ReviewNutrients2026
Epigenetically Active Supplements and the Risk of Sports Injuries: Narrative Review from Molecular Mechanisms to Practical Implications.
Review in Nutrients, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Objectives Sports-related musculoskeletal injuries remain a major challenge in physically active populations, with substantial interindividual variability in susceptibility and recovery that cannot be fully explained by biomechanics or genetics alone. Epigenetic mechanisms, including DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNAs, provide a dynamic interface through which mechanical loading, inflammation, and metabolic signals regulate gene expression during tissue adaptation and repair. This narrative review synthesizes current evidence on "epigenetically active" dietary supplements and their potential relevance to sports injuries, focusing on methyl donors, polyphenols, omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, and redox-active nutrients. Methods Targeted searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (2000-2026) were performed using epigenetics-, injury-, exercise-, and supplementation-related terms, prioritizing mechanistic and translational evidence. Results Available data indicate that these compounds can influence molecular mechanisms implicated in musculoskeletal recovery. However, human evidence is largely derived from peripheral tissues and indirect molecular markers, with limited clear linkage to clinically significant injury outcomes such as injury incidence, severity, or return-to-play timelines. Accordingly, these nutrients are best viewed as modulators of recovery-related biology rather than as direct therapeutic agents. Conclusions This review highlights a notable translational gap between mechanistic plausibility and clinical evidence and discusses practical implications for sports nutrition from a personalized perspective. Future research priorities include tissue-relevant epigenetic assessments, integration of multi-omics approaches, and longitudinal trials incorporating injury endpoints. Nutritional epigenomics, therefore, represents a promising avenue to support musculoskeletal health while underscoring the need for rigorous clinical validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.