Effects of Creatine Supplementation on Lower-Limb Muscle Endurance Following an Acute Bout of Aerobic Exercise in Young Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to determine whether creatine supplementation influences lower-limb muscle endurance following an acute bout of aerobic exercise (AE) in young healthy men. Using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design, 11 men (26.5 ± 6.2 years, body mass index 26.6 ± 2.1 kg/m2),with 12 months of experience in strength training (three times/week) and AE (two times/week) were randomized to receive creatine (20 g/day plus 20 g/day maltodextrin) and placebo (40 g/day maltodextrin) for 7 days, separated by a washout period of 14 days, before performing an acute bout of AE (30 min on treadmill at 80% baseline maximum velocity) which was followed by four sets of bilateral leg extension endurance exercise using a 10-repetition maximum protocol (10 RM)). There was a significant decrease in the number of repetitions performed in the third (Placebo: −20% vs. Creatine: −22%) and fourth set (Placebo: −22% vs. Creatine: −28%) compared with the first set (p < 0.05), with no differences between creatine and placebo. Additionally, no differences were observed between creatine and placebo for the total number of repetitions performed across all four sets (Placebo: 33.9 ± 7.0 vs. Creatine: 34.0 ± 6.9 repetitions, p = 0.97), nor for total work volume (Placebo: 3030.5 ± 1068.2 vs. Creatine: 3039.8 ± 1087.7 kg, p = 0.98). Short-term creatine supplementation has no effect on lower-limb muscle endurance following an acute bout of aerobic exercise in trained young 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 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".