Evidence Hub

Lepidium Meyenii Walp. (Maca) and Blood Biomarkers of Muscle Damage and Post-Exertion Protein Degradation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Preclinical Studies

Rodríguez Rojas J, Huerta Ojeda Á, Barahona-Fuentes G, Jorquera-Aguilera C, Cancino-López J, Yeomans-Cabrera MM, Pavez L, Jara-Gutiérrez C et al.

Nutrients, 2026

Abstract

Background: Lepidium meyenii Walp (L. meyenii), traditionally known as maca, is widely recognized for its health-promoting properties, including potential protection against exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD). However, its precise effect on post-exercise blood biomarkers remains unclear. Objective: This study aimed to qualitatively review research published until April 2026 examining L. meyenii supplementation to reduce blood markers of muscle damage and protein degradation post-exertion in animal studies. Specifically, the effect size (ES) of L. meyenii supplementation on post-exercise levels of creatine kinase (CK), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) was estimated. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. Relevant studies were identified through Web of Science, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, PubMed, and MEDLINE. Eligible studies included in vivo experiments in animals with controlled designs and pre-/post-intervention assessments. Methodological quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the CAMARADES tool. Statistical analysis involved standardized mean differences (SMD) using Hedges' g with 95% confidence intervals. Results: 15 studies were included in the systematic review, and 14 studies in animals in the meta-analysis. The CAMARADES scores ranged from 5 to 7 points, indicating moderate methodological quality.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free