Citrulline Malate Does Not Improve Muscle Recovery after Resistance Exercise in Untrained Young Adult Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of citrulline malate (CM) on muscle recovery from resistance exercise remains unknown. We aimed to determine if citrulline malate supplementation improves muscle recovery after a single session of high-intensity resistance exercise (RE) in untrained young adult men. Nine young adult men (24.0 ± 3.3 years) participated in a double-blind crossover study in which they received 6 g of CM and placebo (PL) on two occasions, separated by a seven-day washout period. Each occasion consisted of a single session of high-intensity RE (0 h) and three subsequent fatigue tests sessions (at 24, 48, and 72 h) to assess the time course of muscle recovery. During the tests sessions, we assessed the following variables: number of maximum repetitions, electromyographic signal (i.e., root mean square (RMS) and median frequency (MF)), muscle soreness and perceived exertion, as well as blood levels of creatine kinase (CK), lactate, insulin, and testosterone:cortisol ratio. CK levels increased at 24 h post-exercise and remained elevate at 48 and 72 h, with no difference between CM and PL conditions. Muscle soreness increased at 24 h post-exercise, which progressively returned to baseline at 72 h in both conditions. Lactate levels increased immediately post-exercise and remained elevated at 24, 48, and 72 h in both conditions. No significant treatment × time interaction was found for all dependents variables (maximum repetitions, perceived exertion, CK, lactate, RMS, MF, and testosterone:cortisol ratio) during the recovery period. In conclusion, our data indicate that CM supplementation (single 6 g dose pre-workout) does not improve the muscle recovery process following a high-intensity RE session in untrained young adult men.
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".