Effects of acute creatine monohydrate supplementation on leucine kinetics and mixed-muscle protein synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creatine monohydrate (CrM) supplementation during resistance exercise training results in a greater increase in strength and fat-free mass than placebo. Whether this is solely due to an increase in intracellular water or whether there may be alterations in protein turnover is not clear at this point. We examined the effects of CrM supplementation on indexes of protein metabolism in young healthy men (n = 13) and women (n = 14). Subjects were randomly allocated to CrM (20 g/day for 5 days followed by 5 g/day for 3-4 days) or placebo (glucose polymers) and tested before and after the supplementation period under rigorous dietary and exercise controls. Muscle phosphocreatine, creatine, and total creatine were measured before and after supplementation. A primed-continuous intravenous infusion of L-[1-(13)C]leucine and mass spectrometry were used to measure mixed-muscle protein fractional synthetic rate and indexes of whole body leucine metabolism (nonoxidative leucine disposal), leucine oxidation, and plasma leucine rate of appearance. CrM supplementation increased muscle total creatine (+13.1%, P < 0.05) with a trend toward an increase in phosphocreatine (+8.8%, P = 0.09). CrM supplementation did not increase muscle fractional synthetic rate but reduced leucine oxidation (-19.6%) and plasma leucine rate of appearance (-7.5%, P < 0.05) in men, but not in women. CrM did not increase total body mass or fat-free mass. We conclude that short-term CrM supplementation may have anticatabolic actions in some proteins (in men), but CrM does not increase whole body or mixed-muscle protein synthesis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".