↓ Skip to main content

Acute and chronic safety and efficacy of dose dependent creatine nitrate supplementation and exercise performance

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, April 2022
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
video
3 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
226 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Acute and chronic safety and efficacy of dose dependent creatine nitrate supplementation and exercise performance
Published in
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, April 2022
DOI 10.1186/s12970-016-0124-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elfego Galvan, Dillon K. Walker, Sunday Y. Simbo, Ryan Dalton, Kyle Levers, Abigail O’Connor, Chelsea Goodenough, Nicholas D. Barringer, Mike Greenwood, Christopher Rasmussen, Stephen B. Smith, Steven E. Riechman, James D. Fluckey, Peter S. Murano, Conrad P. Earnest, Richard B. Kreider

Abstract

Creatine monohydrate (CrM) and nitrate are popular supplements for improving exercise performance; yet have not been investigated in combination. We performed two studies to determine the safety and exercise performance-characteristics of creatine nitrate (CrN) supplementation. Study 1 participants (N = 13) ingested 1.5 g CrN (CrN-Low), 3 g CrN (CrN-High), 5 g CrM or a placebo in a randomized, crossover study (7d washout) to determine supplement safety (hepatorenal and muscle enzymes, heart rate, blood pressure and side effects) measured at time-0 (unsupplemented), 30-min, and then hourly for 5-h post-ingestion. Study 2 participants (N = 48) received the same CrN treatments vs. 3 g CrM in a randomized, double-blind, 28d trial inclusive of a 7-d interim testing period and loading sequence (4 servings/d). Day-7 and d-28 measured Tendo™ bench press performance, Wingate testing and a 6x6-s bicycle ergometer sprint. Data were analyzed using a GLM and results are reported as mean ± SD or mean change ± 95 % CI. In both studies we observed several significant, yet stochastic changes in blood markers that were not indicative of potential harm or consistent for any treatment group. Equally, all treatment groups reported a similar number of minimal side effects. In Study 2, there was a significant increase in plasma nitrates for both CrN groups by d-7, subsequently abating by d-28. Muscle creatine increased significantly by d-7 in the CrM and CrN-High groups, but then decreased by d-28 for CrN-High. By d-28, there were significant increases in bench press lifting volume (kg) for all groups (PLA, 126.6, 95 % CI 26.3, 226.8; CrM, 194.1, 95 % CI 89.0, 299.2; CrN-Low, 118.3, 95 % CI 26.1, 210.5; CrN-High, 267.2, 95 % CI 175.0, 359.4, kg). Only the CrN-High group was significantly greater than PLA (p < 0.05). Similar findings were observed for bench press peak power (PLA, 59.0, 95 % CI 4.5, 113.4; CrM, 68.6, 95 % CI 11.4, 125.8; CrN-Low, 40.9, 95 % CI -9.2, 91.0; CrN-High, 60.9, 95 % CI 10.8, 111.1, W) and average power. Creatine nitrate delivered at 3 g was well-tolerated, demonstrated similar performance benefits to 3 g CrM, in addition, within the confines of this study, there were no safety concerns.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 226 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 49 22%
Student > Master 36 16%
Student > Postgraduate 15 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 6%
Other 12 5%
Other 39 17%
Unknown 62 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 50 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 4%
Other 21 9%
Unknown 71 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 15 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,199,612
of 25,169,746 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
#277
of 941 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,544
of 436,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
#260
of 850 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,169,746 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 941 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 63.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 436,994 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 850 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 69% of its contemporaries.