Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38844675›Full record

ArticleSports medicine - open2024

The Effect of Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy, Strength, and Power in Response to Resistance Training in Healthy Active Adults: A Double-Blind Randomized Control Trial.

Zoya Huschtscha, Jessica Silver, Michael Gerhardy, Charles S Urwin, Nathan Kenney, Viet Hung Le, Jackson J Fyfe, Simon A Feros, Andrew C Betik, Christopher S Shaw and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sports medicine - open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Palmitoylethanolamide in Human and Animal Obesity.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Zoya HuschtschaSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Australia.
Jessica SilverSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Australia.
Michael GerhardyCentre for Sport Research (CSR), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Australia.
Charles S UrwinCentre for Sport Research (CSR), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Australia.
Nathan KenneySchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Australia.
Viet Hung LeSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Australia.
Jackson J FyfeSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Australia.
Simon A FerosCentre for Sport Research (CSR), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Australia.
Andrew C BetikSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Australia.
Christopher S ShawSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Australia.
Luana C MainSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Australia.
Gavin AbbottSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Australia.
Sze-Yen TanSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Australia.
Anthony MaySchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Australia.
Craig M SmithSchool of Medicine, Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation (IMPACT), Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Australia.
Vicky KurielSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Australia.
Jackson BarnardCentre for Sport Research (CSR), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Australia.
D Lee HamiltonSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Geelong, 3216, Australia. lee.hamilton@deakin.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5620-4788

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPalmitoylethanolamide (PEA) has analgesic/anti-inflammatory properties that may be a suitable alternative to over-the-counter (OTC) non-steroidal analgesics/anti-inflammatories. While OTC pain medications can impair strength training adaptations, the mechanism of action of PEA is distinct from these and it may not negatively affect skeletal muscle adaptations to strength training.

methodsThe primary aim of this study was to investigate the effects of daily PEA supplementation (350 mg Levagen + equivalent to 300 mg PEA) combined with 8-weeks of resistance training on lean body mass with secondary aims addressing strength, power, sleep, and wellbeing compared to placebo (PLA) in young, healthy, active adults. In a randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial, 52 untrained, recreationally active participants aged 18-35 y were allocated to either the PEA or PLA groups. Participants consumed either 2 × 175 mg Levagen + PEA or identically matched maltodextrin capsules during an 8-week period of whole-body resistance training. This trial assessed the pre- to post- changes in total and regional lean body mass, muscular strength (1-RM bench, isometric mid-thigh pull), muscular power [countermovement jump (CMJ), bench throw], pain associated with exercise training, sleep, and wellbeing compared with the PEA or PLA condition.

results48 Participants were included in the final intention to treat (ITT) analysis and we also conducted per protocol (PP) analysis (n = 42). There were no significant between-group differences for total or regional lean muscle mass post-intervention. There was a significantly higher jump height (CMJ) at week 10 in the PEA group compared to the PLA (Adjusted mean difference [95% CI] p-value; ITT: - 2.94 cm [- 5.15, - 0.74] p = 0.010; PP: - 2.93 cm [- 5.31, - 0.55] p = 0.017). The PLA group had higher 1-RM bench press post-intervention compared with the PEA group (ITT: 2.24 kg [0.12, 4.37] p = 0.039; PP: 2.73 kg [0.40, 5.06] p = 0.023). No significant treatment effects were noted for any of the other outcomes.

conclusionPEA supplementation, when combined with 8 weeks of strength training, did not impair lean mass gains and it resulted in significantly higher dynamic lower-body power when compared with the PLA condition.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR: ACTRN12621001726842p).

Indexed as

Countermovement jumpHypertrophyLeg strengthPainPalmitoylethanolamideRecreationally activeStrength

Identifiers

PMID38844675
PMCPMC11156829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.