Effect of creatine supplementation during resistance training on lean tissue mass and muscular strength in older adults: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Philip D Chilibeck,1 Mojtaba Kaviani,2 Darren G Candow,3 Gordon A Zello4 1College of Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, 2School of Nutrition and Dietetics, Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, 3Faculty of Kinesiology and Health Studies, University of Regina, Regina, 4College of Pharmacy and Nutrition, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada Abstract: The loss of muscle mass and strength with aging results in significant functional impairment. Creatine supplementation has been used in combination with resistance training as a strategy for increasing lean tissue mass and muscle strength in older adults, but results across studies are equivocal. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of creatine supplementation during resistance training in older adults with lean tissue mass, chest press strength, and leg press strength as outcomes by searching PubMed and SPORTDiscus databases. Twenty-two studies were included in our meta-analysis with 721 participants (both men and women; with a mean age of 57–70 years across studies) randomized to creatine supplementation or placebo during resistance training 2–3 days/week for 7–52 weeks. Creatine supplementation resulted in greater increases in lean tissue mass (mean difference =1.37 kg [95% CI =0.97–1.76]; p<0.00001), chest press strength (standardized mean difference [SMD] =0.35 [0.16–0.53]; p=0.0002), and leg press strength (SMD =0.24 [0.05–0.43]; p=0.01). A number of mechanisms exist by which creatine may increase lean tissue mass and muscular strength. These are included in a narrative review in the discussion section of this article. In summary, creatine supplementation increases lean tissue mass and upper and lower body muscular strength during resistance training of older adults, but potential mechanisms by which creatine exerts these positive effects have yet to be evaluated extensively. Keywords: muscle, age, sarcopenia, exercise, nutrition, bench press, leg press
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 teacher head, 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".