Incorrect calculation of power outputs masks the ergogenic capacity of creatine supplementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the effect of incorrect calculation of power output measurement on the ergogenic properties of creatine. Fifteen males performed repeated Wingate anaerobic tests, under baseline, placebo, and creatine conditions. Statistics showed significant differences (p < 0.05) following creatine-supplemented conditions compared with placebo conditions, whereas no significant differences existed between the baseline and placebo conditions. However, the performance enhancement effect of creatine became significant only when the corrected (for the inertia of the flywheel) method was employed for measuring peak and minimum power. Mean (+/- SD) values across all cycle sprints for placebo versus creatine were 1033 +/- 100 W versus 1130 +/- 95 W for peak power and 385 +/- 78 W versus 427 +/- 70 W for minimum power. No significant differences were shown using the uncorrected method for peak power (756 +/- 97 W versus 786 +/- 88 W) and minimum power 440 +/- 64 W pre versus 452 +/- 65 W post). In conclusion, the present study suggests that the potentiating effect of creatine might be underestimated if the inertial effects of the flywheel are not considered in power output determination.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".