GENDER DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSE TO TWICE-A-WEEK CREATINE SUPPLEMENTATION DURING RESISTANCE TRAINING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the effects of twice-a-week creatine supplementation during resistance training on muscle mass and strength of males and females. METHODS: Eleven males (age:26.4 y; weight:83 kg) and 10 females (age:27.9y; weight:68.1 kg) with moderate resistance training experience (5.6y) were randomized (double blind) to receive either creatine (0.2g per kg body mass) or placebo (maltodextrine) twice per week. All subjects engaged in periodized resistance training (12 exercises, 3–4 sets of 4–10 repetitions) four times per week over 6 weeks. Muscle mass was measured by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry and strength was measured by bench press and leg press 1-repetition maximum before and after training. RESULTS: There was a group x gender interaction for relative change in muscle mass (p = 0.02). Males supplemented with creatine had greater increases in muscle mass (8.3%) than males on placebo (3.9%), females on creatine (2.9%) and females on placebo (2.4%) (all p < 0.01). There were no differences between the other groups. There was a trend for a group effect for relative change in bench press strength (p = 0.052), with subjects on creatine increasing by 33% and those on placebo increasing by 21%. Interestingly, there was a gender effect for relative change in bench press strength, with females demonstrating a greater increase (35%) than males (19%). There were no differences between groups for relative increase in leg press strength. CONCLUSION: Creatine supplementation enhanced the increase in muscle mass during resistance training for males, but not for females. Creatine supplementation tended to enhance the increase in bench press strength, regardless of gender. Creatine supplementation had no effect on leg press strength. Supported by Muscle Tech. Research and Development Inc.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".