Skip to content

Nutritional Ergogenic Aids in Cycling: A Systematic Review.

PMID 38892701 (2024): caffeine, nitrate — Time-trial performance, Time to exhaustion (study note for endurance athletes).

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

Study note • PMID 38892701

Nutritional Ergogenic Aids in Cycling: A Systematic Review.

Nutrients2024 • DOI 10.3390/nu16111768
Evidence B77/100
Action 2: Consider

Worth trying if it fits your goal and context.

ELI5

In plain language

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the independent or combined use of nutritional ergogenic aids belonging to Group A of the ABCD classification by the Australian… (systematic review / meta-analysis; participants).

Results section: no clear change in Time-trial performance, Time to exhaustion 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: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the independent or combined use of nutritional ergogenic aids belonging to Group A of the ABCD classification by the Australian…
  • Results section: no clear change in Time-trial performance, Time to exhaustion under the tested conditions.
  • Population: participants.
  • Protocol cues: abstract may omit dose/timing; use the full paper to replicate accurately.

Protocol

Protocol (as reported)

  • Intervention/exposure: caffeine, nitrate.
  • Dose/time/duration: abstract doesn’t include enough detail; use the full paper’s methods section.
  • Outcomes: Time-trial performance, Time to exhaustion.
  • 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 (participants) working on supplements.
  • Athletes who can measure Time-trial performance, Time to exhaustion 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, placebo-controlled, crossover).
  • Population: participants.
  • Outcomes measured: Time-trial performance, Time to exhaustion.
  • Source: PubMed PMID 38892701 (2024) — Nutrients.

Full paper

What the full paper adds

  • Design features (paper): randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover.
  • Participants (paper): participants.
  • Results section: no clear change in Time-trial performance, Time to exhaustion under the tested conditions.

Results excerpt

What the abstract reports

A comprehensive search was carried out using three databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science.

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