Abstract / Summary
Background This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examined the effects of a chickpea protein hydrolysate (CPH) on biomarkers associated with exercise-induced muscle damage and inflammation in federated male road cyclists.Methods Twenty-four participants completed a 14-day intervention receiving either 12 g/day of chickpea protein hydrolysate (EXP) or a placebo (PLA) following training sessions. The selected dose was based on previous studies demonstrating antioxidant and immunomodulatory bioactive properties of the hydrolysate. Nutritional intake and training were registered. Body composition and biochemical markers of muscle damage and inflammation were assessed before and after the study.Results No significant differences were observed in body composition, training load, or dietary intake between groups, indicating controlled experimental conditions. However, between-group analyses of change scores revealed significant differences for lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; p = 0.04) and C-reactive protein (CRP; p = 0.02), favoring the experimental group. LDH decreased in the EXP group while increasing slightly in the placebo group, whereas CRP decreased in EXP and increased in PLA. Although creatine kinase (CK) showed a favorable pattern in the EXP group, the between-group comparison did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.062). Myoglobin followed a similar downward trend. The high baseline protein intake (>2 g/kg/day) and short intervention duration may have limited changes in body composition, nevertheless, the observed biomarker responses suggest that CPH supplementation may influence selected physiological processes associated with exercise-induced inflammation and cellular stress.Conclusions In trained cyclists with high habitual protein intakes, 14 days of CPH supplementation did not alter body composition but was associated with favorable changes in selected biomarkers related to exercise-induced inflammation and cellular stress compared with placebo. Given the short intervention period and the absence of direct assessments of recovery or performance, these findings should be interpreted as short-term biochemical responses. Further studies are required to determine their physiological relevance and whether these biomarker changes translate into meaningful improvements in recovery, training adaptation, or athletic performance.