# Epigenetically Active Supplements and the Risk of Sports Injuries: Narrative Review from Molecular Mechanisms to Practical Implications

## TL;DR

This review explores how certain dietary supplements may influence musculoskeletal injury recovery through epigenetic mechanisms, but notes a lack of strong clinical evidence linking them to injury outcomes.

## Contribution

The paper introduces the concept of 'epigenetically active' supplements and their potential role in modulating musculoskeletal recovery through epigenetic pathways.

## Key findings

- Methyl donors, polyphenols, and omega-3 fatty acids influence molecular mechanisms related to musculoskeletal recovery.
- Human studies show limited evidence linking these supplements to clinically significant injury outcomes.
- Nutritional epigenomics is highlighted as a promising but under-validated area for sports injury prevention and recovery.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives Sports-related musculoskeletal injuries remain a major challenge in physically active populations, with substantial interindividual variability in susceptibility and recovery that cannot be fully explained by biomechanics or genetics alone. Epigenetic mechanisms, including DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNAs, provide a dynamic interface through which mechanical loading, inflammation, and metabolic signals regulate gene expression during tissue adaptation and repair. This narrative review synthesizes current evidence on “epigenetically active” dietary supplements and their potential relevance to sports injuries, focusing on methyl donors, polyphenols, omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, and redox-active nutrients. Methods Targeted searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (2000–2026) were performed using epigenetics-, injury-, exercise-, and supplementation-related terms, prioritizing mechanistic and translational evidence. Results Available data indicate that these compounds can influence molecular mechanisms implicated in musculoskeletal recovery. However, human evidence is largely derived from peripheral tissues and indirect molecular markers, with limited clear linkage to clinically significant injury outcomes such as injury incidence, severity, or return-to-play timelines. Accordingly, these nutrients are best viewed as modulators of recovery-related biology rather than as direct therapeutic agents. Conclusions This review highlights a notable translational gap between mechanistic plausibility and clinical evidence and discusses practical implications for sports nutrition from a personalized perspective. Future research priorities include tissue-relevant epigenetic assessments, integration of multi-omics approaches, and longitudinal trials incorporating injury endpoints. Nutritional epigenomics, therefore, represents a promising avenue to support musculoskeletal health while underscoring the need for rigorous clinical validation.