↓ Skip to main content

Creatine Loading Does Not Preserve Muscle Mass or Strength During Leg Immobilization in Healthy, Young Males: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
72 X users
facebook
9 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
252 Mendeley
Title
Creatine Loading Does Not Preserve Muscle Mass or Strength During Leg Immobilization in Healthy, Young Males: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Published in
Sports Medicine, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40279-016-0670-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evelien M. P. Backx, Roland Hangelbroek, Tim Snijders, Marie-Louise Verscheijden, Lex B. Verdijk, Lisette C. P. G. M. de Groot, Luc J. C. van Loon

Abstract

A short period of leg immobilization leads to rapid loss of muscle mass and strength. Creatine supplementation has been shown to increase lean body mass in active individuals and can be used to augment gains in muscle mass and strength during prolonged resistance-type exercise training. Our objective was to investigate whether creatine loading can attenuate the loss of muscle mass and strength during short-term leg immobilization. Healthy young men (n = 30; aged 23 ± 1 years; body mass index [BMI] 23.3 ± 0.5 kg/m(-2)) were randomly assigned to either a creatine or a placebo group. Subjects received placebo or creatine supplements (20 g/d) for 5 days before one leg was immobilized by means of a full-leg cast for 7 days. Muscle biopsies were taken before creatine loading, prior to and immediately after leg immobilization, and after 7 days of subsequent recovery. Quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA) (computed tomography [CT] scan) and leg muscle strength (one-repetition maximum [1-RM] knee extension) were assessed before and immediately after immobilization and after 1 week of recovery. Data were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data are presented consistently as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). There was a significant overall increase in muscle total creatine content following the 5-day loading phase (p = 0.049), which appeared driven by an increase in the creatine group (from 90 ± 9 to 107 ± 4 mmol/kg(-1) dry muscle) with no apparent change in the placebo group (from 88 ± 4 to 90 ± 3 mmol/kg(-1); p = 0.066 for time × treatment interaction). Quadriceps muscle CSA had declined by 465 ± 59 and 425 ± 69 mm(2) (p < 0.01) in the creatine and placebo group, respectively, with no differences between groups (p = 0.76). Leg muscle strength decreased from 56 ± 4 to 53 ± 4 kg in the creatine and from 59 ± 3 to 53 ± 3 kg in the placebo group, with no differences between groups (p = 0.20). Muscle fiber size did not change significantly over time in either group (p > 0.05). When non-responders to creatine loading were excluded (n = 6), responders (n = 8; total creatine content increasing from 70 to 106 mmol/kg(-1)) showed similar findings, with no signs of preservation of muscle mass or strength during immobilization. During the subsequent recovery phase, no differences in muscle mass or strength were found between the two groups (p > 0.05). Creatine supplementation prior to and during leg immobilization does not prevent or attenuate the loss of muscle mass or strength during short-term muscle disuse. NIH Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT01894737 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ ).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 72 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 252 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 251 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 45 18%
Student > Master 29 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 11%
Researcher 14 6%
Student > Postgraduate 14 6%
Other 50 20%
Unknown 72 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 50 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 14%
Unspecified 14 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 4%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 77 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2020.
All research outputs
#884,645
of 24,744,050 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#800
of 2,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,203
of 431,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#21
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,744,050 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 54.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 431,052 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.