Wang · Frontiers in nutrition 2025 · systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials · n=26 studies (668 participants)

The effect of Rhodiola rosea supplementation on endurance performance and related biomarkers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cited 3 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PubMed 41080184 · doi:10.3389/fnut.2025.1645346 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis evaluated the effects of Rhodiola rosea (RR) supplementation on endurance performance, oxidative stress, muscle damage, inflammation, and metabolic markers. Searches across Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, EBSCO, and CNKI through March 2025 identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed via the PEDro scale. The review included 26 RCTs totaling 668 healthy participants (mean age 22.0 ± 10.7 years) with a mean intervention duration of 33 days.

What was found

RR supplementation significantly improved several endurance and physiological markers: - VO2max: ES = 0.32 (11 studies, p < 0.01), with larger effects observed at doses >600 mg/day. - Time to exhaustion: ES = 0.38 (7 studies, p < 0.05). - Time trial performance: ES = -0.40 (5 studies, p < 0.05). - Total antioxidant capacity (TAC): ES = 0.59 (6 studies, p < 0.05). - Superoxide dismutase (SOD): ES = 1.16 (7 studies, p < 0.01). - Malondialdehyde (MDA): ES = -1.21 (6 studies, p < 0.001). - Creatine kinase (CK): ES = -0.84 (9 studies, p < 0.01), with greater reductions in trained individuals and at <=15 min post-exercise. - Lactate: ES = -0.87 (7 studies, p < 0.05). - Inflammatory markers (IL-6, CRP): No significant effect.

Why it matters

This review synthesizes current evidence showing that Rhodiola rosea acts as an ergogenic supplement that moderately improves aerobic endurance while reducing exercise-induced muscle damage and oxidative stress markers.

Limits

The included trials were small (averaging ~26 participants per study) and conducted primarily in young, healthy cohorts (mean age 22 years), limiting generalizability to older or clinical populations. Authors also highlighted substantial heterogeneity across studies.

Cited by