly relying on supplements for a safe, natural, and WADA-compliant alternative to procure a competitive advantage, with 45% of a sample of NCAA Division I athletes reporting regular supplement use; this number increases in endurance athletes, with 78% of a sample of elite college endurance runners reporting supplement use during training and competition [16,17]. In a study of Canadian high-performance athletes, a staggering 87% endorsed using three or more supplements in the past 6 months [18]. Echinacea supplementation provides an attractive option for performance enhancement as a well-tolerated natural supplement. However, the literature regarding echinacea’s erythropoietic effects in human clinical trials offers mixed results. For example, Whitehead et al. (2012) found significant increases in EPO, VO2 Max, and running economy after 4 weeks of echinacea supplementation in a small sample of healthy young men; conversely, several other controlled trials have reported no change in these outcomes [19,20,21,22]. In addition, a recent literature review including five randomized controlled trials concluded that echinacea does not have EPO- or performance-enhancing qualities [23]. Importantly, further research has been conducted since this review was published in 2016, and a meta-analysis of the literature has not been conducted to date. The purpose of the present study is to understand whether echinacea supplementation enhances aerobic capacity and erythropoiesis through its effect on EPO, Hb, and Hct levels in the blood, as well as its impact on athlete VO2 Max.

2. Materials and Methods

This meta-analysis was registered with Prospero prior to initiation of research PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023437889 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023437889. Accessed on 19 June 2024.

2.1. Search Strategy

To capture all articles relevant to echinacea supplementation and sports performance, a search strategy was developed based on the General Methods for Cochrane reviews. In accordance with the Cochrane guidelines, we included the use of synonyms, related terms, and variant spellings in our terms (i.e., hemoglobin and haemoglobin) and employed the use of Boolean operators. Search strategies documented by previous literature reviews that identified publications related to echinacea were built upon [2]. The search terms “Echinacea” OR “coneflower” in the Title/Abstract field were combined using AND Boolean operator with the following terms in all fields: sport, athlete, athletic, performance, aerobic, anaerobic, exercise, oxygen, threshold, VO2 Max, capacity, erythropoietin, epoetin alfa, erythropoiesis, hemoglobin, hematocrit, red blood cell, and doping (Figure 1).
Four databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and SPORTDiscus) were queried. Filters for “Human Subjects” and “Clinical Trial” study type were used as available in each database due to a high volume of animal studies and irrelevant study types (i.e., reviews, opinion articles, book chapters) identified during search strategy development. Each database query included all studies up to the date of the search (15 July 2023).

2.2. Study Screening and Data Extraction

Screening for relevant articles was conducted based on title and abstract using the systematic review management system Covidence (Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. Available at www.covidence.org). All records were screened by two reviewers (S.D., C.B.). Disputes were reviewed by a third author (K.P.). Following the initial screen for relevance, each remaining record was further assessed to determine whether the study met the inclusion criteria. Criteria for inclusion in the analysis included all randomized, placebo-controlled or controlled pre-post trials that evaluated the impact of echinacea supplementation on EPO, Hb, Hct, or VO2 Max in a study population of adult (age > 18) humans. The included studies underwent data extraction for variables of interest related to the study design (dosage of echinacea supplementation, length of supplementation, study population and demographics) as well as outcome measures of interest (pre- and post-intervention EPO, Hb, Hct, and VO2 Max). In addition, a CONSORT score was calculated for all studies based on the 25-item 2010 CONSORT Checklist, which is a guideline for reporting clinical trial data in a transparent and reproducible manner [24,25]. Each checklist item was assigned equal weight (1 point). Risk of bias was also evaluated for each study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool [26].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The mean difference for each outcome of interest was calculated based on the reported pre- and post-intervention means. The standard deviations for each pre- and post-intervention outcome were pooled. Next, the difference in change in each outcome of interest was compared between study and control populations. The magnitude of difference between control and treatment groups was measured using Hedges method for effect size (Hedges’ g) due to the small sample size within studies. Studies that did not include the outcome of interest for a particular analysis were excluded from that analysis. A fixed effects model was used to analyze the data given the small number of studies included in the analysis (n = 6) [27]. With respect to the VO2 Max outcome, one study (Bellar et al., 2014 [22]) did not include a control group. For this study, the control groups of the other studies were averaged as a surrogate for the control population and given equal weight to the intervention group. In addition, one study (Whitehead et al., 2012 [19]) reported the VO2 Max outcome as a percentage change from baseline; consequently, the raw data for the post-intervention VO2 Max were extrapolated from the reported baseline. Two studies (Whitehead et al., 2007 [28], Whitehead et al., 2012 [19]) included the same patient population; consequently, the patients were only included in analysis once for each outcome of interest. Stevenson et al. [29] studied double-dose echinacea supplementation (16,000 mg) vs. 8000 mg vs. placebo; for simplification of the analyses and for improved comparison between studies, the 16,000 mg group was excluded from the present study. Analyses were conducted using Meta-Mar (v3.5.1), a free online meta-analysis service, and repeated using R Statistical Software (v4.3.3; R Core Team 2024) using the “meta” analysis package [30].

3. Results

The search strategy yielded 502 studies for screening once duplicates (n = 154) were removed. Of these, 493 were excluded based on title and abstract screening. Nine studies underwent full text review with three studies failing to meet inclusion criteria. After screening and full text review, six studies were included in the final analysis (Figure 2).
Combining the participants within all included studies, a total of 107 athletes were considered in the analysis. The length of supplementation between pre- and post-intervention measurements varied between study, ranging from 28 to 42 days. All studies dosed the echinacea at 8000 mg daily. The included studies are summarized in Table 1.
The average CONSORT grade for all studies was 13. The Cochrane risk of bias for each study are summarized in Figure 3.
Outcome data by study are summarized in Table 2.
With respect to EPO, the small, negative effect size of −0.29 (p = 0.05, 95% CI −0.75–0.17, I2 = 67%) demonstrated no difference between the echinacea and placebo groups. There were small, positive effect sizes when comparing the difference in pre- and post-intervention Hb and Hct levels between the echinacea and placebo groups, at 0.38 (p = 0.02, 95% CI −0.04–0.80, I2 = 70%) and 0.34 (p < 0.01, 95% CI −0.10–0.78, I2 = 86%), respectively; however, this did not reach statistical significance. Change in VO2 Max was not significantly different between echinacea supplementation and control groups across any of the included studies (effect size −0.20, p = 0.95, 95% CI −0.60–0.21, I2 = 0%). Forest plots for each outcome of interest are included in Figure 4.

4. Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether echinacea supplementation increases EPO, Hb, Hct, or VO2 Max in athletes based on a meta-analysis of the contemporary literature. The findings indicate that echinacea supplementation does not increase these parameters after 4–6 weeks of daily, high-dose supplementation in a sample of both recreational and endurance-trained athletes. While increases in Hb and Hct neared statistical significance with the small, positive effect sizes observed and the confidence intervals of the SMD including 0 by small margins of −0.04 and −0.10, respectively, the clinical significance of a nominal increase to Hb or Hct of the order of 0.1 g/dL is unconvincing and driven primarily by a single study population. By comparison, altitude training, a well-established performance-enhancer in aerobic sport, has previously demonstrated a 150% increase in EPO level and over 3% increase in Hb concentration, which would be more on the order of 0.5 g/dL [31,32]. Notably, Whitehead et al. (2007) reported a statistically significant (p < 0.001) increase in EPO from baseline in the echinacea group observed on days 7, 14, and 21 of the study by 44%, 63%, and 36%, respectively; this change from baseline was not reported after the full 28-day study period which was the only timepoint considered in the present analysis [28]. One other study included in the analysis assessed outcomes at several time points across the study period; however, their data demonstrated no differences between placebo and echinacea supplementation groups across the 14- or 35-day data collection points [29]. All other included studies did not collect blood samples or reported results at more granular time points during the intervention period, limiting the ability to assess the impact of echinacea on a shorter time frame. Accordingly, it is unclear whether echinacea supplementation may provide a short-term benefit that is not sustained after 4–6 weeks of supplementation, and that athletes may attain some benefit with short-term echinacea supplementation prior to competition.
Consistent with a broader trend in the sports medicine literature, the data collection methodology for and definition of VO2 Max varied widely between studies. The gold standard of VO2 Max measurement is the observation of a plateau of VO2 despite the increasing work rate [33]. Of the four studies that considered the impact of echinacea on athlete VO2 Max, only two incorporated the gold standard in their definition; however, the gold standard was included as one of several possible criteria that, if met by the athlete, would quantify the athlete’s VO2 Max. Other criteria included were the VO2 observed once the participant achieved age-predicted maximum heart rate or the VO2 at a particular respiratory exchange rate cutoff. One study used the Bruce protocol, which estimates VO2 Max using time spent on the treadmill during a heart rate-based assessment [34]. Using secondary metrics such as these to define VO2 Max has been shown to diminish the accuracy of the test; there is most concern for inaccuracy in subjects who are exercise-naïve and may fail to reach their exertional capacity [35]. In contrast, young, active participants such as the participants in the present study have been shown to successfully achieve their full volitional capacity in self-paced incremental exercise tests, making these secondary metrics more reliable in estimating their true VO2 Max [36]. Furthermore, if an athlete achieved VO2 Max using one cut-off criterion at pre-supplementation (i.e., VO2 plateau) and met a distinct cut-off criterion (i.e., age-graded maximum heart rate) at the post-supplementation study visit, the results could be influenced by these differences.
The magnitude of the athletes’ echinacea supplementation may have also impacted the results. For example, the 8000 mg per day of echinacea supplementation that was used across all the included studies translated into taking 20 capsules daily of 400 mg of echinacea, which is the standard over-the-counter available dose. While dosing varies wildly for echinacea’s well-studied use for common cold prevention, 200–400 mg three times daily is the most commonly used dosing regimen, representing a 600–1200 mg daily dose. By comparison, all participants included in the analysis consumed 6–13 times this dose range, demonstrating the significant scale of the daily supplementation [2]. The homeopathic principle of hormesis, in which some homeopathic remedies have been shown to be beneficial at lower doses and detrimental or even toxic at higher ones, may have contributed to the observed lack of response in these athletes who were taking comparative mega doses of echinacea [37]. Given that no studies in the literature explored any dose under 8000 mg per day of echinacea, it cannot be determined whether lower doses of echinacea may impact the outcomes of interest.
Both recreational and trained or above-average fitness level endurance athletes were included in the meta-analysis; of the six studies, half were conducted in trained athletes, accounting for 70 (65%) of the 107 total participants. EPO has been shown to provide the most benefit at maximal exercise intensities, which may be more easily achieved and studied in elite athletes, whose VO2 Max levels generally greatly exceed those of recreational athletes [38]. Continuing the parallel drawn to altitude training, limited evidence suggests that there may be a physiological difference in elite vs. recreational athlete response to altitude [39]. Consequently, trained athletes may have a more pronounced performance response to more subtle changes in physiologic parameters such as EPO, Hb, and Hct levels. Due to the low sample size, the present study did not compare trained- vs. recreational-athlete response to echinacea supplementation; higher powered studies of trained endurance athletes are needed to determine whether echinacea may provide a performance advantage in this sub-population of athletes.
Also notable is the gender disparity in the athletes studied. This phenomenon is not uncommon in sports medicine research; a recent large-scale systematic review of the sports medicine literature reported significant inequalities in the study of female athletes when compared to their male counterparts, with a staggering 70% of the 669 included studies failing to include female athletes [40]. In the present sample, only one study (Stevenson et al.) included female athletes, such that only 15 out of the 107 of the total participants (14%) identified as female. The inclusion of female athletes is imperative to reducing gender disparities in the literature and is particularly important to investigations of supplement use given reported sex differences in athlete supplementation use and the growing number of female athletes throughout all levels of sport [41,42].
The present review has several strengths including a rigorous search strategy implemented across four databases, study screening by multiple co-authors, and cross-checking of data extraction. Limitations to the present study include the relatively small sample size of 107 athletes across the six included studies, with few female athletes included in the sample. The studies generally had a low risk of bias according to the Cochrane risk of bias. However, the average CONSORT checklist score of the included studies was 13, suggesting that, while the overall adherence to the CONSORT guidelines in this area of research is low, it is comparable to other areas of medical research which have reported similar average CONSORT checklist scores [43]. To better characterize the impact of echinacea on erythropoiesis and sports performance, future studies may focus on shorter time frames of supplementation, with a wider range of doses studied. Importantly, future studies would benefit from larger sample sizes to increase statistical power. The evidence base would also benefit from studies with more gender inclusivity.

5. Conclusions

Echinacea supplementation does impact erythropoiesis, as measured by EPO, Hb, or Hct levels, and does not improve aerobic performance as measured by VO2 Max, though the research base is limited. Given the widespread use of supplements in sport, more resources should be allocated to explore the impact of echinacea and other substances on sports performance metrics.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.D. and K.P.; methodology, S.D. and C.B.; software, S.D.; validation, C.B. and N.R.; formal analysis, S.D.; writing—original draft preparation, S.D.; writing—review and editing, C.B., N.R. and K.P.; supervision, K.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created in this study. Table 2 contains the original data from the studies included in the analysis, which are cited appropriately throughout the text. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Manayi, A.; Vazirian, M.; Saeidnia, S. Echinacea purpurea: Pharmacology, phytochemistry and analysis methods. Pharmacogn. Rev. 2015, 9, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Shah, S.A.; Sander, S.; White, C.M.; Rinaldi, M.; Coleman, C.I. Review Evaluation of echinacea for the prevention and treatment of the common cold: A meta-analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2007, 7, 473–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Stimpel, M.; Proksch, A.; Wagner, H.; Lohmann-Matthes, M.L. Macrophage activation and induction of macrophage cytotoxicity by purified polysaccharide fractions from the plant Echinacea purpurea. Infect. Immun. 1984, 46, 845–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Burger, R.A.; Torres, A.R.; Warren, R.P.; Caldwell, V.D.; Hughes, B.G. Echinacea-induced cytokine production by human macrophages. Int. J. Immunopharmacol. 1997, 19, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Tie, R.; Li, H.; Cai, S.; Liang, Z.; Shan, W.; Wang, B.; Tan, Y.; Zheng, W.; Huang, H. Interleukin-6 signaling regulates hematopoietic stem cell emergence. Exp. Mol. Med. 2019, 51, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Paulson, R.F.; Hariharan, S.; Little, J.A. Stress erythropoiesis: Definitions and models for its study. Exp. Hematol. 2020, 89, 43–54.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. O’Neill, W.; McKEE, S.; Clarke, A.F. Immunological and haematinic consequences of feeding a standardised Echinacea (Echinacea angustifolia) extract to healthy horses. Equine Veter-J. 2002, 34, 222–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ahmed, H.; Kamel, K.I.; El-Sabeiy, M.E.; Zeitouny, M.H. Effect of echinacea extract supplementation on growth performance and hemo-biochemical traits of growing rabbits. Egypt Poult. Sci. 2008, 28, 1165–1180. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bassett, D.R., Jr.; Howley, E.T. Limiting factors for maximum oxygen uptake and determinants of endurance performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2000, 32, 70–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Noakes, T.; Myburgh, K.; Schall, R. Peak treadmill running velocity during theVO2max test predicts running performance. J. Sports Sci. 1990, 8, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bentley, D.J.; Newell, J.; Bishop, D. Incremental exercise test design and analysis: Implications for performance diagnostics in endurance athletes. Sports Med. 2007, 37, 575–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Broxterman, R.M.; Wagner, P.D.; Richardson, R.S. Endurance exercise training changes the limitation on muscle VO2max in normoxia from the capacity to utilize O2 to the capacity to transport O2. J. Physiol. 2024, 602, 445–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Trinh, K.V.; Diep, D.; Chen, K.J.Q.; Huang, L.; Gulenko, O. Effect of erythropoietin on athletic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med. 2020, 6, e000716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Agency, W.A.-D. World Anti-Doping Code International Standard Prohibited List. 2024. Available online: https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/2024list_en_final_22_september_2023.pdf (accessed on 19 June 2024).
  15. Salamin, O.; Kuuranne, T.; Saugy, M.; Leuenberger, N. Erythropoietin as a performance-enhancing drug: Its mechanistic basis, detection, and potential adverse effects. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 2018, 464, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Barrack, M.T.; Muster, M.; Nguyen, J.; Rafferty, A.; Lisagor, T. An investigation of habitual dietary supplement use among 557 NCAA Division I athletes. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 2020, 39, 619–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Barrack, M.; Fredericson, M.; Dizon, F.; Tenforde, A.; Kim, B.; Kraus, E.; Kussman, A.; Singh, S.; Nattiv, A. Dietary supplement use according to sex and triad risk factors in collegiate endurance runners. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 404–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Lun, V.; Erdman, K.A.; Fung, T.S.; Reimer, R.A. Dietary supplementation practices in Canadian high-performance athletes. Int. J. Sport Nutr. Exerc. Metab. 2012, 22, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Whitehead, M.T.; Martin, T.D.; Scheett, T.P.; Webster, M.J. Running economy and maximal oxygen consumption after 4 weeks of echinacea supplementation. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2012, 26, 1928–1933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Baumann, C.W.; Bond, K.L.; Rupp, J.C.; Ingalls, C.P.; Doyle, J.A. Echinacea purpurea supplementation does not enhance VO2max in distance runners. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2013, 28, 1367–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Martin, T.D.; Green, M.S.; Whitehead, M.T.; Scheett, T.P.; Webster, M.J.; Hudson, G.M. Six weeks of oral Echinacea purpurea supplementation does not enhance the production of serum erythropoietin or erythropoietic status in recreationally active males with above-average aerobic fitness. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2019, 44, 791–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bellar, D.; Moody, K.M.; Richard, N.S.; Judge, L.W. Efficacy of a Botanical Supplement with Concentrated Echinacea purpurea for Increasing Aerobic Capacity. ISRN Nutr. 2014, 2014, 149549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Baumann, C.W.; Kwak, D. Echinacea supplementation: Does it really improve aerobic fitness? J. Exerc. Nutr. Biochem. 2016, 20, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Turner, L.; Shamseer, L.; Altman, D.G.; Weeks, L.; Peters, J.; Kober, T.; Dias, S.; Schulz, K.F.; Plint, A.C.; Moher, D. Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2012, 11, MR000030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Moher, D.; Hopewell, S.; Schulz, K.F.; Montori, V.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Devereaux, P.J.; Elbourne, D.; Egger, M.; Altman, D.G. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Bmj 2010, 340, c869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Higgins, J.P.T.; Altman, D.G.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Jüni, P.; Moher, D.; Oxman, A.D.; Savović, J.; Schulz, K.F.; Weeks, L.; Sterne, J.A.C.; et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Bmj 2011, 343, d5928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dettori, J.R.; Norvell, D.C.; Chapman, J.R. Fixed-effect vs. random-effects models for meta-analysis: 3 points to consider. Glob. Spine J. 2022, 12, 1624–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Whitehead, M.T.; Martin, T.D.; Scheett, T.P.; Webster, M.J. The effect of 4 weeks of oral echinacea supplementation on serum erythropoietin and indices of erythropoietic status. Int. J. Sport Nutr. Exerc. Metab. 2007, 17, 378–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Stevenson, J.L.; Krishnan, S.; Inigo, M.M.; Stamatikos, A.D.; Gonzales, J.U.; Cooper, J.A. Echinacea-based dietary supplement does not increase maximal aerobic capacity in endurance-trained men and women. J. Diet. Suppl. 2016, 13, 324–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Beheshti, A.; Chavanon, M.-L.; Christiansen, H. Emotion dysregulation in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry 2020, 20, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chapman, R.F.; Karlsen, T.; Resaland, G.K.; Ge, R.L.; Harber, M.P.; Witkowski, S.; Stray-Gundersen, J.; Levine, B.D. Defining the “dose” of altitude training: How high to live for optimal sea level performance enhancement. J. Appl. Physiol. 2014, 116, 595–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gore, C.J.; Sharpe, K.; Garvican-Lewis, L.A.; Saunders, P.U.; Humberstone, C.E.; Robertson, E.Y.; Wachsmuth, N.B.; Clark, S.A.; McLean, B.D.; Friedmann-Bette, B.; et al. Altitude training and haemoglobin mass from the optimised carbon monoxide rebreathing method determined by a meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2013, 47, i31–i39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Niemeyer, M.; Knaier, R.; Beneke, R. The oxygen uptake plateau—A critical review of the frequently misunderstood phenomenon. Sports Med. 2021, 51, 1815–1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Kaminsky, L.A.; Whaley, M.H. Evaluation of a new standardized ramp protocol: The BSU/Bruce ramp protocol. J. Cardiopulm. Rehabilitation 1998, 18, 438–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Poole, D.C.; Jones, A.M. Measurement of the maximum oxygen uptake Vo2max: Vo2peak is no longer acceptable. J. Appl. Physiol. 2017, 122, 997–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Chidnok, W.; DiMenna, F.J.; Bailey, S.J.; Burnley, M.; Wilkerson, D.P.; Vanhatalo, A. VO2max is not altered by self-pacing during incremental exercise. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2013, 113, 529–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Calabrese, E.J. ‘Hormesis: A Revolution in Toxicology, Risk Assessment and Medicine: Re-Framing the Dose-Response Relationship’. [Online]. Available online: https://www.embopress.org (accessed on 19 June 2024).
  38. Wiecha, S.; Kasiak, P.S.; Cieśliński, I.; Takken, T.; Palka, T.; Knechtle, B.; Nikolaidis, P.; Małek, A.; Postuła, M.; Mamcarz, A.; et al. External validation of VO2max prediction models based on recreational and elite endurance athletes. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0280897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Faiss, R.; von Orelli, C.; Dériaz, O.; Millet, G.P. Responses to exercise in normobaric hypoxia: Comparison of elite and recreational ski mountaineers. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2014, 9, 978–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Paul, R.W.; Sonnier, J.H.; Johnson, E.E.; Hall, A.T.; Osman, A.; Connors, G.M.; Freedman, K.B.; Bishop, M.E. Inequalities in the evaluation of male versus female athletes in sports medicine research: A systematic review. Am. J. Sports Med. 2023, 51, 3335–3342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Daher, J.; Mallick, M.; El Khoury, D. Prevalence of dietary supplement use among athletes worldwide: A scoping review. Nutrients 2022, 14, 4109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wirnitzer, K.; Motevalli, M.; Tanous, D.R.; Gregori, M.; Wirnitzer, G.; Leitzmann, C.; Rosemann, T.; Knechtle, B. Sex differences in supplement intake in recreational endurance runners—Results from the nurmi study (Step 2). Nutrients 2021, 13, 2776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mozetic, V.; Leonel, L.; Pacheco, R.L.; Latorraca, C.D.O.C.; Guimarães, T.; Logullo, P.; Riera, R. Reporting quality and adherence of randomized controlled trials about statins and/or fibrates for diabetic retinopathy to the CONSORT checklist. Trials 2019, 20, 729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nutrients 16 01991 g001
Figure 1. The search strategy employed was the following: (terms in Box (A) combined using OR present in title/abstract) AND (terms in Box (B) combined using OR present in all fields). * Indicates that the term includes multiple spellings or endings of a word.
Figure 1. The search strategy employed was the following: (terms in Box (A) combined using OR present in title/abstract) AND (terms in Box (B) combined using OR present in all fields). * Indicates that the term includes multiple spellings or endings of a word.
Nutrients 16 01991 g001
Nutrients 16 01991 g002
Figure 2. PRISMA Flow Diagram. Adapted from Covidence (Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. Available at www.covidence.org).
Figure 2. PRISMA Flow Diagram. Adapted from Covidence (Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. Available at www.covidence.org).
Nutrients 16 01991 g002
Nutrients 16 01991 g003
Figure 3. Cochrane risk of bias [19,20,21,22,23].
Figure 3. Cochrane risk of bias [19,20,21,22,23].
Nutrients 16 01991 g003
Nutrients 16 01991 g004
Figure 4. Forest plots by outcome of interest [19,20,21,22,28,29].
Figure 4. Forest plots by outcome of interest [19,20,21,22,28,29].
Nutrients 16 01991 g004
Table 1. Study design of included studies.
Table 1. Study design of included studies.
StudynPopulationFemale nInterventionLength of InterventionIntervention nPlacebo nOutcomes of Interest
Baumann et al., 2013 [20]16distance runnersnot reported8000 mg daily ech42 days97VO2 Max, Hb, Hct
Stevenson et al., 2016 [29]30endurance-trained athletes158000 mg daily ech35 days1515VO2 Max, Hb, Hct, EPO
Martin et al., 2019 [21]24above-average aerobic fitness08000 mg daily ech42 days1212Hb, Hct, EPO
Whitehead et al., 2007 * [28]24recreational athletes08000 mg daily ech28 days1212Hb, Hct, EPO
Whitehead et al., 2012 * [19]24recreational athletes08000 mg daily ech28 days1212VO2 Max
Bellar et al., 2014 [22]13recreational athletes08000 mg daily ech †30 days130VO2 Max
* Studies completed using same participants; † no placebo group.
Table 2. Outcome data by study.
Table 2. Outcome data by study.
Echinacea GroupPlacebo Group
EPO
mean (SD)		Hb
mean (SD)		Hct
mean (SD)		VO2 Max
mean (SD)		EPO
mean (SD)		Hb
mean (SD)		Hct
mean (SD)		VO2 Max
mean (SD)
prepostprepostprepostprepostprepostprepostprepostprepost
Baumann 2013 [20]--14.93 (1.27)15.55 (0.80)43.57 (2.38)42.85 (1.46)67.37 (4.62)67.23 (5.82)--15.47 (0.9)15.83 (0.7)44.61 (2.4)43.5 (1.34)65.17 (6.60)66.25 (6.23)
Stevenson 2016 [29]6.2 (0.6)6.2 (0.8)14.4 (0.3)14.3 (0.3)42.4 (0.8)42.8 (0.7)59.3 (1.95)62 (1.80)9.7 (0.8)9.8 (0.6)14.7 (0.3)14.5 (0.3)43.1 (0.9)43.2 (0.9)61.0 (1.45)63.8 (1.50)
Martin 2019 [21]7.92 (1.13)8.86 (1.54)14.8 (0.3)14.8 (0.2)42.9 (0.9)42.7 (0.5)--9.21 (1.3)9.74 (1.81)15.0 (0.3)15.1 (0.2)43.2 (0.9)43.6 (0.6)--
Whitehead 2007/2012 [19,28]12.37 (0.87)10.32 (0.51)14.5 (0.2)14.6 (0.2)41.9 (0.5)42.9 (0.5)43.8 (1.70)43.8 (1.70) *10.63 (0.68)9.54 (0.98)14.7 (0.1)14.5 (0.2)42.5 (0.3)42.3 (0.5)40.7 (1.3)41.31 (1.3) *
Bellar 2014 [22]------51 (6.8)51.8 (6.5)------xx
* = extrapolated based on % change graph; x = did not include a control population; - = did not study this outcome. SD = standard deviation.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Deccy, S.; Bartkowiak, C.; Rodricks, N.; Paultre, K. Echinacea Supplementation Does Not Impact Aerobic Capacity and Erythropoiesis in Athletes: A Meta-Analysis. Nutrients 2024, 16, 1991. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16131991

AMA Style

Deccy S, Bartkowiak C, Rodricks N, Paultre K. Echinacea Supplementation Does Not Impact Aerobic Capacity and Erythropoiesis in Athletes: A Meta-Analysis. Nutrients. 2024; 16(13):1991. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16131991

Chicago/Turabian Style

Deccy, Stephanie, Callie Bartkowiak, Nathan Rodricks, and Kristopher Paultre. 2024. "Echinacea Supplementation Does Not Impact Aerobic Capacity and Erythropoiesis in Athletes: A Meta-Analysis" Nutrients 16, no. 13: 1991. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16131991

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop