Effect of in-season creatine supplementation on body composition and performance in rugby union football players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rugby union football requires muscular strength and endurance, as well as aerobic endurance. Creatine supplementation may enhance muscular performance, but it is unclear if it would interfere with aerobic endurance during running because of increased body mass. The purpose of this study was to determine if creatine supplementation during 8 weeks of a season of rugby union football can increase muscular performance, without negatively affecting aerobic endurance. Rugby union football players were randomized to receive 0.1 g.kg(-1).d(-1) creatine monohydrate (n=9) or placebo (n=9) during 8 weeks of the rugby season. Players practiced twice per week for approximately 2 h per session and played one 80 min game per week. Before and after the 8 weeks, players were measured for body composition (air displacement plethysmography), muscular endurance (number of repetitions at 75% of one repetition maximum (1 RM) for bench press and leg press), and aerobic endurance (Leger shuttle-run test with 1 min stages of progressively increasing speed). There were time main effects for body mass (-0.7+/-0.4 kg; p=0.05), fat mass (-1.9+/-0.8 kg; p<0.05), and a trend for an increase in lean tissue mass (+1.2+/-0.5 kg; p=0.07), with no differences between groups. The group receiving creatine supplementation had a greater increase in the number of repetitions for combined bench press and leg press tests compared with the placebo group (+5.8+/-1.4 vs. +0.9+/-2.0 repetitions; p<0.05). There were no changes in either group for aerobic endurance. Creatine supplementation during a rugby union football season is effective for increasing muscular endurance, but has no effect on body composition or aerobic endurance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".