Skip to content

Effects of tapering on performance in endurance athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PMID 37163550 (2023): taper, tapering — Time-trial performance, Recovery speed (study note for endurance athletes).

Last updated/Feb 23, 2026, 10:34 PM

Study note • PMID 37163550

Effects of tapering on performance in endurance athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PloS one2023 • DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0282838
Evidence B81/100
Action 1: Default

Low risk + high feasibility for most athletes.

ELI5

In plain language

To assess the responses to taper in endurance athletes using meta-analysis. (systematic review / meta-analysis; well-trained athletes).

Results section: no clear change in Time-trial performance, Recovery speed under the tested conditions. Treat this as a signal, not a guarantee; confirm methods and context in the full paper.

Takeaways

What the abstract suggests

  • Study question: To assess the responses to taper in endurance athletes using meta-analysis.
  • Results section: no clear change in Time-trial performance, Recovery speed under the tested conditions.
  • Population: well-trained athletes.
  • Protocol cues (full paper): 6 days • 7 days • 14 days • 21 days • 22 days.

Protocol

Protocol (as reported)

  • Intervention/exposure: taper, tapering.
  • Dose/time/duration cues found in the full paper: 6 days • 7 days • 14 days • 21 days • 22 days.
  • Outcomes: Time-trial performance, Recovery speed.
  • Replication note: abstracts often omit adherence and timing; confirm details before changing training or supplementation.

Fit

Who it helps, and who should skip it

Who it helps

  • Athletes similar to the study population (well-trained athletes) working on tapering.
  • Athletes who can measure Time-trial performance, Recovery speed with a repeatable workout or time-trial effort.

Who should skip

  • If you have symptoms or conditions that make the intervention risky, get professional guidance.
  • If you’re near race day and can’t safely test, defer the experiment.

Methods

What the study actually did

  • Design: systematic review / meta-analysis (randomized).
  • Population: well-trained athletes.
  • Outcomes measured: Time-trial performance, Recovery speed.
  • Protocol cues mentioned: 7 days • 14 days • 21 days.
  • Source: PubMed PMID 37163550 (2023) — PloS one.

Full paper

What the full paper adds

  • Design features (paper): randomized.
  • Participants (paper): well-trained athletes.
  • More protocol detail (paper): 6 days • 7 days • 14 days • 21 days • 22 days.
  • Results section: no clear change in Time-trial performance, Recovery speed under the tested conditions.

Results excerpt

What the abstract reports

14 studies were included in this meta-analysis.

Note: excerpts are short; for full context, read the paper.

Limits

Limitations & bias

  • Abstract-only summaries can miss critical details (population, protocol, adherence, and context).
  • Reviews and consensus statements mix protocols and populations; recommendations may not match your exact constraints.
  • If your context differs (elite vs recreational; cycling vs running), adjust expectations and be conservative.
  • This is performance information, not medical advice.

Coaching beta

Get a plan that adapts to your life.

Join the 26weeks.ai TestFlight beta for adaptive coaching, recovery-aware adjustments, and race-week reminders.

Keep going

Sources