Effects of Creatine Nitrate and Caffeine Alone and Co‐ingested on Anaerobic and Muscular Endurance Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ingestion of creatine nitrate and caffeine individually improve anaerobic and muscular endurance performance; however, co‐ingestion of creatine nitrate and caffeine remains unclear. 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, muscular endurance (bench press and leg press; 3 sets at 70% 1RM) and a Wingate anaerobic test were performed. Peak power (PP), mean power (MP), and fatigue index (FI) were calculated. Data were analyzed using a two‐way (within‐within) analysis of variance (p≤0.05) with a Tukey’s post hoc when appropriate. Absolute change (post minus pre‐testing) was calculated and analyzed with a repeated‐measures ANOVA. RESULTS There was a significant main effect of time for both leg press (p=0.009) and bench press (p<0.001) with post‐testing greater than pre‐testing; however, there were no differences between conditions. For peak power, there was no significant interaction (p=0.436), the main effect of time (p=0.967), or differences between conditions for absolute change (p=0.436). For mean power, there was a significant interaction (p=0.037); however, post hoc analysis revealed no significant pairwise effects; however, absolute change for mean power between conditions was significant (p=0.037), with post hoc analysis revealing a trend (p<0.10) for both CN conditions (CN alone and CN+CAF) to be superior compared to CAF. There were no significant differences between conditions or overtime for fatigue index. CONCLUSION Short‐term CN and CAF ingested either individually, or co‐ingested could not augment upper or lower body muscular endurance or anaerobic performance compared to PL in 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".