Nutritional Supplementation and Resistance Exercise: What Is the Evidence for Enhanced Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many athletes and recreational weightlifters believe that dietary manipulations' either following a single bout of resistance exercise or during habitual training may augment the normal gains in muscle fibre hypertrophy. Very few studies, however, have directly examined the effect of nutritional supplementation on muscle protein metabolism after resistance exercise. Ingestion of an amino acid and/or carbohydrate solution during the initial hours following a single bout of resistance exercise promotes an acute increase in protein net balance compared to the fasted state. The precise mechanism involved has not been elucidated but seems related to an increased availability of intracellular amino acids and/or an increase in plasma insulin concentration. As a practical recommendation, therefore, postexercise feeding appears to be very important. Recent evidence suggests that creatine supplementation in conjunction with resistance training may elicit larger increases in muscle fiber cross-sectional area compared to training alone. This intervention may be most beneficial in persons with "compromised" skeletal muscle.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".