Creatine monohydrate supplementation during eight weeks of progressive resistance training increases strength in as little as two weeks without reducing markers of muscle damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Creatine supplementation (Cr) increases strength during resistance training, but the time course of this strength increase is unclear. The aim was to determine the precise time course by which Cr could increase strength and whether Cr prevents muscle damage during eight weeks of resistance training. METHODS: Young males were randomized (double blind) to Cr (N.=9, 0.07g/kg/d) and placebo (N.=9) during 8-weeks of resistance training (3 d/week). Strength was assessed across six exercises every two weeks. Venous blood samples obtained at baseline, and 24 and 48 hours after the final resistance training session were assessed for creatine kinase [CK] and lactate dehydrogenase [LDH] as measures of muscle damage. RESULTS: Strength was significantly higher in the Cr versus placebo group (P<0.05) after two weeks of training for three of the six exercises (bench press, leg press, shoulder press). By the end of the eight weeks of training, strength was significantly higher in the Cr versus placebo group (P<0.05) for four of the six exercises (bench press, leg press, shoulder press, and triceps extension, but not biceps curl or lat-pulldown). Creatine supplementation did not prevent muscle damage. Indeed, muscle damage markers increased in the Cr compared to placebo group (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cr increased muscular strength in as little as two weeks during a resistance training program; however, this was not accompanied by decreased muscle damage. Greater muscle damage with Cr may be due to a greater training intensity enabled by Cr supplementation. This might lead to greater protein turnover and enhanced muscle adaptation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".