Comparison of new forms of creatine in raising plasma creatine levels

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Previous research has shown that plasma creatine levels are influenced by extracellular concentrations of insulin and glucose as well as by the intracellular creatine concentration. However, the form of creatine administered does not appear to have any effect although specific data on this is lacking. This study examined whether the administration of three different forms of creatine had different effects on plasma creatine concentrations and pharmacokinetics.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Six healthy subjects (three female and three male subjects) participated in the study. Each subject was assigned to ingest a single dose of isomolar amounts of creatine (4.4 g) in the form of creatine monohydrate (CrM), tri-creatine citrate (CrC), or creatine pyruvate (CrPyr) using a balanced cross-over design. Plasma concentration curves, determined over eight hours after ingestion, were subject to pharmacokinetic analysis and primary derived data were analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Mean peak concentrations and area under the curve (AUC) were significantly higher with CrPyr (17 and 14%, respectively) in comparison to CrM and CrC. Mean peak concentration and AUC were not significantly different between CrM and CrC. Despite the higher peak concentration with CrPyr there was no difference between the estimated velocity constants of absorption (ka) or elimination (kel) between the three treatments. There was no effect of treatment with CrPyr on the plasma pyruvate concentration.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The findings suggest that different forms of creatine result in slightly altered kinetics of plasma creatine absorption following ingestion of isomolar (with respect to creatine) doses of CrM, CrC and CrPyr although differences in ka could not be detected due to the small number of blood samples taken during the absorption phase. Characteristically this resulted in higher plasma concentrations of creatine with CrPyr. Differences in bioavailability are thought to be unlikely since absorption of CrM is already close to 100%. The small differences in kinetics are unlikely to have any effect on muscle creatine elevation during periods of creatine loading.</p

How many crowdsourced workers should a requester hire?

Recent years have seen an increased interest in crowdsourcing as a way of obtaining information from a potentially large group of workers at a reduced cost. The crowdsourcing process, as we consider in this paper, is as follows: a requester hires a number of workers to work on a set of similar tasks. After completing the tasks, each worker reports back outputs. The requester then aggregates the reported outputs to obtain aggregate outputs. A crucial question that arises during this process is: how many crowd workers should a requester hire? In this paper, we investigate from an empirical perspective the optimal number of workers a requester should hire when crowdsourcing tasks, with a particular focus on the crowdsourcing platform Amazon Mechanical Turk. Specifically, we report the results of three studies involving different tasks and payment schemes. We find that both the expected error in the aggregate outputs as well as the risk of a poor combination of workers decrease as the number of workers increases. Surprisingly, we find that the optimal number of workers a requester should hire for each task is around 10 to 11, no matter the underlying task and payment scheme. To derive such a result, we employ a principled analysis based on bootstrapping and segmented linear regression. Besides the above result, we also find that overall top-performing workers are more consistent across multiple tasks than other workers. Our results thus contribute to a better understanding of, and provide new insights into, how to design more effective crowdsourcing processes

ISSN exercise & sport nutrition review: research & recommendations

Sports nutrition is a constantly evolving field with hundreds of research papers published annually. For this reason, keeping up to date with the literature is often difficult. This paper is a five year update of the sports nutrition review article published as the lead paper to launch the JISSN in 2004 and presents a well-referenced overview of the current state of the science related to how to optimize training and athletic performance through nutrition. More specifically, this paper provides an overview of: 1.) The definitional category of ergogenic aids and dietary supplements; 2.) How dietary supplements are legally regulated; 3.) How to evaluate the scientific merit of nutritional supplements; 4.) General nutritional strategies to optimize performance and enhance recovery; and, 5.) An overview of our current understanding of the ergogenic value of nutrition and dietary supplementation in regards to weight gain, weight loss, and performance enhancement. Our hope is that ISSN members and individuals interested in sports nutrition find this review useful in their daily practice and consultation with their clients