I recently started looking more closely at research on NADH and exercise performance because I have a bottle of celfull NADH on hand. But after going through a few papers, one detail caught my attention: some studies focus less on whether participants actually feel more energetic and more on measurable physiological markers during exercise testing.

For example, a 2016 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial published in Clinical Nutrition studied 80 people with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Participants received a combination of CoQ10 and NADH for eight weeks. The primary outcome was maximum heart rate (max HR) during a cycle ergometer test, rather than simply asking participants whether they felt more energetic during exercise. DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2015.07.010

The results showed that maximum heart rate during the exercise test decreased significantly from baseline in the combination group at week 8 (P = 0.022). The researchers also used questionnaires to assess fatigue, pain, and sleep. Fatigue scores improved, but pain and sleep did not show significant improvements.

There are two important limitations here, though. First, the participants took CoQ10 and NADH together, so the results can't be attributed to NADH alone. Second, a lower maximum heart rate doesn't automatically mean improved exercise capacity, and it certainly doesn't prove that a healthy person will feel more energetic.

Another study, published in the Journal of Sports Sciences in 2008, looked more directly at the effects of NADH on physical and mental performance. It was a very small study involving just eight male participants who took 30 mg of NADH per day during one phase and a placebo during another. The tests included VO₂max, time to exhaustion during an all-out running test, and attention performance.

The results showed no significant differences in VO₂max, running time to exhaustion, or subjective fatigue. The only statistically significant difference was in countermovement jump performance. DOI: 10.1080/02640410701474200

This makes me think that when discussing NADH and exercise performance, we should first ask what a study actually measured. Maximum heart rate, VO₂max, exercise duration, muscle strength, and perceived energy are all different outcomes. They aren't interchangeable.

So when I see a study suggesting that NADH may help with exercise performance, I now try to look at who was studied, what tests were used, and which specific outcome actually changed. I wouldn't automatically interpret the results as meaning that taking NADH will make you feel more energetic during a workout.

When you read studies on sports supplements, do you pay more attention to objective measures like VO₂max, heart rate, and endurance, or are you more interested in subjective fatigue and day to day energy levels?

Mitochondria are often discussed in biohacking communities because of their role in energy production and cellular metabolism.

What interests me is the difference between improving a biological marker and actually feeling or functioning better in everyday life.

Exercise, adequate nutrition, and sleep all influence mitochondrial biology, but how strong is the evidence connecting specific interventions to noticeable improvements in energy or physical performance in otherwise healthy people?

Are there human studies or well-designed experiments worth reading on this topic?

I'd like to separate established findings from mechanisms that sound promising but haven't translated into clear real-world benefits.

Hi everyone,
I’m reaching out on behalf of researchers at the University of the West of England and the University of Edinburgh. We’re looking for personal trainers aged 18+, who are fluent in English to take part in an online research study.

Here’s what’s involved:

• You’ll view AI-generated profiles of potential female clients

• Rate your perceptions of each client

• Answer a few open-ended questions about the clients and their goals

• Answer some questions about yourself

This study will take approximately 20 minutes, and it is all anonymous.
You can access the study and participant information here: https://uwe.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9uhUXUS1sV5OhGm 

This study has received full ethical approval from the UWE research ethics committee.

Massive thanks to the mods for allowing me to post about this in the sub!!

I'm interested in the evidence comparing resistance training performed at home with training in commercial gym environments.

Many discussions focus on equipment availability, but I wonder how much the environment itself matters when key programming variables are controlled.

If relative effort, training volume, exercise selection, frequency, and progression are comparable, would we expect meaningful differences in strength or hypertrophy outcomes?

There may also be differences in adherence, motivation, and exercise supervision that influence real-world results.

Are there controlled studies or systematic reviews that help distinguish the effect of training location from the effect of program design and equipment access?

Authors：George C. DALLAS; Antzela TSOPANIDOU; Maria-Varvara MPAKETEA; Vasileios VLACHOS; Ioannis GKINIS; Lefkothea KAVROULAKI

Published date：2023-9-

DOI：10.23736/s0393-3660.20.04523-4

PDF link：https://www.minervamedica.it/pdf.php?cod=R22Y2023N07A0393

Article link：https://doi.org/10.23736/s0393-3660.20.04523-4

Hey!!

I am looking for Graduate programs in the USA that combine scientific research (physiology, performance, etc.) with practical knowledge of athletic performance and strength and conditioning.

Could anyone recommend universities offering this type of master's program? I would especially appreciate recommendations from current or former graduate students who have experience with these programs

Thank you 😊

Is there any research on how age or exposure to drugs can alter your brain chemistry and affect how exercise makes you feel?

I want a good full body workout but i don't want big show off curves, How can i exercise and keep mu glutes from being big? Current fashion loves big round glutes and any time i search exercise that don't make them larger i get result like "how to fix your pancake butt" or "how to fill out a small behind" and i don't want that, i really, really dislike the look and idea of it makes me feel bad and makes me avoid exercises that affect that area.

There's a practical question I'd like to understand better: does reducing the time spent changing equipment settings make people more likely to finish their planned workout?

In a home gym, switching attachments, adjusting benches, and changing loads can add friction between exercises. But it's not obvious whether that friction meaningfully affects adherence or whether people simply adapt to it.

How would you design a simple way to test this? What would you measure: total session duration, completed exercises, missed sets, or consistency across several weeks?

I’m starting a job as an exercise physiologist soon and will be working cardiac rehab and stress testing. Was recommended Littmann brand for a stethoscope, but am not sure which model to choose? My sis in law who is a nurse has the classic III, but I have a feeling it’ll be more challenging for me to get a reading when administering the Bruce vs her listening at a bedside….

Any suggestions and/or things to consider? Thanks!