MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Safety Profile of Short‐Term Creatine Nitrate and Caffeine Co‐Ingested in Resistance Trained Participants

2022· article· en· W4225313297 on OpenAlexaff
Gina M. Mabrey, M Koozehchian, Andrew D. Newton, Alireza Naderi, Monoem Haddad, Scott C. Forbes

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaltodextrinCreatine kinaseHematocritCreatineHeart rateBlood pressureInternal medicineMedicineLactate dehydrogenaseEndocrinologyAspartate transaminasePlaceboChemistryAlkaline phosphataseBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Caffeine and creatine nitrate are two commonly used ergogenic aids purported to augment resistance and anaerobic performance; however, the safety profile of these supplements co‐ingested is unknown. The purpose was to examine the effects of caffeine and creatine nitrate alone and co‐ingested on several biochemical blood markers (creatine kinase, lactate dehydrogenase, cholesterol, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate transaminase, alkaline phosphatase, white blood cells, lymphocytes, red blood cells, hematocrit, and hemoglobin), resting heart rate and blood pressure, and self‐reported side effects. METHODS: In a double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled cross over study, 12 resistance‐trained participants (22±1 y; 180.0±9.5 cm; 85.9±15.1 kg) completed 4 conditions in random order: creatine nitrate (CN: 5 g/day + 0.675 g/day of maltodextrin), caffeine (CAF: 400 mg/day + 5 g/day of maltodextrin), CN+CAF (5 g/day of creatine nitrate + 400 mg/day of caffeine), and placebo (PL: 5.4 g/day of maltodextrin). Supplements were ingested for 7 days with a 7‐day washout period between conditions. Before and after supplementation, participants provided a blood sample collected from the antecubital vein and measured resting heart rate and blood pressure. A standardized side effect questionnaire was also completed following each condition. Data were analyzed using a two‐way (within‐within) analysis of variance (p≤0.05) with a Tukey’s post hoc when appropriate. For side effects, a chi‐squared non‐parametric test was used. RESULTS: There was no interaction or main effects for all blood parameters (p>0.05). Resting heart rate and blood pressure were also not different between conditions or over time (p>0.05). Lastly, there were no significant differences between conditions for any side effects on the side effect questionnaire (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Short‐term CAF, CN, and CAF+CN co‐ingestion appears safe for healthy young resistance‐trained participants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→