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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".