Timing of creatine supplementation does not influence gains in unilateral muscle hypertrophy or strength from resistance training in young adults: a within-subject design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Creatine supplementation, in close proximity to resistance training sessions, may be an important strategy to augment muscle accretion and strength. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of creatine supplementation immediately before compared to immediately after unilateral resistance training on hypertrophy and strength. METHODS: Using a counter-balanced, double-blind, repeated measures within-subject design, ten recreationally active participants (7 males; 3 females; age: 23±5 years; height: 174±9 cm; body mass: 73.5±9.7 kg) were randomized to supplement with creatine monohydrate (0.1 g/kg of body mass) immediately before and placebo immediately after training one side of the body and placebo immediately before and creatine immediately after training the other side of the body on alternate days. Resistance training consisted of elbow flexion and knee extension (3-6 sets at 80% 1-repetition maximum [1-RM]) for 8 weeks. Prior to and following training, muscle thickness (elbow flexors and leg extensors; ultrasonography) and strength (1-RM for the elbow flexors and knee extensors) was assessed. RESULTS: There was a significant increase over time for muscle thickness, strength, and relative strength (P<0.01), with no differences between creatine ingestion strategies. Total training volume performed was similar between conditions (P=0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Creatine supplementation, immediately before or immediately after unilateral resistance training, produces similar gains in muscle hypertrophy and strength in 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".