Larrosa · Nutrition reviews 2025 · systematic review · n=71 studies (1654 participants)

Nutritional Strategies for Optimizing Health, Sports Performance, and Recovery for Female Athletes and Other Physically Active Women: A Systematic Review.

Cited 34 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review of 71 dietary and supplement intervention studies.

PubMed 38994896 · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuae082 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

Authors conducted a systematic review across PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus to assess dietary and supplement strategies that improve sports performance, recovery, and health status in female athletes and physically active women. The review included 71 studies totaling 1,654 participants (17 studies on dietary manipulation, 54 on dietary supplementation). Information on participant characteristics, sport practice level, age, and menstrual function was extracted, and risk of bias was assessed.

What was found

Participants were categorized as competitive athletes (32.5%), highly or moderately trained (30.7%), or physically active/recreational athletes (37.2%). High-carbohydrate diets enhanced performance during glycogen-depleting exercise, and high-glycemic or carbohydrate-rich pre-exercise meals increased carbohydrate metabolism. Protein intake distributed across 5–6 meals daily at >25 g per meal favored muscle protein anabolism. Supplements including caffeine, nitric oxide precursors, beta-alanine, carbohydrate/protein sports foods, and micronutrients (in cases of deficiency) showed positive effects on performance and health. Specific quantitative effect sizes or pooled statistics were not reported in the abstract.

Why it matters

Most sports nutrition guidelines have historically been derived from male cohorts. This review synthesizes female-specific data to guide targeted macronutrient timing, daily protein distribution, and ergogenic supplementation for active women.

Limits

The abstract notes an overall moderate risk of bias across included studies due to lack of protocol access, insufficient control for menstrual cycle hormonal phases, inadequate dietary control during interventions, and lack of investigator blinding. Quantitative meta-analytic pooling was not reported in the abstract.

Cited by