MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Creatine-dextrose and protein-dextrose induce similar strength gains during training

2001· article· en· W2062871288 on OpenAlexaff
Mark A. Tarnopolsky, Gianni Parise, Nicholas J. Yardley, Craig S. Ballantyne, SONNY OLATUNJI, Stuart M. Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreatineInternal medicineMedicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Creatine supplementation during resistance exercise training has been reported to induce greater increases in fat-free mass (FFM), muscle fiber area, and strength when compared with a placebo. We have recently shown that timing of nutrient delivery in the postexercise period can have positive effects on whole body protein turnover (B. D. Roy et al., Med Sci Sports Exerc. 32(8):1412-1418, 2000). PURPOSE: We tested the hypothesis that a postexercise protein-carbohydrate supplement would result in similar increases in FFM, muscle fiber area, and strength as compared with creatine monohydrate (CM), during a supervised 2-month resistance exercise training program in untrained men. METHODS: Young healthy male subjects were randomized to receive either CM and glucose (N = 11; CM 10 g + glucose 75 g [CR-CHO] (CELL-Tech)) or protein and glucose (N = 8; casein 10 g + glucose 75 g [PRO+CHO]), using double-blinded allocation. Participants performed 8 wk of whole body split-routine straight set weight training, 1 h.d(-1), 6 d.wk(-1). Measurements, pre- and post-training were made of fat-free mass (FFM; DEXA), total body mass, muscle fiber area, isokinetic knee extension strength (45 and 240 degrees.s(-1)), and 1 repetition maximal (1RM) strength for 16 weight training exercises. RESULTS: Total body mass increased more for CR-CHO (+4.3 kg, 5.4%) as compared with PRO-CHO (+1.9 kg, 2.4%) (P < 0.05 for interaction) and FFM increased after training (P < 0.01) but was not significantly different between the groups (CR-CHO = +4.0 kg, 6.4%; PRO-CHO = +2.6 kg, 4.1%) (P = 0.11 for interaction). Muscle fiber area increased similarly after training for both groups (approximately 20%; P < 0.05). Training resulted in an increase in 1RM for each of the 16 activities (range = 14.2-39.9%) (P < 0.001), isokinetic knee extension torque (P < 0.01), with no treatment effects upon any of the variables. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that postexercise supplementation with PRO-CHO resulted in similar increases in strength after a resistance exercise training program as compared with CR-CHO. However, the greater gains in total mass for the CR-CHO group may have implications for sport-specific performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicMuscle metabolism and nutritionFrench-language works237,207