Absolute and Relative Strength Performance Following Creatine Monohydrate Supplementation Combined With Periodized Resistance Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty-one men (20–26 years old) were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups: an acute creatine monohydrate (Cr) 5-day load and maintenance placebo (AL); an acute Cr 5-day load and 32-day maintenance dose (ALM), and a placebo group (PL). The AL and ALM groups received Cr dissolved in a flavored drink at a dosage of 0.3g·kg−1·d−1 for 5 days for the acute load and the ALM group ingested Cr at 0.03g·kg−1·d−1 for the maintenance phase. The PL group ingested the drink only. While supplementing, all groups participated in a periodized resistance training program performing the same relative load and volume of training regardless of their assigned experimental group. Bench press (BP) and incline leg press (ILP) absolute strength (1 repetition maximum [1RM]), total lifting volume (80% of 1RM to failure), and strength per mass ratio were assessed initially (T1), after a 5-day acute load (T2), and following the 32-day maintenance phase (T3). No differences were observed in 1RMs, total lifting volume, or strength per mass ratio between experimental groups over time except in the AL group, which showed a significant improvement in the total lifting volume for BP after the acute Cr load. All groups significantly improved 1RM, total lifting volume, and strength per mass ratio from T1 to T3, with no changes observed from T1 to T2 in BP and ILP. The findings suggest that Cr supplementation combined with resistance training when relative loads and volumes are the same as a placebo group does not result in a training advantage in absolute or relative strength performance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".