INTRODUCTION
Individuals who are not accustomed to rigorous physical activity, or athletes who are
returning to training from a prolonged period of inactivity, often experience a
dull, aching pain that usually occurs within 24 hours after activity. This type of
soreness is known as delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS). It usually manifests
within the first 24 hours after exercise, reaching its peak within 72 hours, and
slowly resolves in 5-7 days post-exercise1,2. It presents clinically as
discomfort, aching pain, swelling, tenderness, stiffness, and temporary loss of
muscle strength and function3,4.
Aggregated effects of DOMS could also lead to detrimental injuries.
Etiological factors for DOMS involve both mechanical and biochemical
components5. Among the multiple causes of DOMS sequential events, the
following processes remain vital in the path to understanding this phenomenon: the
initial damage, related to the mechanical stress of contraction that produce
ruptures of myofibril filaments, and the secondary damage, related to later events
of metabolic origin resulting loss of the intracellular calcium homeostasis,
oxidative stress, and inflammation6. When initial eccentric damage to
myofibrils occurs, there is an immediate decrease in muscle strength and membrane
damage7.
Damaged muscle fibers release prostaglandins and proinflammatory cytokines that
activate endothelial cells. In turn, these cells express cell surface adhesion
molecules and release chemotactic factors and proinflammatory cytokines (e.g.,
IL-1β, TNF-α, IL-6)8. These inflammatory mediators
attract phagocytic cells such as neutrophils and monocytes toward the injury site.
As a result, in the first few hours after injury, neutrophils and macrophages
progressively accumulate in the subjected muscles, helping to remove and degrade
damaged tissue by engulfing cellular debris and releasing proteases, inflammatory
cytokines, and reactive oxygen species (ROS)9. ROS may further lead to
activation of NF-κB that can mediate the expression of inflammatory
cytokines. This may induce further inflammation and oxidative stress, leading to
secondary muscle damage. In these orchestrated sequences of events, some factors
seem to play important roles in muscle regeneration and remodeling8-10. When the excess mechanical and
biochemical stress produced at the time of exercise overcome the antioxidant and
anti-inflammatory capacity of the body, there will be sustained inflammation and
oxidative stress, which ultimately lead to muscle injury, fatigue, and
DOMS10.
Given these facts, a natural product with known anti-inflammatory and antioxidant
activity with a good record of accomplishment of safety may provide a better
intervention to DOMS.
Catechin, the major flavan in Acacia catechu, and the prenylated
flavonoids and stilbenoids from the root bark of Morus alba L.,
possess properties suggestive of benefits in DOMS. These reported activities
include: (i) inhibition of the activities of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2),
5-lipoxygenase (5-LOX), platelets phospholipase A2, and proinflammatory cytokines
such as TNF-α, ILs 1, 2, 6, 8, and 1211,12 as a result of catechin; (ii)
inhibition of inflammation activity13; (iii) suppression effect of
T-cell migration and inflammation induction14; (iv) inhibition of nitrogen
oxide (NO), inducible NO synthase expression, prostaglandin E2 production, and
activation of NF-κB15; (v) inhibition of proinflammatory mediators such as
IL-1β, and IL-6 and COX-216; and (vi) activation of total
antioxidant ability17,18 as a result of prenylated flavonoids and stilbenoids from
M. alba root bark extract.
Furthermore, the standardized blend AmLexin has showed anti-inflammatory and
antioxidant properties when evaluated in our laboratory using multiple models. In
the carrageenan-induced rat paw edema model, AmLexin resulted in 46.3-53.3%
reductions in paw edema and 43.6-54.8% reductions in pain sensitivity (common
cardinal signs of inflammation) compared to the vehicle-treated control19.
IC50 (concentration causing 50% inhibition) values for major
inflammation-mediating enzymes, such as cyclooxygenase 1 (COX-1), cyclooxygenase 2
(COX-2), and 5-lipoxygenase (5-LOX), were found to be 20.9 μg/mL, 49.2
μg/mL, and 11.1 μg/mL, respectively19. Administered at 50 mg/kg,
AmLexin also showed statistically significant inhibition in key inflammatory
cytokines such as IL-1β, TNF-α, and IL-6 in a collagen-induced rat
arthritis model. AmLexin also showed higher capacity in neutralizing superoxide
anions when tested for its antioxidant ability in an Oxygen Radical Absorption
Capacity (ORAC) assay (manuscript submitted to Nutrients journal).
Based on these anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties of AmLexin, we
hypothesized that AmLexin could be a safe and effective botanical alternative for
DOMS. The current double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial was therefore
designed to evaluate this hypothesis. AmLexin is a proprietary combination of
extracts from the heartwood of Acacia catechu and root bark of
Morus alba.
METHODS
Composition
The Composition UP1306 (referred to as AmLexinTM) was prepared by
mixing the standardized extract (that contains not less than 65% catechins) from
the heartwood of A. catechu and M.
alba root bark ethanol extract (that contains not less than 7%
stilbenes and bioflavonoids) at a ratio of 1:2 by weight. The active contents in
UP1306 are catechins (at least 15%), stilbenes, and bioflavonoids (at least
2%).
Study design
The study was a 9-week, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled
parallel clinical trial conducted at a single study center, GLH Nutrition, Inc.,
Draper, UT. The study designs and protocols were approved by an IRB and informed
consent was obtained from subjects. The primary goal of the study was to provide
objective and subjective indicators demonstrating the ability of an herbal
dietary supplement, AmLexin, to “protect joints” (proactively
“prevent” pain and improve redox potential) in healthy subjects
training for a 13.1 half-marathon run (non-disease claims). A total of 30
healthy subjects (15 per group; AmLexin/placebo) with age group 18-70
years (mean ± SE: 42.92 ± 2.48 and 41.15 ± 3.5 for AmLexin
and placebo, respectively, and gender AmLexin = 7/5 and placebo 10/3
female/male, respectively) were enrolled in the study, and 25 subjects completed
study participation (12 for AmLexin and 13 for placebo). Subjects were
supplemented with AmLexin and the look-alike placebo for 9 weeks (8 weeks during
training regimen and 1 week after the half-marathon run). The Western Ontario
and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) for pain, stiffness, and
activities of daily living, and the Visual Analog Scale for primary body
sections/muscles (quadriceps, hamstrings, calves and knees) were taken at
baseline (before starting the training program), weekly during the training
regimen (weeks 1-8), and daily post-half-marathon (days 1-6).
Blood was collected at baseline, day 1, and day 6 after exercise for
oxidation-reduction potential monitoring (Fig. 1).
Product dosing
Subjects were instructed to take one capsule (200 mg of each) with a morning meal
and one capsule (200 mg of each) with an evening meal, for a total of two
capsules per day (total 400 mg/day AmLexin and Placebo). Subjects were
instructed to bring product bottles to all visits. Product compliance was
measured by pill counting of unused capsules at study completion.
Subject inclusion criteria
• Males and females aged 18-70 years
• BMI < 30 kg/m2
• Healthy, active, no recurrent pain or limitations in range of motion
• Ability to complete training for and complete a 13.1-mile half-marathon
run
• Willingness to consume the dietary supplements under investigation
• Willingness to undertake all protocol measurements and training
regimens
• Ability to understand and sign the informed consent form (ICF)
Subject exclusion criteria
• Recurring pain, use of pain medications or pain supplements
• Pregnant or breastfeeding women
• Inability to complete prescribed training regimen
• Current use of other “pain” support supplement or OTC
drug
Training program
On average, the weekly training regime consisted of subjects participating in a
progressively more difficult 8-week running program to train for a hilly
half-marathon run (13.1 miles). Each week, participants completed a minimum of
three specific training runs of approximately 1 hour in duration, with
progressively higher intensity and duration. Weekly runs included at least one
“hill” workout, one “interval” workout, and one
“distance” workout prescribed by the principal investigator.
Informed consent
An informed consent form (ICF) was written and administered in accordance with
established criteria of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the appropriate
federal regulations (e.g., 21 CFR Parts 50 and 56) to describe the study plan,
procedures, and risks. The investigator, the sponsor, and the IRB all approved
the ICF. The study was reviewed by Aspire IRB, Santee CA 92071, with approval of
protocol and documents for Unigen2017 received from IRB on 05/12/2017.
Data management & analysis
Data were recorded onto case report forms (CRFs) by GLH Nutrition staff and
entered into Excel worksheets. The computerized data were made anonymous, and
subject identifiers were limited to two-digit ID numbers and subject initials.
Data files are retained in a physically secure location, and regular backup
copies are created and stored in a separate secure location. Prior to analysis,
GLH Nutrition staff reviewed all data, compared the values in the data files
with the values on the original CRFs, and corrected any discrepancies found.
After unblinding, data was analyzed by the Per-Protocol (PP) method, consisting
of all subjects who completed all scheduled visits with no protocol deviations.
The primary efficacy endpoints were analyzed using SigmaPlot (version 11.0)
between the product groups (active product or placebo). Statistical significance
between groups was calculated by means of single factor analysis of variance,
followed by a paired t-test. P-values less than or equal to 0.05 (P ≤
0.05) were considered to be significant. When normality tests failed, data for
nonparametric analysis were subjected to Mann-Whitney rank-sum tests and
Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance on ranks for ANOVA.
WOMAC
The Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) index is a self-administered health
status measure score based on 24 questions for three principal subscales, such
as pain, stiffness, and activities of daily living20. The first five questions
of WOMAC represent pain and measured from 0 (“no pain”) to 4
(“extreme pain”) for each question. This was followed by the
stiffness subscale, based on the average of questions 6 and 7 and measured from
0 (“no stiffness”) to 4 (“extreme stiffness”) for
each question. The rest of the questionnaire, questions 8 through 24 of the
WOMAC, are allocated for activities of daily living and are measured from 0
(“no difficulty”) to 4 (“extreme difficulty”) for
each question. The WOMAC is a valid, reliable, and sensitive instrument for the
detection of clinically important changes in health status, following a variety
of interventions such as AmLexin.
Visual analog scale (VAS)
Measurements for delayed onset muscle soreness were assessed using visual
analogue scale (VAS) score21. The pain VAS is a
unidimensional measure of pain intensity, which has been widely used in diverse
adult populations. The pain VAS is a continuous scale comprised of a horizontal
(HVAS) or vertical (VVAS) line, usually 10 centimeters (100 mm) in length
between “no pain” (score of 0) and “pain as bad as it could
be” or “worst imaginable pain” (score of 100 [100-mm
scale]). While questionnaires vary between study designs, most commonly,
participants are asked to report “current” discomfort intensity
and “in the last 24 hours.” In the current study, the VAS
discomfort rating was used to record average discomfort with movement and at
rest. VAS discomfort was rated from 0 (“no discomfort”) to 100
(“extreme discomfort”). The subjects answered the VAS
questionnaire by placing a vertical line to indicate their intensity of
discomfort relating to several body sections including quadriceps, calves,
hamstrings, and knees. Using a ruler, the score is determined by measuring the
distance (mm) on the 10 cm line between the “no pain” anchor and
the patient's mark, providing a range of scores from 0-100. Data were
analyzed to show the group mean values (mean ± SE), and the active
(AmLexin) group was compared to the placebo. The average values were also
normalized to 100, and percentage changes were calculated. Statistical
significances were also calculated using a t-test. A higher average score value
indicates greater discomfort intensity.
Redox potential
The antioxidant activities of products were assessed using the RedoxSYS
diagnostic system (Luoxis Diagnostics, Greenwood Village, CO, United States).
The system measures the oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) of a biological
system, displaying the degree of overall oxidative stress in response to
exposure. The two primary components of the ORP, such as the static ORP (sORP)
and the capacity ORP (cORP), are determined from plasma, and are measured in
millivolts (mV) and microcoulombs (μC), respectively. While the low sORP
values represent the normal range of oxidative stress (or less oxidative
stress), the higher than normal sORP values indicate the biological sample is
from an individual with a higher state of oxidative stress. The other segment of
the ORP, cORP, is the measure of available antioxidant reserve. Higher cORP
values correspond with better antioxidant reserves, and vice versa22.
RESULTS
WOMAC assessment for discomfort, stiffness and activities of daily living (ADL)
Subjects in the AmLexin group experienced significantly low levels of discomfort
as of 24 hours after the half-marathon (Fig. 2). These reductions were maintained
for the subsequent days after the run. When compared to subjects supplemented
with the look-alike placebo, the improved comfort levels in the AmLexin group
were statistically significant at days 1 (P < 0.05) and 3 (P < 0.03)
(Fig. 2). These
reductions in magnitude were compared between the groups, and were found to be
43%, 40.5%, and 67.4% reductions for the AmLexin group on days 1, 2, and 3,
respectively.
Figure 2.
Effect of AmLexin on WOMAC pain. Healthy subjects were trained for 8-weeks and run a 13.1mile (half-marathon) on the 9th week. Subjects were monitored for discomfort every day after the half-marathon. Data depicted as Mean ± SE. *P ≤ 0.05.

We also determined the percentage of subjects in each group with absolute
“zero” discomfort (Fig. 3). While all subjects in the
placebo group experienced some degree of discomfort, 25% of subjects in the
AmLexin group had no symptoms at day 1 post-exercise. A higher percentage of
subjects also reported minimal discomfort on days 2 (AmLexin = 33.3% and placebo
= 7.7%) and 3 (AmLexin = 45.5% and placebo = 23.1%) after exercise compared with
the placebo group, indicating the fast recovery of these subjects from DOMS
(Fig. 3).
Figure 3.
Percentage of subjects with no pain post exercise. Healthy subjects were trained for 8-weeks and run a 13.1mile (half-marathon) on the 9th week. Subjects were monitored for discomfort every day after the half-marathon. a Ẋ=1.58±1.98; b Ẋ=1.36±1.86

Similar patterns were also observed in activities of daily living (ADL) (Fig. 4). Supplementation
of AmLexin significantly improved the ADL of subjects as early as 24 hours
post-exercise and remained low for the rest of the week. These improvements were
statistically significant on days 1 (P < 0.05) and 3 (P < 0.05)
post-exercise compared to the placebo group. With respect to magnitude, there
were 34.5%, 23.3%, and 66.6% improvements in ADL compared to the placebo group
after days 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Figure 4.
Effect of AmLexin on activities of daily living (ADL). Healthy subjects were trained for 8-weeks and run a 13.1mile (half-marathon) on the 9th week. Subjects were monitored for their routine daily activity every day after the half-marathon. Data depicted as Mean ± SE. *P ≤ 0.05

While no significance was reported between groups for stiffness improvement,
there were clear indications that subjects in the AmLexin group had lower
stiffness than the placebo group (data not shown). Hence, the overall WOMAC for
the discomfort, ADL, and stiffness were found within the ranges of the three
subscales. The P-value on day 1 was not statistically significant for the total
WOMAC (P = 0.08) (Fig.
5). Nevertheless, there were marked improvements in all parameters for
the subjects supplemented with AmLexin with P ≤ 0.05 on day 3 (Fig. 5).
Visual analog scale (VAS) of major muscle groups and body parts
Complementing the WOMAC data above, subjects in the AmLexin group reported lesser
discomfort over the course of the recovery time, as early as day 1 post-exercise
(Fig. 6). Compared
to the placebo treatment group, there were 31.8%, 35.0% and 29.3% reductions in
discomfort from the calve muscles in the AmLexin treatment group, with a P-value
of 0.06 on day 1 post-exercise (Fig. 6).
Figure 6.
Effect of AmLexin on calf muscle VAS-discomfort. Healthy subjects were trained for 8-weeks and run a 13.1mile (half-marathon) on the 9th week. Subjects were monitored every day after the half-marathon for discomfort on major muscles. Data depicted as Mean ± SE. P=0.06.

Similarly, there were 34.9% and 27.3% reductions in VAS discomfort from the
quadriceps of runners supplemented with AmLexin compared to the placebo on days
1 and 2 post-exercise. The relief in discomfort on day one after exercise was
statistically significant (P < 0.05) when compared to the placebo group
(Fig. 7).
Figure 7.
Effect of AmLexin on Quadriceps muscle VAS-discomfort. Healthy subjects were trained for 8-weeks and run a 13.1mile (half-marathon) on the 9th week. Subjects were monitored every day after the half-marathon for discomfort on major muscles. Data depicted as Mean ± SE. *P ≤ 0.05.

Perhaps the biggest discomfort relief was reported for the hamstrings of healthy
runners supplemented with AmLexin (Fig. 8). Reductions of 43.2%, 46.4%, and
33.2% were observed on days 1, 2, and 3 after the half-marathon when compared to
the placebo group. These reductions were statistically significant on day 1 (P
< 0.05) with a similar trend on day 2 (P < 0.06) in comparison to the
placebo group.
Figure 8.
Effect of AmLexin on Hamstring muscle VAS-discomfort. Healthy subjects were trained for 8-weeks and run a 13.1mile (half-marathon) on the 9th week. Subjects were monitored every day after the half-marathon for discomfort on major muscles. Data depicted as Mean ± SE. *P ≤ 0.05.

Findings on the VAS in the knees were in accordance with the rest of the other
muscle groups (Fig. 9).
Subjects experienced minimal discomfort throughout the recovery period. There
were 46.1%, 26.8%, and 29.4% reductions in discomfort for the subjects
supplemented with AmLexin in comparison to the placebo group. The reduction
observed on day one post exercise for the AmLexin group was statistically
significant when compared to the placebo, at P < 0.05 (Fig. 9).
Antioxidant effect of test materials
In the current study, there was clear evidence favoring the beneficial effects of
AmLexin in terms of oxidative stress (as measured by sORP) and anti-oxidant
reserves (as measured by cORP). Following the half-marathon, there were 29.2%
and 29.9% reductions in plasma sORP values at days 1 and 6, respectively, from
the baseline for subjects in the AmLexin group. These reductions in Plasma sORP
values were lower in magnitude for subjects in the placebo group, with 20.8% and
24.1% reductions on days 1 and 6, respectively (Fig. 10). When these values were
compared between groups, there were 9.1% and 6.2% reductions in sORP values for
the AmLexin group on days 1 and 6, respectively. The reduction observed on day 6
was statistically significant compared to the placebo group (P < 0.05).
Similarly, there were marked increases in the level of plasma cORP for both the
treatment groups following the half-marathon (Fig. 11). When compared to the baseline,
subjects showed 558.8% and 452.9% increases in plasma cORP for the AmLexin group
and 383.5% and 251.6% increases for the placebo group on days 1 and 6,
respectively. However, when the values were compared to the placebo group,
subjects in the AmLexin group experienced a 27.5% greater increase in plasma
cORP on day 1, and a 46.3% greater increase on day 6. The increase on day 6 was
statistically significant compared to the placebo group (P < 0.03).
Figure 10.
Effect of AmLexin on total body oxidative stress assessed using the RedoxSYS diagnostic system. Data are for static oxidation-reduction potential (sORP). Lower sORP indicates a better or reduced oxidative stress in the body.

Figure 11.
Anti-oxidant capacity of subjects supplemented with AmLexin assessed using the RedoxSYS diagnostic system. Data depicted for capacity oxidation-reduction potential (cORP). Higher cORP corresponds to greater body anti-oxidant reserve.

Interestingly, there were suggestive correlations between sORP and cORP in both
study groups. While there were negative correlations at day 1 (r = −0.37)
and day 6 (r = −0.21) in subjects in the AmLexin group, the correlations
were positive for the placebo group both on day 1 (r = 0.18) and day 6 (r =
0.12). These data are indications for significant changes occurring in the
opposite direction for subjects in the AmLexin group. In other words, because of
AmLexin supplementation, there was enough reduction in oxidative stress while
also increasing the antioxidant capacity of individuals.
DISCUSSION
In the present study, a standardized blend from the heartwood of Acacia catechu and
root bark of Morus alba (referred to as AmLexin) has been tested
for its effect on delayed onset muscle soreness. This was done in a randomized
double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial on healthy subjects, following 13.1
miles of running. The active product was administered twice a day orally at 200 mg
for a total daily dose of 400 mg/day over 9 weeks. The placebo group received a
look-alike at the same dosage for the same duration. Subjects were trained for 8
weeks before the half marathon and were monitored for 1 week after the running.
WOMAC was assessed for discomfort, stiffness, and activity of daily living, and VAS
for major body muscles such as quadriceps, hamstrings, calves, and knees.
Antioxidant activity of the products was also evaluated upon completion of the
study. The study lasted for a total of 9 weeks. Data depicted here showed that
subjects in the AmLexin group experienced statistically significant improvement in
discomfort, ADL, and total WOMAC compared to the placebo group. There were
significant reductions in muscle soreness for the AmLexin group following the
half-marathon, with reduced oxidative stress.
Delayed onset muscle soreness is characterized as a grade 1 muscle strain injury that
occurs as a result of unaccustomed exercise, strenuous physical activity, or
high-intensity exercise involving eccentric muscle contraction. This includes
resistance training, downhill running, cycling, or stepping4. It is known to
decrease muscle strength, causing a profound impact on the ability to conduct
subsequent sessions of exercise. This affects the overall performance of athletes
and hinders individuals’ normal routine activities of daily living23. A marathon is
considered an endurance-demanding exercise that could cause a significant increase
in oxidative stress, both in elite athletes and individuals new to running. This
suggests that this is a good model for exercise-induced oxidative stress. In this
class of intense physical exercise, there is always sustained inflammation and
oxidative stress, which ultimately lead to muscle injury, fatigue, and DOMS.
Currently there are unmet demands for DOMS interventions. Through the years, many
DOMS management modalities including stretching, massage, cryotherapy, nonsteroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs (e.g. ibuprofen), or supplements rich in phytochemicals
(e.g. catechin, quercetin, resveratrol, curcumin, gingerol, etc.) have been
suggested. While some have shown future potential, many have been found to be
ineffective24-26. For example, when healthy subjects (n = 7) were supplemented
with resveratrol for 7 days at an oral dose of 600 mg/day, no changes were observed
in blood C-reactive protein and VAS pain and discomfort scale 24 hours after the
marathon, in comparison with the placebo group24. Similar outcomes were observed
when healthy subjects were supplemented with Omega-3 fatty acids and isoflavons from
soy for 5 weeks. These were administered for 30 days before and 1 week during
induction of DOMS through eccentric elbow flexion contractions. The authors reported
that there were no significant treatment effects between groups for the physical
parameters or biomarkers CK, IL-6, TNF-α, and MDA at 48, 72, and 168 hours
post-exercise25. Donnelly et al. have also reported that ibuprofen is not
an appropriate treatment for delayed onset muscle soreness and damage26. One possible
reason for this could be the drug’s lack of antioxidant properties.
Therefore, an appropriate selection of interventions for DOMS should encompass both
antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.
The anti-inflammatory and antioxidant activity of AmLexin has been reported both
separately and in combination. Previously, AmLexin was tested in subjects with
osteoarthritis in the knee, in comparison to active and placebo-controlled
randomized clinical trials. Kalman and Hewlings have reported improvements in
discomfort, stiffness, and activities of daily living measured by the WOMAC
questionnaire and VAS (pain/discomfort) within all groups. There was a significant
difference between the changes of uCTX-II for AmLexin and placebo groups after 12
weeks of study. Their data showed that early intervention with AmLexin, aimed at
reducing bone and cartilage degradation through reported inhibition of catabolic
proinflammatory pathways, might assist in preventing joint cartilage
damage27. Similarly, Yimam et al. have also reported the
anti-inflammatory activities of AmLexin in in vivo and in vitro models with
significant implication in DOMS19. Recently, we tested the effect
of AmLexin on key proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-1β, Il-6 and
TNF-α, and documented significant anti-inflammatory activity (manuscript
submitted to Nutrients journal). The improved symptom relief observed in this
clinical trial could be due to the direct benefits of the anti-inflammatory
properties of AmLexin.
Oxidative stress (reflected in excessive production of ROS) is an imbalance between
the production of free radicals and the inherent capacity of the body to counteract
or neutralize their harmful effects. Unchecked, it will have detrimental
consequences in performance or wellness. For example, excessive exercise (e.g. a
marathon) is known to induce production of ROS, resulting in oxidative stress that
may cause muscle damage, fatigue, oxidative damage, production of proinflammatory
cytokines, and immune dysfunction. Previously, it has been shown that exercise
utilizing large muscle groups, such as running, induces oxidative stress in
correlation with increases in plasma levels of IL-628. AmLexin has been shown to
reduce these factors significantly. The significant reductions in discomfort
observed in the major muscles and body parts such as the calves, quadriceps,
hamstrings, and knees could be true reflections of the antioxidant and
anti-inflammatory activity of AmLexin.
Substantiating our findings, there is evidence that supports the ability of catechin
to prevent exercise-induced muscle damage that could affect physical performances of
athletes and/or daily activities of living. For instance, senescence-accelerated
animals given daily treatment of catechin for 8 weeks have showed decreased loss of
muscle force, exercise-induced muscle damage, and oxidative stress biomarkers such
as creatine kinase, acetate dehydrogenase and malondialdehyde, while increasing
activity of glutathione reductase. It was also found that long-term use of catechin
reduced mRNA expression of TNF-α and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 from
the gastrocnemius muscle, possibly through the inhibition of NF-κB
activation29. Clinically, chronic consumption of a polyphenolic blend
containing catechins and theaflavins for 13 weeks improved antioxidant status. This
was measured by the ferric-reducing ability of plasma, reduced markers of muscle
stress (such as cortisol and creatine phosphokinase), and the promotion of strength
recovery post-exercise30. Additionally, increase in the daily energy
expenditure31, increased VO2 max 32, and reduced plasma creatinine
kinase33 are some of the major activities of catechin, with beneficial
applications in exercise and DOMS management. Hence, the significant clinical
improvements observed in the current clinical trial could be partially due to the
contribution of catechin in AmLexin. Both medicinal plants standardized in AmLexin
have traditionally been used for various human ailments with a long history of safe
human consumption, making them viable natural alternative for DOMS
supplementation.
In summary, exercise can trigger a cascade of inflammatory and oxidative
stress-related events, leading to delayed onset muscle soreness. Data depicted here
provides noteworthy evidence for the use of antioxidant and anti-inflammatory
dietary supplementations such as AmLexin) before or during exercise, in order to
minimize exercise-induced oxidative stress and inflammation that could cause
discomfort, muscle damage, fatigue, aching pain, inflammation, and ultimately,
cellular damage.