Effects of phosphatidic acid supplementation on muscle thickness and strength in resistance-trained men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of phosphatidic acid (PA) supplementation on muscle thickness and strength following an 8 week supervised resistance-training program. Fifteen resistance trained men (22.8 ± 3.5 years; 80.6 ± 8.7 kg; 178.1 ± 5.6 cm; 14.6% ± 8.8% body fat) were randomly assigned to a group that either consumed 750 mg of PA or a placebo (PL). Testing was carried out before (PRE) and after (POST) training/supplementation for muscle thickness and strength. Muscle thickness of the rectus femoris (RF), vastus lateralis (VL), biceps brachii (BB), and triceps brachii (TB) muscles were measured via ultrasonography, along with 1 repetition maximum (1RM) of squat, deadlift, and bench press. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using PRE values as the covariate, did not reveal any group differences for measures of muscle thickness in the RF (PA: 3.6% ± 5.2%; PL: 3.2% ± 4.2%, p = 0.97), VL (PA: 23.4% ± 18.1%, PL: 12.5% ± 15.4%, p = 0.37), BB (PA: 3.7% ± 6.4%, PL: 9.6% ± 12.4%, p = 0.86), or TB (PA: 15.1% ± 17.9%, PL: 10.7% ± 19.3%, p = 0.79). Likewise, no group differences were observed in changes in squat (PA: 8.4% ± 4.1%, PL: 8.1% ± 4.2%, p = 0.79), deadlift (PA: 10.1% ± 10.1%, PL: 8.9% ± 9.5%, p = 0.66), or bench press (PA: 5.7% ± 5.5%, PL: 5.1% ± 3.0%, p = 0.76) exercises. Collectively, however, all participants experienced significant (p < 0.05) improvements in each measure of muscle thickness and strength. Results of this study suggest that PA supplementation, in combination with a 3 days·week−1 resistance-training program for 8 weeks, did not have a differential effect compared with PL on changes in muscle thickness or 1RM strength.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".