Primary Research · 2018
Effect of taurine on exercise performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Waldron M, Patterson SD, Tallent J, Jeffries O · Sports Medicine, 2018
Key finding
Meta-analysis of 10 studies found single-dose taurine (1–6g, 1–3 hours pre-exercise) produced small but significant improvements in endurance performance.
Abstract
PubMed · PMID 29546641 →BACKGROUND: Taurine is central to many physiological processes, some of which are augmented by exogenous supply and have the potential to facilitate endurance performance; however, its independent effects on performance have not been systematically analysed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of isolated oral taurine ingestion on endurance performance and to assess the contribution of (1) the dose and (2) the supplementation period to the ergogenic effect. METHODS: A search was performed using various databases in September 2017. The studies were screened using search criteria for eligibility. Ten peer-reviewed articles were identified for inclusion. A sub-analysis of time-to-exhaustion (TTE) trials (n = 7) was also performed. The effects of (1) dose and (2) the acute (single dose) or chronic (> 1 day) supplementation periods were assessed using meta-regression. The doses of taurine ranged from 1 to 6 g/day and were provided in single doses and for up to 2 weeks among a range of subjects. RESULTS: Taurine ingestion improved overall endurance performance (Hedges' g = 0.40, 95% CI 0.12-0.67, P = 0.004), which was similar in TTE trials (Hedges' g = 0.43, 95% CI 0.12-0.75, P = 0.007). There were no differences between acute or chronic supplementation for the full sample (P = 0.897) or the TTE group (P = 0.896). The dose of taurine did not moderate its effect on endurance performance (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Human endurance performance can be improved by orally ingesting a single dose of taurine in varying amounts (1-6 g).
Abstract sourced from PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Displayed in the authors’ own words for context; our critique is in the sections below.
About the supplement
Taurine
Dose · mechanism · evidence grade · safety →
Read the full paper
Cited in 1 guide
How to read a study like this
The same questions worth asking about any research paper, not just this one. Worth a minute even if you trust the grade.
Who was studied, and do you resemble them?
Supplement effects often depend on baseline status. Vitamin D helps people who are deficient; iron helps people who are anemic. A result in people unlike you may not apply to you.
What was measured, and does it matter in daily life?
A study that shows a blood marker moved isn't the same as a study that shows people felt or functioned better. Ask what the outcome means in practice.
How large was the effect — not just whether it was significant.
'Statistically significant' only means the effect is unlikely to be zero. It doesn't tell you the effect is large enough to notice. Look for effect sizes, not just p-values.
Who paid for the trial, and what did they stand to gain?
Industry-funded trials are several times more likely to report positive results than independent ones. It's not usually fraud — it's subtle design and reporting choices. Weight accordingly.
Has anyone else replicated this?
Single positive trials are hypotheses. Replication by independent groups is what turns a hypothesis into reliable evidence. If the only positive trial is the one you're reading, wait.
Does the dose in the trial match what's being sold?
Supplement marketing routinely cites trials that used 5–10× the dose in the product. If the effective dose was 2 g/day and the capsule has 200 mg, expect roughly no effect.
About this page
Formulate maintains a registry of clinical studies cited across its guides and evidence grades. This page links the study metadata to the content that cites it — one canonical entry per landmark study.
The full citation chain is public so readers can verify claims without hunting through individual guide pages. Browse all cited studies →
Note: Study summaries on this page are editorial interpretations of the research. Always consult the primary source before drawing clinical conclusions.