↓ Skip to main content

Examining the effect of Withania somnifera supplementation on muscle strength and recovery: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#41 of 827)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
16 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
82 tweeters
patent
1 patent
facebook
38 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users
reddit
2 Redditors
video
40 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
364 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Examining the effect of Withania somnifera supplementation on muscle strength and recovery: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12970-015-0104-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sachin Wankhede, Deepak Langade, Kedar Joshi, Shymal R. Sinha, Sauvik Bhattacharyya

Abstract

Withania somnifera (ashwagandha) is a prominent herb in Ayurveda. This study was conducted to examine the possible effects of ashwagandha root extract consumption on muscle mass and strength in healthy young men engaged in resistance training. In this 8-week, randomized, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study, 57 young male subjects (18-50 years old) with little experience in resistance training were randomized into treatment (29 subjects) and placebo (28 subjects) groups. Subjects in the treatment group consumed 300 mg of ashwagandha root extract twice daily, while the control group consumed starch placebos. Following baseline measurements, both groups of subjects underwent resistance training for 8 weeks and measurements were repeated at the end of week 8. The primary efficacy measure was muscle strength. The secondary efficacy measures were muscle size, body composition, serum testosterone levels and muscle recovery. Muscle strength was evaluated using the 1-RM load for the bench press and leg extension exercises. Muscle recovery was evaluated by using serum creatine kinase level as a marker of muscle injury from the effects of exercise. Compared to the placebo subjects, the group treated with ashwagandha had significantly greater increases in muscle strength on the bench-press exercise (Placebo: 26.4 kg, 95 % CI, 19.5, 33.3 vs. Ashwagandha: 46.0 kg, 95 % CI 36.6, 55.5; p = 0.001) and the leg-extension exercise (Placebo: 9.8 kg, 95 % CI, 7.2,12.3 vs. Ashwagandha: 14.5 kg, 95 % CI, 10.8,18.2; p = 0.04), and significantly greater muscle size increase at the arms (Placebo: 5.3 cm(2), 95 % CI, 3.3,7.2 vs. Ashwagandha: 8.6 cm(2), 95 % CI, 6.9,10.8; p = 0.01) and chest (Placebo: 1.4 cm, 95 % CI, 0.8, 2.0 vs. Ashwagandha: 3.3 cm, 95 % CI, 2.6, 4.1; p < 0.001). Compared to the placebo subjects, the subjects receiving ashwagandha also had significantly greater reduction of exercise-induced muscle damage as indicated by the stabilization of serum creatine kinase (Placebo: 1307.5 U/L, 95 % CI, 1202.8, 1412.1, vs. Ashwagandha: 1462.6 U/L, 95 % CI, 1366.2, 1559.1; p = 0.03), significantly greater increase in testosterone level (Placebo: 18.0 ng/dL, 95 % CI, -15.8, 51.8 vs. Ashwagandha: 96.2 ng/dL, 95 % CI, 54.7, 137.5; p = 0.004), and a significantly greater decrease in body fat percentage (Placebo: 1.5 %, 95 % CI, 0.4 %, 2.6 % vs. Ashwagandha: 3.5 %, 95 % CI, 2.0 %, 4.9 %; p = 0.03). This study reports that ashwagandha supplementation is associated with significant increases in muscle mass and strength and suggests that ashwagandha supplementation may be useful in conjunction with a resistance training program.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 82 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 364 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 362 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 64 18%
Student > Master 61 17%
Researcher 41 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 9%
Other 31 9%
Other 65 18%
Unknown 68 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 11%
Sports and Recreations 38 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 24 7%
Other 56 15%
Unknown 84 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 227. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 September 2021.
All research outputs
#99,642
of 18,951,205 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
#41
of 827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,218
of 384,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
#5
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,951,205 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 50.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 384,401 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.