Effects of Creatine Monohydrate Supplementation on Body Composition and Strength Indices in Experienced Resistance Trained Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine 10 weeks of creatine monohydrate (Cr) supplementation coupled with resistance training on body composition and strength in women trainees. Twenty-six subjects ingested Cr (n = 13) or a placebo (Pl) (n = 13) at a dose of 0.3 g.kg(-1) and 0.03 g.kg(-1) body mass for the initial 7 days and subsequent 9 weeks, respectively, while performing a resistance training program 4 days per week. Significant increases (p < 0.05) occurred in both groups for lean body mass and 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press and incline leg press. There was a significant main effect for training, but there was no significant difference in the total number of repetitions completed after 5 sets of multiple repetitions to exhaustion at 70% of 1RM for bench press and incline leg press for both groups or in the ability to perform a greater training volume (sets x repetitions x load) in the Cr vs. Pl groups over the 10 weeks. The results indicate that Cr supplementation combined with 10 weeks of concurrent resistance training may not improve strength or lean body mass greater than training only. These findings may be a result of nonresponders due to gender differences or a varying biological potential to uptake Cr within the 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 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) | 0.001 | 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".