Citrulline malate

View my plan →

The short answer

Some studies report more repetitions or less soreness, but products and citrulline content vary.

Evidence and scope: Mixed evidence
This status does not grade the ingredient for every goal, outcome, or person.
Important limitation: Trials are inconsistent or small, so a reliable clinically important benefit is not established.
Before deciding: Key concern: Same vasodilator cautions as L-citrulline; GI upset is dose-related.

01 / PRACTICAL GUIDE

Dose, absorption, and combinations

These are indication-specific reference or studied ranges—not a personalized prescription. Start with the objective, then check the form, label, medicines, and health conditions.

Reference range by objective

Sports performance6–8 g about 60 minutes before exercise in many studies

Reference or studied range—not a personalized prescription. The product label or a clinician may specify a different dose.

Dose source ↗

More is not automatically better. A clinician or product label may specify a different amount.

Absorption / solubilityWater-soluble

Water-soluble or readily water-dispersible. This does not mean excess is always harmless.

How it is commonly taken

Verify the citrulline-to-malate ratio; products are not interchangeable.

Do not combine casually

Same vasodilator cautions as L-citrulline; GI upset is dose-related.

Dose and use source ↗

Dose and use links lead to primary or official source material. Search links are discovery tools, not proof that every returned paper applies.

02 / EVIDENCE

What the research says

We keep supportive, mixed, negative, safety, and contextual findings together. The headline never replaces the underlying papers.

1research papers in this ledger

30unique primary studies represented

644unique participants represented

These are audited counts for this JIVANA collection, not search-result totals. Participants are counted once when multiple papers use the same cohort; review papers are not added again to participant totals.

Open the research timelineResearch timeline

Entries are ordered by publication year. A study period appears only when the source reports it.

2026

Mixed or qualifiedPMID 42356270

Citrulline malate supplementation and exercise performance

A very small overall performance effect was detected, but prediction intervals were wide, perceived exertion did not improve, subgroup findings were not robust, and GRADE certainty was low to very low. Reliable dose, timing, and target population remain unestablished.

Published: 2026n=644 participants30 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: GRADE-assessed systematic review and three-level meta-analysis of 30 randomized trials
Population: 644 participants across exercise modalities and training levels
Intervention: Acute or chronic citrulline malate versus control
Outcome: Exercise performance and perceived exertion

Funding or conflict note: The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Open research record ↗

Unscreened discovery appendix—not evidence39 candidate publicationsSearch run: Aug 21, 2026

Complete for the displayed PubMed query at the search timestamp—not for all databases or every possible synonym. Candidates can be irrelevant, duplicate the same study, or report negative findings. They are never summed as evidence or participants until screened.

03 / SOURCES

Start with the source material

Official evidence overviewPubMed bounded human-evidence search Live PubMed discovery searchNational Library of Medicine

The live search is for discovery only. Search-result counts change and are not included in the audited totals above.

Recent PubMed discovery recordsDirect links to the first 12 records returned by the reproducible search. These are discovery candidates—not reviewed summaries or a count of supportive findings.

04 / EXPERT CONTEXT

Expert context—not evidence

Expert positions are dated context—not scientific evidence. They never raise the evidence status or become consensus by repetition.

No direct, source-verified endorsement is currently recorded. Research authorship or discussion alone is not treated as endorsement.