Does Urolithin A Help Athletes? What the Running Trial Found
Not for speed, on the evidence so far. The only trial in trained distance runners gave 1,000 mg of urolithin A a day for four weeks, and the 3,000 metre time did not improve by a statistically significant amount. Effort ratings and a muscle-damage marker were lower after the time trial in the urolithin A group. The strength and endurance gains came from middle-aged and older adults, not athletes.
The short answer No speed gain, on current evidence. In the only trial in trained runners, 22 men ran a 3,000 metre time trial after four weeks at 1,000 mg a day, and the change was not statistically significant in either group. Two markers moved the right way. Effort ratings and a muscle-damage marker were lower after the time trial in the urolithin A group. That is a small, secondary finding, not a performance result. The strength and endurance gains came from middle-aged and older adults. They don't tell you what urolithin A does for a trained runner. Our capsule is 500 mg a day, half the dose the athlete trial used. The one thing to check is whether your own time moves, measured the same way every time.
Why do the adult trials and the runners' trial disagree?
If you want the mechanism first, read the urolithin A complete guide. This page covers the athlete question only.
In both adult trials, the headline gain came from a secondary measure. The trials' own primary endpoints did not differ from placebo. In the middle-aged trial the primary endpoint was a bike power test. In the older-adult trial it was a six-minute walk and a muscle energy measure.
The three trials studied three different groups of people. The middle-aged trial enrolled 88 sedentary, overweight adults aged 40 to 65 with low aerobic fitness. The older-adult trial enrolled 66 adults aged 65 to 90, about three-quarters of them women. The runners' trial enrolled 42 highly trained male distance runners, averaging 27 years old, with a maximal oxygen uptake of about 66 mL per kg per minute. A supplement has far less room to show a gain in someone already that fit.
The runners' authors read their own data more generously than the statistics allow. They point to a 12.1 second gain in the urolithin A group, which they call likely meaningful, and to lower muscle-damage and effort markers. They suggest the supplement could help performance through mechanisms beyond mitochondrial function. The statistics do not back a performance claim. Neither group's time improvement reached significance, the authors ran no formal power calculation, and they could not detect a clear difference between treatments. Use the statistics for the speed question. Treat the authors' view as a hypothesis for a larger trial.
What the evidence says
Three randomized, placebo-controlled trials cover this question. The urolithin A ingredient guide lists the wider human data. The mitophagy research review covers the mechanism behind the muscle findings.
Trained runners (Whitfield et al., 2025, Sports Medicine). PubMed. Forty-two highly trained male distance runners, average age 27, took 1,000 mg a day as four 250 mg softgels, or placebo, for four weeks during a training camp at altitude in Australia. Only 22 of them ran the 3,000 metre time trial, 11 per group. Both groups ran faster, the urolithin A group by 12.1 seconds and placebo by 3.4 seconds. Neither change reached statistical significance (p = 0.116 and p = 0.771). Effort ratings after the race were lower on urolithin A (group-by-time interaction p = 0.020). The muscle-damage marker creatine kinase was lower after the race on urolithin A, but the paper's abstract and results give different p-values for that comparison (p below 0.0001 versus an interaction p of 0.0489). Limitations: no formal power calculation, hand-timed races, and a higher creatine kinase level in the urolithin A group at the first race.
Middle-aged adults (Singh et al., 2022, Cell Reports Medicine). PubMed. The ATLAS trial randomized 88 sedentary adults aged 40 to 65 to 500 mg, 1,000 mg, or placebo as softgels for four months. The primary endpoint, peak power output on a bike, did not differ from placebo. Hamstring peak torque rose about 12 percent at 500 mg and 9.8 percent at 1,000 mg compared with placebo (p = 0.027 and p = 0.029). The placebo group's hamstring strength fell by about 9.8 percent over the same period. Quadriceps changes were not significant. The authors call all endpoints exploratory. Adverse events were reported by 17 placebo participants, 13 on 500 mg, and 15 on 1,000 mg.
Older adults (Liu et al., 2022, JAMA Network Open). PubMed. The trial randomized 66 adults aged 65 to 90 in Seattle to 1,000 mg a day or placebo for four months. The two primary endpoints, six-minute walk distance and maximal ATP production in the hand muscle, did not differ from placebo. Muscle endurance, measured as contractions until fatigue, improved versus placebo at two months. The average gain was 95 contractions in the hand muscle and 41 in the leg muscle, against 12 and 6 on placebo, with a very wide spread between people. Adverse events did not differ between groups.
Amazentis, the company that sells urolithin A as Mitopure, has co-authors on all three papers. That does not make the results wrong. It is a reason to weight replication more than any single trial.
| Outcome | Who was studied | Evidence grade | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3,000 metre time trial speed | Trained male distance runners (22 in the time-trial group) | Insufficient | One small trial, no significant change, and no power calculation. It does not show a benefit. |
| Effort ratings and creatine kinase after the time trial | Same runners | Preliminary | One small randomized trial. The creatine kinase p-values conflict between abstract and results. |
| Hamstring strength | Sedentary middle-aged adults (88) | Preliminary | One well-run trial, but a secondary endpoint, the primary endpoint missed, and all endpoints called exploratory. |
| Muscle endurance at two months | Adults aged 65 to 90 (66) | Preliminary | One trial. Endurance was a secondary endpoint, and the primary endpoints missed. |
Which situation are you in?
For a serious runner, the honest answer is that this supplement has not been shown to make you faster. The one trial that tested that question was too small to rule it out, which is different from showing that it works.
| If you are | What the trials show | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| A trained runner chasing a faster 3,000 metre or 5K | No significant time gain in the only trained-runner trial (1,000 mg, four weeks, 22 in the time trial) | Don't buy it for speed on this evidence |
| A trained runner who wants to test the recovery signal | Lower effort ratings and a lower creatine kinase after a time trial. Small, secondary, and the p-values disagree. | If you try it, log the effort and blood markers you already track for the full window |
| Sedentary or untrained, middle-aged | Hamstring strength above placebo at 500 or 1,000 mg over four months. Primary endpoint missed. | The middle-aged trial used 500 mg for four months. Retest strength at the end of that window. |
| Over 65 | Muscle endurance above placebo at two months at 1,000 mg. Primary endpoints missed. | Ask your clinician first, then judge endurance at two months |
| On statins, blood thinners, steroids, or thyroid medication | Excluded from the middle-aged trial, so there is no trial data | Ask your clinician before you start |
The urolithin A vs NMN comparison explains why the athlete question is different from the NAD+ question. Trained runners should not expect a faster 3,000 metre from four weeks at 1,000 mg on this evidence. The 500 mg dose has not been tested in trained runners in any trial I could find.
How should you take it, and how will you know?
The label directs one 500 mg capsule a day, 60 capsules to a bottle. The trials used softgels, not this capsule, so the match is by milligram, not by product. The dosage analysis walks through where the returns level off.
The runners and the middle-aged adults took their softgels in the morning, on an empty stomach, with water. None of these trials set out to compare timing or food, so that routine is a trial detail, not a rule. Pick a time you will remember.
If you want a fair personal test, match the trials' timing. The older-adult trial showed endurance changes at two months, and the middle-aged trial measured strength at four months. For running, pick one course, one warm-up, one effort scale, and a timing method you trust. Repeat it the same way every time.
When should you stop or ask a clinician?
Ask your clinician before you start if you take any prescription drug, if you are pregnant or nursing, or if you have a medical condition. The middle-aged trial excluded people taking statins, blood thinners, steroids, or thyroid medication, so there is no trial data for those combinations. If you notice new symptoms after starting, stop and talk to your clinician.
Side effects in the two adult trials were not more common on urolithin A than on placebo. The middle-aged paper calls the supplement safe and well tolerated at both doses.
Product note
Our Urolithin A 500 mg is one capsule a day, 60 capsules to a bottle, $89.99 for a 60-day supply. That works out to $1.50 a day, checked on October 19, 2026. It is made in Mt. Angel, Oregon, and a certificate of analysis is published for each lot. The dose sits inside the range the adult trials tested, and the only athlete trial used twice that amount. The Mitopure comparison covers Mitopure, the branded form named in the 2022 middle-aged trial. The product page describes urolithin A as supporting mitophagy, the way cells recycle worn-out mitochondria. See the product.
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
Where to go next
- The urolithin A ingredient guide for how the compound is made, dosed, and tested, with the full evidence list.
- Urolithin A vs NMN for how the athlete question differs from the NAD+ question.
- Best urolithin A supplements for how the US brands compare on dose, testing, and cost per day.
Related reading
- Every urolithin A trial that missed its primary outcome, with dose and limits
- whether your gut makes urolithin A from food, and what that changes
The Bottom Line
Don't buy urolithin A to get faster. The only trial in trained runners found no statistically significant gain in 3,000 metre time after four weeks at 1,000 mg a day. The adult trials point somewhere, but they are preliminary, and their primary endpoints were missed. If you buy it anyway, give it two to four months, measure the same way each time, and ask your clinician first if you take medication.
Related Products
Urolithin A 500 mg – Mitochondrial Renewal & Cellular Energy | 60 Capsules
$89.99
FAQ
What did the 2025 distance-runner trial test, at what dose, and for how long?
It tested 1,000 mg of urolithin A a day, as four 250 mg softgels, against placebo, for four weeks. The 42 men, average age 27, were highly trained distance runners taking part in a training camp at altitude in Australia, at roughly 1,700 to 2,200 metres. The supplement period ran inside a five-week camp. The paper is registered as NCT04783207, and three of its authors are listed with Amazentis, the company behind Mitopure. The full six-part summary is in the evidence section above.
Did urolithin A change 3,000 metre time-trial performance in that trial?
Not in a way the trial could detect. Both groups ran faster. The urolithin A group ran 12.1 seconds faster on average and the placebo group 3.4 seconds faster. Neither change reached statistical significance (p = 0.116 and p = 0.771). The authors said they could not detect a clear difference between treatments. Only 22 runners ran the time trial, 11 per group, and the study was not sized to settle the question.
What did improve in that trial, such as effort ratings and a muscle-damage marker, and by how much?
Effort ratings after the time trial were lower on urolithin A, with a group-by-time interaction of p = 0.020. The paper does not put the size of the drop in the running text. The muscle-damage marker creatine kinase was lower after the race in the urolithin A group, within-group p = 0.0016. The abstract and results give different p-values for the between-group comparison, so the size of this effect is uncertain. The urolithin A group also started with higher creatine kinase at the first race. Aerobic capacity rose 5.4 percent on urolithin A and 3.6 percent on placebo, and that gap was not significant.
What do the strength and endurance trials in middle-aged and older adults show, and how do they differ from the running trial?
Both trials enrolled middle-aged or older adults, not competitive runners. In 88 middle-aged adults, hamstring strength rose about 12 percent at 500 mg and 9.8 percent at 1,000 mg compared with placebo over four months, but the primary endpoint, peak power on a bike, did not differ. In 66 adults aged 65 to 90, endurance measured as contractions to fatigue improved at two months at 1,000 mg, while the primary endpoints did not differ. The runners' trial measured race speed in people who were already highly fit. The [urolithin A vs NMN comparison](/compare/urolithin-a-vs-nmn) explains the older-adult endurance data in more detail.
Who could plausibly benefit, and who should not expect a performance gain?
The adult trials point to strength and endurance changes in middle-aged and older adults. That is where the evidence is least thin, and even there the primary endpoints were missed. Trained runners should not expect a faster 3,000 metre from four weeks at 1,000 mg, because the one trial in that group found none. People taking statins, blood thinners, steroids, or thyroid medication were excluded from the middle-aged trial, so the evidence for them is missing.
What would a fair trial in trained athletes need to measure to answer the performance question?
It would size the study to detect a real difference in the time trial, the outcome a runner cares about. The 2025 trial named the time trial as a co-primary endpoint, but it tested creatine kinase first in a fixed order and ran no formal power calculation. Its authors say no formal power calculation was done, the time trial ran in 22 runners, and races were hand-timed. The authors also suggest longer supplementation than four weeks. A stronger design would use electronic timing, more runners, a longer intervention, and effort and blood markers measured the same way in every arm.
How should a serious runner weigh this evidence before buying?
Treat it as a weak signal for lower effort and muscle-damage markers after a hard race, and as no signal yet for speed. The only athlete trial found no significant time change, used twice our dose, and had 22 runners in the time-trial group. If you still buy it, judge it over two to four months, keep training the same way, and retest on the same course under the same conditions. On this evidence, don't buy it for race-day speed.