Effect of 12 months of creatine supplementation and whole-body resistance training on measures of bone, muscle and strength in older males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The combination of creatine supplementation and resistance training (10–12 weeks) has been shown to increase bone mineral content and reduce a urinary indicator of bone resorption in older males compared with placebo. However, the longer-term effects (12 months) of creatine and resistance training on bone mineral density and bone geometric properties in older males is unknown. Aim: To assess the effects of 12 months of creatine supplementation and supervised, whole-body resistance training on bone mineral density, bone geometric properties, muscle accretion, and strength in older males. Methods: Participants were randomized to supplement with creatine ( n = 18, 49–69 years, 0.1 g·kg -1 ·d -1 ) or placebo ( n = 20, 49–67 years, 0.1 g·kg -1 ·d -1 ) during 12 months of supervised, whole-body resistance training. Results: After 12 months of training, both groups experienced similar changes in bone mineral density and geometry, bone speed of sound, lean tissue and fat mass, muscle thickness, and muscle strength. There was a trend ( p = 0.061) for creatine to increase the section modulus of the narrow part of the femoral neck, an indicator of bone bending strength, compared with placebo. Adverse events did not differ between creatine and placebo. Conclusions: Twelve months of creatine supplementation and supervised, whole-body resistance training had no greater effect on measures of bone, muscle, or strength in older males compared with placebo.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".