Leucine Supplementation Does Not Improve Muscle Recovery from Resistance Exercise in Young Adults: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Crossover Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International Journal of Exercise Science 14(2): 486-497, 2021. This study aimed to investigate the effects of free leucine supplementation on muscle recovery from resistance exercise (RE) in young adults. Fourteen untrained subjects (23.9 ± 3.6 years old) underwent RE sessions (leg press and hack squat: three sets of 8-12 reps at 70% 1RM) supplemented with leucine (LEU: two daily doses of 3g) or a placebo (PLA), separated by a seven-day washout period. Following each occasion, participants were evaluated in three subsequent days (24h, 48h, and 72h) for muscle recovery via a repetition-to-failure test. The following markers were assessed: repetition performance, perceived exertion, lactate, creatine kinase, muscle soreness (DOMS), testosterone, and cortisol. No significant difference was observed between LEU and PLA conditions (p > 0.05). Number of repetitions performed in the repetition-to-failure tests, perceived exertion, cortisol, and testosterone:cortisol ratio did not change over time (p > 0.05). Creatine kinase increased immediately after exercise, at 24h, and 48h, and was attenuated at 72h post-exercise, while testosterone, lactate, and DOMS increased at 24h post-exercise (p < 0.05) and remained elevated up to 72h. All outcomes were similar between LEU and PLA. Results indicate that a 6g daily dose of free leucine supplementation does not improve muscle recovery following lower-limb RE in untrained 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".