Gabrielle M. DelBiondo

1. Creatine supplementation is well documented for its host of performance benefits (i.e. strength, power, and lean mass) [1,2], and emerging health benefits including improved cognitive function a...

Introduction: Perimenopause is associated with adverse body composition and strength changes, yet resistance training and creatine monohydrate (CM) remain underrepresented in this population. This study examined the effect of six-weeks of high-intensity resistance training (HIRT) with or without CM on body composition, muscle size and quality, strength, volume, and sleep in perimenopause. Methods: Fifty-one perimenopausal women (Age: 46.2±4.6 years; Body Mass Index: 25.4±4.0 kg/m2) were randomized to CM, placebo (PL), or control (CON). CM and PL completed a 5-day loading (CM: 20g/day; non-caloric PL: 14.5g/day), followed by a maintenance phase (CM 4.5g/day; PL gummies) combined with six-weeks of HIRT; CON maintained normal activity. Lean soft-tissue (LST; kg) was assessed from dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Muscle characteristics were determined from peripheral quantitative computed-tomography [muscle area (MuA); cm2; muscle density (MuD); mg/cm3]; and ultrasound [muscle cross-sectional area (mCSA): cm2; echo intensity (EI): a.u.]. Sleep was determined from a wrist-worn wearable. Results: CM resulted in increased LST compared to PL (mean difference±standard error: 0.380±0.431 kg, p=0.999) and CON (1.052±0.474 kg, p=0.096). Muscle size increased in CM compared to CON (MuA: 6.11±2.19 cm2; mCSA: 3.222±1.051 cm2; p=0.011-0.023), but not PL. No main treatment effects were observed for MuD or EI. Both lower (CM: 139.6±34.1 lbs; PL: 126.2±31.5 lbs; p< 0.001) and upper body (CM: 9.0±3.4 lbs; p=0.031; PL: 8.1±3.0 lbs; p=0.032) strength increased compared to CON, with no volume differences. No training by treatment interactions were observed for sleep. Conclusion: HIRT improved muscle outcomes, with CM adding 0.38 kg to LST and 148.6 lbs to strength.

Context: After completing rehabilitation, patients face a high risk of subsequent injury following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. It is important to identify potential barriers to patient success including clinician knowledge. The purpose of this study was to assess clinician knowledge of research related to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction rehabilitation. Design: This was a survey study using snowball sampling. Methods: Survey development began with the creation of a construct map and contained varying levels of advanced concepts, level I indicating the most basic and level V the most complex. The survey was distributed to advertise to target population. A total of 60 participants (24 athletic trainers, 33 physical therapists, and 3 dual credentialed) completed the study. Results: Overall, participants displayed moderate to high levels of knowledge (79.7%–93.5% correct), apart from the implementation of motor learning principles. Conclusions: Clinician knowledge may not be the primary barrier to patient success, but the implementation of this knowledge should be explored in relation to patient outcomes. Future research should examine a larger cohort to examine differences between clinician types.