The Effects of Creatine Supplementation on Upper- and Lower-Body Strength and Power: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Creatine supplementation is widely used to enhance exercise performance, mainly resistance training adaptations, yet its differential effects on upper- and lower-body strength and muscular power remain unclear across populations. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to quantify the effects of creatine supplementation in studies that included different exercise modalities or no exercise on upper- and lower-body muscular strength and power in adults. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted through 21 September 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of creatine supplementation on strength (bench/chest press, leg press, and handgrip) and power (upper and lower body). Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects modeling. Subgroup analyses examined the influence of age, sex, training status, dose, duration, and training frequency. Results: A total of 69 studies with 1937 participants were included for analysis. Creatine plus resistance training produced small but statistically significant improvements in bench and chest press strength [WMD = 1.43 kg, p = 0.002], squat strength [WMD = 5.64 kg, p = 0.001], vertical jump [WMD = 1.48 cm, p = 0.01], and Wingate peak power [WMD = 47.81 Watts, p = 0.004] when compared to the placebo. Additionally, creatine supplementation combined with exercise training revealed no significant differences in handgrip strength [WMD = 4.26 kg, p = 0.10] and leg press strength [WMD = 3.129 kg, p = 0.11], when compared with the placebo. Furthermore, subgroup analysis based on age revealed significant increases in bench and chest press [WMD = 1.81 kg, p = 0.002], leg press [WMD = 8.30 kg, p = 0.004], and squat strength [WMD = 6.46 kg, p = 0.001] for younger adults but not for older adults. Subgroup analyses by sex revealed significant increases in leg press strength [WMD = 9.79 kg, p = 0.001], squat strength [WMD = 6.43 kg, p = 0.001], vertical jump [WMD = 1.52 cm, p = 0.04], and Wingate peak power [WMD = 55.31 Watts, p = 0.001] in males, but this was not observed in females. Conclusions: This meta-analysis indicates that creatine supplementation, especially when combined with resistance training, significantly improves strength in key compound lifts such as the bench or chest press and squat, as well as muscular power, but effects are not uniform across all measures. Benefits were most consistent in younger adults and males, while older adults and females showed smaller or non-significant changes in several outcomes. No overall improvement was observed for handgrip strength or leg press strength, suggesting that the ergogenic effects may be more pronounced in certain multi-joint compound exercises like the squat and bench press. Although the leg press is also a multi-joint exercise, results for this measure were mixed in our analysis, which may reflect differences in study design, participant characteristics, or variability in testing protocols. The sensitivity of strength tests to detect changes appears to vary, with smaller or more isolated measures showing less responsiveness. More well-powered trials in underrepresented groups, particularly women and older adults, are needed to clarify population-specific responses.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,020 | 0,033 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».