Effects of Creatine Supplementation during Resistance Training Sessions in Physically Active Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose was to examine the effects of creatine supplementation during resistance training sessions on skeletal muscle mass and exercise performance in physically active young adults. Twenty-two participants were randomized to supplement with creatine (CR: n = 13, 26 ± 4 yrs; 0.0055 g·kg−1 post training set) or placebo (PLA: n = 9, 26 ± 5 yrs; 0.0055 g·kg−1 post training set) during six weeks of resistance training (18 sets per training session; five days per week). Prior to and following training and supplementation, measurements were made for muscle thickness (elbow and knee flexors/extensors, ankle plantarflexors), power (vertical jump and medicine ball throw), strength (leg press and chest press one-repetition maximum (1-RM)) and muscular endurance (one set of repetitions to volitional fatigue using 50% baseline 1-RM for leg press and chest press). The creatine group experienced a significant increase (p < 0.05) in leg press, chest press and total body strength and leg press endurance with no significant changes in the PLA group. Both groups improved total body endurance over time (p < 0.05), with greater gains observed in the creatine group. In conclusion, creatine ingestion during resistance training sessions is a viable strategy for improving muscle strength and some indices of muscle endurance in physically active young adults.
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".