Aims: Examine and compare the effects of supplementing CrM with CHO, CrM with WP, WP alone or CHO alone during resistance training specifically in regards to strength, body composition, fibre specific hypertrophy, contractile protein content and Muscle creatine.

Bodybuilders aren’t necessarily representative of the general population (selection bias)
33 participants is too small to provide sufficient statistical power especially if splitting them up into 4 groups.
improvements in regards to strength/ hypertrophy tend to taper off especially if you’ve been training for a longer periods of time hence relatively newer bodybuilders may be much higher responders than those that have been training longer
subjects weren’t matched to age (older participants tend to be less responsive to training)
lack of control
diet should be tracked on a more day to day basis to ensure results are from supplementation alone
in order to minimize measurement bias, subjects were subjected to whole body scans which were given by the same operator, using the same apparatus, at the same time of the day and all at a fasted state (good)
They acknowledge that lack of subjects may be cause of type 2 error (inability to find difference in tested variables between CrCHO and CrWP)


no analysis with intention to treat with dropout data (3 people dropped out and 4 people didn’t return for final biopsies) not being included in the overall set of statistics
written dietary recalls before training, during 1st week of training and last week of training which shows no major differences among the group in terms of energy and macronutrient intake
all groups had increase in LBM after program but only CrCHO groups increase in LBM was statistically significant over CHO (5.5%)
in terms of 1RM all groups had an increase in strength for Barbell bench press, barbell squat and cable pulldown and whilst CrCHO, CrWP and WP demonstrated greater increases than strength, there...

Similar Essays