Creatine Nitrate and Caffeine Alone and Co‐ingested on Cognition, Readiness to Perform, and Sleep Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Caffeine and creatine nitrate are two purported supplements that may alter cognitive function. The primary purpose was to examine the impacts of each supplement ingested individually and co‐ingested on cognitive performance. A secondary purpose was to explore the effects of caffeine and creatine nitrate alone and co‐ingested on subjective feelings of readiness and sleep quality. 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 completed a Stroop color‐word test, in addition to a readiness to perform a visual analog scale and a sleep quality questionnaire (sleep latency and duration). The readiness to perform the questionnaire assessed sleep, vigor, optimism, energy, appetite, and soreness. Data were analyzed using a two‐way (within‐within) analysis of variance (p≤0.05) with a Tukey’s post hoc when appropriate. RESULTS: There was a significant interaction for the Stroop color‐word interference (p=0.049), with the post hoc revealing that CN+CAF was superior to CN alone (CN+CAF: 65.9 ± 17.3; CN: 56.8 ± 10.8, p=0.007); however, no other conditions were significantly different. There was no interaction or main effects for the readiness to perform questionnaire or sleep quality (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: CAF+CN appears to be superior for cognitive performance compared to CN alone. Overall, neither supplement ingested individually or together altered subjective readiness to perform or sleep quality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".