Nutritional Strategies for Recovery–Adaptation Coupling After Exercise: From Muscle Damage to Performance Remodeling

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background/Objectives: Recovery nutrition must restore near-term readiness without indiscriminately suppressing biological signals that contribute to repair and training adaptation. This review evaluates recovery–adaptation coupling (RAC) as a research framework and clarifies its contribution relative to established recovery, nutrient-periodization, and athlete-monitoring models. Methods: Targeted narrative searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were supplemented by Google Scholar citation tracking and backward and forward screening. Peer-reviewed English-language literature available through 31 May 2026 was considered. Human athlete studies, randomized trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, consensus statements, and position stands were prioritized; mechanistic evidence was used to explain pathways rather than to support stand-alone performance recommendations. The final cited corpus comprised 130 records. No formal risk-of-bias tool, certainty grading, PRISMA denominator, or quantitative pooling was used. Claims were instead identified as established practice (EP), context-dependent evidence (CDE), mechanistic rationale (MR), or RAC hypothesis (RH). Results: The most consistent applied support concerns adequate energy availability, distributed high-quality protein, carbohydrate restoration when recovery windows are short, and individualized fluid and sodium replacement. Evidence for polyphenol-rich products, curcumin, omega-3 fatty acids, and creatine is context- and product-dependent. Collagen or gelatin evidence is mainly mechanistic or pilot-level, while RAC recovery-pattern categories and multimodal monitoring rules remain unvalidated hypotheses. RAC differs from existing frameworks by jointly specifying the next athletic demand, dominant recovery bottleneck, possible adaptive cost of intervention, and response-verification plan. Conclusions: RAC should presently be interpreted as an evidence-organization and hypothesis-generation architecture, not as a validated predictive, diagnostic, or treatment algorithm. Prospective comparative studies are required before RAC-specific decision rules can guide individualized practice.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.