The Effect of Creatine Nitrate and Caffeine Individually or Combined on Exercise Performance and Cognitive Function: A Randomized, Crossover, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effect of creatine nitrate and caffeine alone and combined on exercise performance and cognitive function in resistance-trained athletes. In a double-blind, randomized crossover trial, twelve resistance-trained male athletes were supplemented with 7 days of creatine nitrate (5 g/day), caffeine (400 mg/day), and a combination of creatine nitrate and caffeine. The study involved twelve resistance-trained male athletes who initially provided a blood sample for comprehensive safety analysis, including tests for key enzymes and a lipid profile, and then performed standardized resistance exercises—bench and leg press at 70% 1RM—and a Wingate anaerobic power test. Cognitive function and cardiovascular responses were also examined forty-five minutes after supplementation. Creatine nitrate and caffeine that were co-ingested significantly enhanced cognitive function, as indicated by improved scores in the Stroop Word–Color Interference test (p = 0.04; effect size = 0.163). Co-ingestion was more effective than caffeine alone in enhancing cognitive performance. In contrast, no significant enhancements in exercise performance were observed. The co-ingestion of creatine nitrate and caffeine improved cognitive function, particularly in cognitive interference tasks, without altering short-term exercise performance. Furthermore, no adverse events were reported. Overall, the co-ingestion of creatine nitrate and caffeine appears to enhance cognition without any reported side effects for up to seven days.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".