The effects of acute branched-chain amino acid supplementation on recovery from a single bout of hypertrophy exercise in resistance-trained athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of acute branched-chain amino acid (BCAA) supplementation on recovery from exercise-induced muscle damage among experienced resistance-trained athletes. In a double-blind matched-pairs design, 16 resistance-trained participants, routinely performing hypertrophy training, were randomly assigned to a BCAA (n = 8) or placebo (n = 8) group. The BCAAs were administered at a dosage of 0.087 g/kg body mass, with a 2:1:1 ratio of leucine, isoleucine, and valine. The participants performed 6 sets of 10 full-squats at 70% 1-repetition maximum to induce muscle damage. All participants were diet-controlled across the study. Creatine kinase, peak isometric knee-extensor force, perceived muscle soreness, and countermovement jump (CMJ) height were measured immediately before (baseline) and at 1 h, 24 h, and 48 h postexercise. There were large to very large time effects for all measurements between baseline and 24-48 h. Between-group comparisons, expressed as a percentage of baseline, revealed differences in isometric strength at 24-h (placebo ∼87% vs. BCAA ∼92%; moderate, likely), CMJ at 24 h (placebo ∼93% vs. BCAA ∼96%; small, likely), and muscle soreness at both 24 h (placebo ∼685% vs. BCAA ∼531%; small, likely) and 48 h (placebo ∼468% vs. BCAA ∼350%; small, likely). Acute supplementation of BCAAs (0.087 g/kg) increased the rate of recovery in isometric strength, CMJ height, and perceived muscle soreness compared with placebo after a hypertrophy-based training session among diet-controlled, resistance-trained athletes. These findings question the need for longer BCAA loading phases and highlight the importance of dietary control in studies of this type.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".