Six-Week Oral Guanidinoacetic Acid Administration Improves Muscular Performance in Healthy Volunteers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guanidinoacetic acid (GAA), a natural precursor of creatine, is a new promising dietary supplement, yet its performance-enhancing effect, if any, has yet to be established. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the effects of supplemental GAA on muscle strength, anaerobic performance, and aerobic performance in healthy men and women. METHOD: The study enrolled 48 young participants (age, 22.3 ± 1.5 years; height, 176.4 ± 10.0 cm; weight, 71.9 ± 14.3 kg), who received oral doses of GAA (1.2, 2.4, or 4.8 g/d) for 6 weeks in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed between treatment groups for handgrip strength among participants receiving 1.2 g of GAA per day and 2.4 g of GAA per day, as compared with placebo (P < 0.05). In addition, muscle endurance expressed as the change from baseline in repetitions performed in the bench press exercise was significantly greater in the 1.2 g/d dose of GAA (P = 0.01) and the 4.8 g/d dose (P = 0.01) compared with placebo. No dose-response differences were found between trials. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this preliminary study indicate that supplemental GAA ingested in young individuals can improve exercise performance, even at low doses (1.2 g/d).
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it