Guanidinoacetic acid with creatine compared with creatine alone for tissue creatine content, hyperhomocysteinemia, and exercise performance: A randomized, double-blind superiority trial
Semeredi S, Stajer V, Ostojic J, Vranes M, Ostojic SM
Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.) · 12 citas
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 independiente
- Gobierno
- Ministarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog Razvoja
- Universidad u hospital
- Center for Health, Exercise and Sport Sciences
- Gobierno
- Provincial Secretariat for Higher Education and Scientific Research
- Gobierno
- Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development
- Universidad u hospital
- Faculty of Sport and Physical Education
- Subvenciones
- Ministarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog Razvoja (175037)
Según 5 financiadores declarados.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2018-05-17 · Nutrition · vol. 57 · págs. 162–166
- Editorial
- Elsevier BV
- Citado
- 21 citas · más que el 65% de estudios similares · 0.7× el promedio de su campo
- Referencias
- 23 trabajos
- Acceso
- Acceso abierto (copia en repositorio) · CC-BY-NC-ND
- Áreas de investigación
- Muscle metabolism and nutrition · Biochemical effects in animals · Sports Performance and Training
- Palabras clave
- guanidinoacetic acid, creatine supplementation, hyperhomocysteinemia, exercise performance, bench press strength, weight gain, dietary supplementation, energy metabolism
- MeSH
- muscle, skeletal, brain, humans, hyperhomocysteinemia, weight gain, creatine, glycine, drug combinations, exercise, cross-over studies, double-blind method, energy metabolism, physical endurance, reference values, dietary supplements, adult, male, muscle strength, resistance training, young adult, biomarkers
5 autores
- Sasa Semeredi🇷🇸University of Novi Sad
- Valdemar Štajer🇷🇸University of Novi Sad
- Jelena Ostojić🇩🇰University of Southern Denmark
- Milan Vraneš🇷🇸University of Novi Sad
- Sergej M. Ostojić🇷🇸 · autor de correspondenciaUniversity of Novi Sad; University of Belgrade
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Purpose
Co-administration of creatine and guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) has been recently put forward as an advanced dietary strategy to optimize tissue bioenergetics. We hypothesized that creatine-GAA mixture would result in a more powerful rise in brain and skeletal muscle creatine, as compared to creatine supplementation alone.
Methods
A randomized, double-blinded, crossover superiority trial has been performed at the University of Novi Sad from December 2016 to November 2017. A total of 14 healthy young men were randomized to receive GAA-creatine mixture (1 grams of GAA and 3 grams of creatine per day) or equimolar creatine (4 grams per day) by oral administration for 4 weeks.
Results
Creatine-GAA mixture was superior to creatine alone to increase mean creatine levels in skeletal muscle (16.9 ± 20.2 vs. 2.0 ± 6.0%; P = 0.02) and grey matter (5.8 ± 5.3% vs. 1.5 ± 3.2%; P = 0.02), also for bench press performance (6.0% vs. 5.1%; P < 0.01). Compared with creatine administration alone, combined GAA and creatine resulted in less weight gain (1.6 ± 0.2 kg vs. 0.7 ± 0.2 kg; P < 0.01). No inter-group differences were observed in terms of cardiorespiratory endurance, serum biomarkers, or adverse events.
Conclusions
Creatine-GAA mixture appeared to be superior to creatine alone for up-swinging tissue creatine content and upper body strength, and tended toward a lower risk of weight gain in healthy active men. The formulation might be considered as a novel energy-boosting alternative to creatine alone in weight-sensitive setups.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.govNCT03350282.
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.