Creatine supplementation and resistance training in vulnerable older women: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial
Gualano B, Macedo AR, Alves CR, Roschel H, Benatti FB, Takayama L, de Sá Pinto AL, Lima FR, Pereira RM
Experimental gerontology · 78 citas
Etiquetas de revisión
Financiación no declaradaDatos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Ensayo controlado aleatorizado (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación no declarada
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2014-02-13 · Exp Gerontol · vol. 53 · págs. 7–15
- Editorial
- Elsevier BV
- Citado
- 123 citas · más que el 95% de estudios similares · 4.5× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 49 trabajos
- Acceso
- De pago
- Áreas de investigación
- Muscle metabolism and nutrition · Nutrition and Health in Aging · Muscle Physiology and Disorders
- Palabras clave
- creatine supplementation, resistance training, older women, muscle strength, one-repetition maximum, appendicular lean mass, bone mass, bone turnover markers, fat mass, physical function, sarcopenia
- MeSH
- muscle, skeletal, humans, bone diseases, metabolic, creatine, absorptiometry, photon, anthropometry, combined modality therapy, double-blind method, patient compliance, motor activity, body composition, eating, bone density, dietary supplements, aged, middle aged, female, muscle strength, resistance training, sarcopenia, biomarkers
9 autores
- Bruno Gualano🇧🇷Universidade de São Paulo
- André Régis Macedo🇧🇷Universidade de São Paulo
- Christiano R. R. Alves🇧🇷Universidade de São Paulo
- Hamilton Roschel🇧🇷Universidade de São Paulo
- Fabiana Braga Benatti🇧🇷Universidade de São Paulo
- Liliam Takayama🇧🇷Universidade de São Paulo
- Ana Lúcia de Sá Pinto🇧🇷Universidade de São Paulo
- Fernanda Rodrigues Lima🇧🇷Universidade de São Paulo
- Rosa Maria Rodrigues Pereira🇧🇷 · autor de correspondenciaUniversidade de São Paulo
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
This study aimed to examine the efficacy of creatine supplementation, associated or not with resistance training, in vulnerable older women. A 24-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was performed. Sixty subjects were assigned to compose the following groups: placebo (PL), creatine supplementation (CR), placebo with resistance training (PL+RT), and creatine supplementation with resistance training (CR+RT). The subjects were assessed at baseline and after 24weeks. The primary outcome was muscle strength, as assessed by one-repetition maximum (1-RM) tests. Secondary outcomes included appendicular lean mass, bone mass, biochemical bone markers, and physical function tests. The changes in 1-RM leg press were significantly greater in the CR+RT group (+19.9%) than in the PL (+2.4%) and the CR groups (+3.7%), but not than in the PL+RT group (+15%) (p=0.002, p=0.002, and p=0.357, respectively). The CR+RT group showed superior gains in 1-RM bench press (+10%) when compared with all the other groups (p≤0.05). The CR+RT group (+1.31%) showed greater appendicular lean mass accrual than the PL (-1.2%), the CR (+0.3%), and the PL+RT groups (-0.2%) (p≤0.05). The CR and the PL+RT groups experienced comparable gains in appendicular lean mass (p=0.62), but superior to those seen in the PL group. Changes in fat mass, bone mass and serum bone markers did not significantly differ between the groups (p>0.05). In conclusion, creatine supplementation combined with resistance training improved appendicular lean mass and muscle function, but not bone mass, in older vulnerable women. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01472393.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial.
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.