Effect Of 16 Weeks Of Creatine Supplementation And Different Methods Of Strength Training On Muscle Thickness Of Frail Older Alduts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of different contraction types (eccentric/concentric) on muscle development and the potential benefits of eccentric training, combined with creatine supplementation, in enhancing hypertrophy in older adults is understudied. PURPOSE: We investigated the impact of a 16-week creatine supplementation regimen, combined with either eccentric or concentric training, on the thickness of the biceps brachialis (BB) and rectus femoris (RF) muscles. METHODS: A 16-week strength training program focused on concentric or eccentric contractions, implemented in a cohort of 50 older adults. The participants were categorized into five groups: Eccentric Training (ECC) N = 10, Concentric Training (CON) N = 10, Eccentric Training + Creatine (ECC + Cr) N = 10, Concentric Training + Creatine (CON+Cr) N = 10, and a Non-Exercising (NE) control group N = 10. Throughout the study, participants received a daily dose of 5 g of creatine. Muscle thickness measurements for the BB and RF were obtained using ultrasound technology before and after 16 weeks of training. RESULTS: BB muscle thickness increased due to training in all groups. Significant differences were seen within groups ECC + Cr vs. NE (2.94 vs 2.28 with p = 0.01) and CON+Cr vs. NE (2.88 vs 2.28, p = 0.03). RF thickness increased as a result of training in all groups. A significant difference between conditions was seen for ECC + Cr versus other groups post-training (2.43 to 3.01, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the impact of eccentric training with creatine supplementation on muscle thickness in older adults. While BB muscle thickness showed small changes in training groups versus controls, notable improvements were evident in those undergoing eccentric training with creatine. RF thickness increased to a similar extent across groups, except for a marked increase in the ECC + Cr group. These results emphasize the potential effectiveness of this combination in enhancing targeted muscle thickness, suggesting tailored training approaches for muscular development of frail older adults. CAPES, Grant No. 88882.181208/2018-01
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".