{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04073789392774789, 'fraction_numerical': 0.035357417371252885, 'mean_word_length': 4.73568281938326, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Incorrect calculation of power outputs masks the ergogenic capacity of creatine supplementation.

This study assessed the effect of incorrect calculation of power output measurement on the ergogenic properties of creatine. Fifteen males performed repeated Wingate anaerobic tests, under baseline, placebo, and creatine conditions. Statistics showed significant differences (p < 0.05) following creatine-supplemented conditions compared with placebo conditions, whereas no significant differences existed between the baseline and placebo conditions. However, the performance enhancement effect of creatine became significant only when the corrected (for the inertia of the flywheel) method was employed for measuring peak and minimum power. Mean (+/- SD) values across all cycle sprints for placebo versus creatine were 1033 +/- 100 W versus 1130 +/- 95 W for peak power and 385 +/- 78 W versus 427 +/- 70 W for minimum power. No significant differences were shown using the uncorrected method for peak power (756 +/- 97 W versus 786 +/- 88 W) and minimum power 440 +/- 64 W pre versus 452 +/- 65 W post). In conclusion, the present study suggests that the potentiating effect of creatine might be underestimated if the inertial effects of the flywheel are not considered in power output determination.