Sports supplement creatine makes no difference to muscle gains, trial finds
174 comments
·April 2, 2025laszlojamf
Nifty3929
From the actual study:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/6/10812.3.4. Resistance Training Program
After the 7-day wash-in, both groups followed the same RT program that comprising 3 full-body sessions a week for 12 weeks (Supplementary Materials, Table S1). All sessions were supervised by tertiary qualified exercise physiologists and commenced with a standardised warm-up of dynamic flexibility exercises. Each session consisted of 5 exercises: 2 compound movements each for the upper and lower body, and 1 isolation movement for the upper body. Four sets were prescribed for all movements to ensure an adequate weekly training volume for hypertrophy [32]. Training intensities were 6 to 12 repetition maximums (RM) with 60 and 120 s of rest between sets and exercises, respectively. To adhere to the prescribed RM, an individual’s rating of perceived exertion (RPE) on a Likert scale of 1–10 was recorded. RPE corresponds to the number of repetitions an individual perceives they will be able to perform after the set is complete, where an RPE 5 equates to 5 reps more, RPE 6 is 4 reps more, RPE 7 is 3 reps more, and so on [33]. When a RPE of 8 or lower was recorded, the external load (kg) was adjusted on successive sets to ensure that subjects achieved the target RM. The RM method was used to ensure that training intensities were relative to the individual’s abilities while also standardising the training intensity across all participants [34].
I'm not quite sure this is clear enough for me, though it does somehow suggest that they were pushing the participants to do as much as they could. But like I say, unclear.
Small N as well - only a few dozen people.
laszlojamf
So they were asking beginner lifters to rate how many they would have left in the tank? I've been lifting for maybe half a year and I still find it pretty hard to estimate >.<
It's good that it's studied, but it does sound that they've "conclusively" proven something, and I'm not so sure. Small sample size too, like you said.
TomHenderson3
They are asking beginners in both the control and test arm, so it sounds like they have "proven" something (or at least given good evidence).
n4r9
> it does somehow suggest that they were pushing the participants to do as much as they could
I have the same impression. Possibly it could be made less subjective by literally repping to failure, but I'd guess that has potential ethical implications.
Frost1x
Repping to failure has potential ethical implications?
Reps to failure can be done pretty darn safely with machines and incredibly low risk of injury if done on the higher rep ranges (say 20 per set). You’re not going to get rid or risk of injury but in order to even do this study, my opinion is you have to be at a normal level of injury risk or the study is pretty much flawed by design.
leereeves
> When a RPE of 8 or lower was recorded, the external load (kg) was adjusted on successive sets to ensure that subjects achieved the target RM.
The wording is a little technical. They're saying that, if the subject thought they could do at least 2 more reps at the end of this set, they increased the weight on the next set. So if creatine does allow people to do more reps at a given weight, subjects on creatine should have lifted heavier weights. (To me, that doesn't seem like the right way to adjust for creatine, which is thought to provide extra energy, not the ability to lift heavier.)
RealityVoid
If you can lift more reps, you can go to the next weight level. It's basically linear progression with a self-reported knob. My experience is that everytime I use creatine and start training after not training for like 3 weeks, I put on about 3 kg in a very short time. The rate of progression is deff connected to the quality of my sleep and the amount of protein I consume I did not follow as closely how much creatine impacts, but I think if it does, it does marginally compared to the others.
Still, this cohort might suffer from the issue of lack of awareness about _how exertive_ the actual workout is. I feel this is also something you should learn.
xiande04
Exactly. As ATP is broken down to adenosine and phosphate to produce energy, creatine re-phosphorolates adenosine.
So it gives you more energy at molecular level. But as you said, you have to actually use that energy.
Frost1x
And not even just use that energy, use that in a way that promotes hypertrophy. There’s lots of ways that energy could be used that doesn’t ultimately get you any muscle growth.
For example, you could be using it in athletics, running, etc and it’s not inherently going to give you growth.
The effects have been known to be small. You get a little extra energy that might push you a little further in a set going to failure or with one or two reps in reserve. Maybe you slide in some lengthened partial that you go a bit more through the range of motion that you would have had energy to do otherwise.
And that happens again and again over the course of years and you get a tiny bit extra from it, probably. I’m not sure this study design disproves that at all.
ActivePattern
The study seems to have controlled for training intensity -- all exercises were done to repetition maximum.
aNapierkowski
yeah I took a look at the methodology here, it seemed like this should have been accounted for in the plan though maybe I'm missing something. That said this is just one study and will play into meta-analyses at some point which are more interesting
After the 7-day wash-in, both groups followed the same RT program that comprising 3 full-body sessions a week for 12 weeks (Supplementary Materials, Table S1). All sessions were supervised by tertiary qualified exercise physiologists and commenced with a standardised warm-up of dynamic flexibility exercises. Each session consisted of 5 exercises: 2 compound movements each for the upper and lower body, and 1 isolation movement for the upper body. Four sets were prescribed for all movements to ensure an adequate weekly training volume for hypertrophy [32]. Training intensities were 6 to 12 repetition maximums (RM) with 60 and 120 s of rest between sets and exercises, respectively. To adhere to the prescribed RM, an individual’s rating of perceived exertion (RPE) on a Likert scale of 1–10 was recorded. RPE corresponds to the number of repetitions an individual perceives they will be able to perform after the set is complete, where an RPE 5 equates to 5 reps more, RPE 6 is 4 reps more, RPE 7 is 3 reps more, and so on [33]. When a RPE of 8 or lower was recorded, the external load (kg) was adjusted on successive sets to ensure that subjects achieved the target RM. The RM method was used to ensure that training intensities were relative to the individual’s abilities while also standardising the training intensity across all participants [34].
beezle
A few things -
1/ on this RPE stuff, it sounds like they are trying to keep two reps in the tank which is fine but..when? the first set? The last set?
2/ perhaps I'm misreading the supplemental data but the error bars are pretty huge when it comes to changes in LBM, not sure how any conclusions can be drawn
3/ 12 weeks is a short program and it sounds like they chose people who were generally not in shape/beginners. Anyone who has lifted in their life can tell you initial gains are almost always mostly in strength, not mass.
4/ Their choice of lifts for this population also looks unusual.
I'm sure they have the data but I could not find any evaluation of relative strength gains between the two groups. Even if their hypothesis that the LBM gain is identical, strength gains may not be.
svnt
Their methodology does seem to potentially capture what is at question here, by use of perceived exertion to adjust weight for repetition maximums.
It is possible it doesn’t capture everything, because they don’t say anything here about setting the initial load, or adjusting the load up for low perceived exertion, only down for high perceived exertion.
seadan83
Not sure anything is captured. Need control for diet and measurements of existing creatine levels. It takes a few weeks to get creatine higher after supplementation. This is a small sample sized study that strikes me as dubious. Particularly compared to others that have done muscle biopsies. The pre-warm up routine is itself sus, that impacts lifting potentially more than creatine. Creatine also has a role in recovery, good luck measuring that..
daveguy
It seems like the protocol would detect either benefit, if present.
It makes sense that the body's adenosine re-phosphorylation is not rate limited by creatine at all (which the body produces naturally). In that case, having extra creatine lying around would just make your pee more expensive and give you a nice placebo effect from believing you can lift more. (And placebo effects are real effects, particularly for effort related tasks. Just not due to chemistry of the treatment.)
cratermoon
This is correct. There are two main biological activities involving creatine, a combination of amino acids: 1. it facilitates recycling of ADP back to ATP, obviously more ATP means more energy, meaning ability to do more reps 2. it acts as a pH buffer, countering the fatigue effects of lactic acid buildup.
So no, taking creatine without doing the work probably won't make a difference (except to your wallet), but use in conjunction with consistent and effective exercise, the effect is real.
One thing though: don't bother with the creatine loading phase, it's a marketing scheme to sell more product.
wqweto
> taking creatine without doing the work probably won't make a difference (except to your wallet)
Creatine is dirt cheap. Anything expensive is probably a scam.
maerF0x0
I would add 3. There's an aesthetic change too. (Obviously a preference/eye of the beholder thing).
ChatGPT: "This process, known as cell volumization, contributes to muscle size gains."
So there's also that reason to take it :)
DataDaoDe
Agreed. If memory serves, most studies have shown marginal effects ~ 5%, particularly for strength. The benefit of creatine it seems at least partially, is the marginal benefit of being able to squeeze out a few extra reps per week
kjkjadksj
Assuming your body doesn’t form a dependency to it somehow and becomes sluggish weening off of it.
iambateman
For what it’s worth, I didn’t know this and I suspect a lot of people don’t. Thanks for this!
parthdesai
Yeah, that's also the case when people scoff at pro bodybuilders due to steroids. Steroids don't magically give you the gains, you still have to put the work in. You just get rewarded more, and quicker at cost of other side effects.
maerF0x0
> Steroids don't magically give you the gains, you still have to put the work in.
That's not an entirely fair description of the situation actually.
Imagine the 4 groups from the cross product of WorksOut?(Yes/No) cross Steroids?(Y/N).
It's intuitive, obvious, and supported by the data that The WorksOut(Y) + Steroids(Y) Group reliably gains more muscle over time than other groups. And similarly that the WorksOut(N) + Steroids(N) group gains the least (including losses too!) .
The interesting groups are WorksOut without Steroids, vs Steroids without WorksOut.
The sad truth is those on steroids, though sedentary, gain more muscle than those who workout without steroids.
Here's the source of what I'm talking about from Jeff Nippard's Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD9p9tEP9RE around 4:05
And it's important we educate folks about who is likely on them and what's realistic naturally. Because many young people are innudated with drug enhanced bodies on social media and think that's possible without steroids (and their negative sideeffects). It's particularly troublesome in the case of sexual selection and competition, for example using the hetero normative pairings, when young women are attracted to the steroidal bodies and when young men are pressured to take damaging gear to compete with peers who are. (There's the equivalent analogues for other sexual pairings/preferences).
glaugh
My personal experience, having had low testosterone for much of my life and then now being on testosterone replacement therapy:
- It’s obvious to me that I (n=1) gained a ton of muscle and lost a ton of fat very quickly without having done dramatic changes in workouts at first
- It also made it waaaay easier to work out. I used to hate it bc I was exhausted all the time, and now I don’t really mind, and sometimes even enjoy it. In actual practice pulling these variables apart is hard
PSA: T levels have declined markedly over the past generation or two. But when one tests for low T, the goalposts move bc every time a new population is studied for setting benchmarks (generally every decade or two), the definition of clinically “low” is moved to the new 2.5%ile of that study, such that someone in the current 3rd %ile (considered A-okay by most doctors) would have been in maybe 2.4th %ile (considered red alert by most doctors) using the previous benchmarks (made up numbers but roughly right).
(This is a dumb approach, the binary magic of the 2.5%ile (2 standard deviations), and it frustrates me greatly bc i was denied care bc my first test was 2.4%ile and 2nd was 2.6%ile and thus i was told i was fine bc of the 2nd result and offered anti-depressants instead).
Fixing this is not about muscles, it’s about having energy to live life fully and not be cranky.
So if you’re constantly tired, consider testing for this. And use a functional doc, as in my experience from shepherding 5-10 other folks through this process, the standard doc knows little about this stuff and thinks that having a condition like this is binary
Sorry, a bit off-topic, but no change in my life has been more important besides kids, so I try to spread the word where even somewhat appropriate
gavinray
I think this takeaway is deeply flawed:
> "The sad truth is those on steroids, though sedentary, gain more muscle than those who workout without steroids."
These sorts of adapations are not linear and consistent, similar to the "noob gains" experienced in the first few months by novice lifters.
Anyone who has trained in a somewhat serious gym can tell you that there are many people taking steroids, often times in dosages manyfold what this study use, who have mediocre physiques.
rpsw
There was a paper[1] that showed taking a 600 mg of testosterone lead with no-exercise lead to more gains in strength and muscle size than a control group who did exercise and took a placebo. So some gains may just be "magic", but of course you won't look like Arnold.
rblatz
Studies show that sedentary men on steroids gain more muscle mass than active men that aren’t on steroids.
So you don’t always have to work for them, especially if you used a steroid like Tren which is 5x more anabolic than testosterone.
mistrial9
there is guy here who was a wrestler in college, and now 60+.. he eats more protein per day than most people, his muscles are dense, heavy and now painful. I mean back surgery and limited mobility.. He does two minutes of exercise, claims to "stretch" then eats more.. basically, his body is making a lot of muscle but he does not do much work, and it is degenerate at his age.
graeme
I don't know if you mean steroids specifically or also testosterone, but exogenous testosterone actually does raise muscle mass.
So it's fundamentally different from the creatine mechanism above.
For example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5989848/
Here's one on steroids with a no exercise group, they saw gains: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8637535/
kibwen
This too is oversimplification. For example, due to differences in testosterone levels, a woman would need to put in significantly more effort than a man in order to approach similar strength levels.
RamRodification
I regularly see people pointing out that this is a myth. That even with no work being put in, there are serious gains when using steroids. I have absolutely zero sources though (like you).
Tumlomu
[dead]
dgfitz
This has been known for ~15 years. I'm not sure what this study thought it was debunking.
ahoy
There is value in studying things that are "settled" science. You can reinforce or deepen the existing understanding, or uncover nuance that wasn't widely understood before.
Note that this link is not the study! The published paper makes much more specific claims.
dgfitz
Given the glaring reproducibility crisis in the scientific community, creatine seems the wrong focus at the moment.
ActivePattern
If you read the study, you can see that they controlled for training intensity. All exercises were done to repetition maximum.
TomHenderson3
Wait, are you saying that they didn't have the creatine arm of the study work as hard as the control arm? I'm really confused by this comment.
LostMyLogin
I've been lifting five to six days a week since 2012, with some de-loading periods between, and have had my nutrition and sleep locked in for the majority of that time. Anecdotal of course, but I will still sit here and say that creatine is the only supplement that has actually worked over all those years - in fact, it's the only one I currently take.
I recover so much better when on roughly 5mg of Creatine for an extended period of time versus when I am not taking any. I also very clearly notice added water weight. That recovery leads to better training sessions which in turn leads to increased muscle and strength.
The difference in water retention and recovery is measurable whether doing a PPL or something like Tactical Barbell blocks.. call me crazy.
EDIT: 5g not 5mg
world2vec
Totally agree with your personal experience.
I'm able to do a few more reps and recover a bit faster between sets and from one session to the next. That will definitely have a positive impact on muscle mass in the medium/long term.
lowqualityworld
I've had the exact same experience, it took a while for creatine to start truly having an effect but I could see the extra water retention in the mirror and feel it in the gym.
I think this study may have been too flawed to reach a strong conclusion.
> After the 7-day wash-in, both groups followed the same RT program that comprising 3 full-body sessions a week for 12 weeks...
> For all assessments, participants reported to the Exercise Physiology Research Lab (UNSW Sydney, Australia) at the same time of day between 8 h and 9 h following an 8-h fast which included refraining from all liquids except water...
So extra stamina isn't rewarded due to the same workout plan and conventional wisdom on insulin and its effect on muscle absorption of creatine is completely ignored due to the 8 hour fasting period.
This study seems to paint creatine as a magic muscle bullet where it seems to be common knowledge in the fitness community that it aids recovery and stamina. I have my doubts.
ActivePattern
Wouldn't the extra stamina have been rewarded, assuming creatine allowed you to perform extra repetitions? All exercises were done to repetition maximum.
lowqualityworld
You're right, I read that too quickly.
joncrocks
I've been lifting a similar period of time (although only 3 days a week, with some breaks during COVID etc.) and would concur. I have improved intra-workout endurance when taking creatine, i.e. I can do more reps/the last reps feel easier.
Anecdotally I do also notice a cognitive impact when taking it, e.g. I seem to have improved concentration. Or more that when I have stopped taking it I have decreased concentration. Anecdata 1 of 1.
dmbche
I know nothing about this, but in the article they mention that their trial was for 5g a day, but I see you mention 5mg - was that a typo? It's interesting either way - not meant as a jab.
WXLCKNO
Definitely a typo
LostMyLogin
Sorry, yes - typo! I take ~5g.
markdog12
Similar experience here. Started taking it around a month ago. The strength gains I've had in that short amount of time have been nothing short of shocking to me.
globular-toast
I've never really understood what people mean when they talk about recovery. Is this something you can feel? Or does it mean you couldn't lift the same weights the very next day or something? I lifted consistently for years, no supplements, 1RM around 65kg OHP, 115kg BP, 140kg squat, 200kg DL and apart from immediately after the gym I never felt like I needed to recover. Maybe my volume wasn't high enough? I was very much a 3x5 compound lifts then out kind of guy rather than spending hours in there doing 10 rep sets and accessories etc.
Kirby64
> I've never really understood what people mean when they talk about recovery. Is this something you can feel? Or does it mean you couldn't lift the same weights the very next day or something?
If you've never felt like your body was beat up for 1-2 days afterwards, then I'd suggest you've never pushed your exertion level high enough. You can certainly make good progress relatively far away from failure up to a certain point, but eventually that won't be good enough. I'd suggest your overall volume on the muscle you're hitting probably wasn't high enough. If you're just sticking to 3x5 with a simple progression, then that's pretty limiting.
jdhendrickson
Yes, if you were not experiencing a need for recovery, you were not providing enough stimulus. I was a powerlifter. there were times when I couldn't walk the next day. recovery is a major factor.
sollewitt
Generally it’s the time it takes for you to get back to physiological baseline.
If you do a lot of activity, the amount of exertion can be measured in EPOC - how much extra oxygen your body needs for the extra metabolism to support repair (this is when any gains happen, growth, endurance, efficiency). When that’s back to baseline your body has done repairing, you’ve “recovered”.
If you aren’t recovered, your body still hasn’t repaired the damage you’ve done to it in the previous round, and you probably won’t be able to repeat the effort, whichever discipline. You’re digging yourself deeper in a hole. If you keep doing this, that’s overtraining, and you can get worse.
If you never experienced this, congratulations, you were operating inside your body’s natural limits! You may have good genes, and having good sleep and nutrition is probably more important than supplements.
kjkjadksj
Recovery means you can’t walk up stairs after a leg day
tekla
I mean your 1RM for any of those lifts isn't particularly interesting if you're around a young man 180-220lbs or so.
You weren't loading enough. At my max weights (600lbs Deadlift, 400lbs Squat, 340 Bench) , I needed to take 2-3 days off minimum
globular-toast
~160lb, 30yo. I know it's nothing special on the world stage but it's irrelevant because everyone is on gear these days and I've never even taken creatine (got scared about hair loss, lol). I also used to rep out both dips and chinups with 60kg of weight attached which tended to attract attention. But no matter what I did I never felt like I needed to take days off. I remember the DOMS in the very early days of the gym, but that just stopped happening and never came back.
Maybe I wasn't pushing myself hard enough, but I also never got injured. How much more could I have realistically achieved by pushing harder? I don't think much. I got really put off trying so hard when I realised how many people were on gear.
ddorian43
But isn't it like 1kg more water retention? How did you notice it?
TomHenderson3
According to this paper, yes, the 1kg could very well just be water retention, or the increase in lean body mass during the loading period.
rd11235
I don’t understand the trend of individual studies making it to the top of HN, while metaanalyses are ignored, despite examining 10s or 100s of such individual studies in aggregate to reduce noise.
There are we-are-human reasons, but are there any logical reasons?
jmull
I wouldn't necessarily assume people's interest in science is limited to what meta analyses tell us.
A single study probably can't answer the high-level questions (like, "does creatine help build muscle?") but can nevertheless be pretty interesting to read and discuss. (Personally, I found this discussion interesting, and I don't care about the high-level question at all.)
damnitbuilds
Thank you for reminding people of this.
epistasis
If by "logical" you mean "practical" then the reason is that the study which cost a lot of money to do, the constituent studies that generate data, are more likely to get a press release, and that is how non-specialists learn about new studies. Logically, from the perspective of the university, being able to point out the result of spending a lot of money to contribute to human knowledge is important, so they publicize these expensive studies. The metaanalysis is cheap, and takes a few people's time for doing the analysis, no new expensive data involved.
null
kjkjadksj
Individual studies don’t exist in a vacuum. They can cite tens to hundreds of papers just like a meta analysis. The difference is in addition to the literature review they had to do anyway to develop their research question, they also contributed novel data to the field and tried to put it into context. Meta analysis don’t get published in big journals like Nature, novel data do.
NotGMan
Because if studies are trash the meta-result is also trash.
This is what is happening in all nutrition science, where most studies are trash.
That is why you can prove any hypothesis you want by picking (meta) studies in nutrition science.
Fredkin
It's like the CDO of science.
fuckyah
[dead]
reedf1
Participants were instructed to maintain their current
dietary habits and physical activity levels for the
duration of the study.
lawlessone
I've found it gives me a lot more mental energy too. Like I can think better with creatine.
jonwachob91
>>> more mental energy too
Is that the creatine, or the caffeine added to virtually ALL creatine supplements?
thatsnotmepls
https://www.amazon.ca/s?k=creatine&crid=BTIA1WJE0EL&sprefix=...
I pretty much don't see any creatine supplements with caffeine.
the__alchemist
I will context virtually all. I have never had this come up. I suppose it depends on what products you're looking at, but buying pure creatine is easy.
mrmuagi
Creatine does tend to get added to pre-workouts chocked full with caffeine, but stimulant free pre-workouts exist and you can always buy it in bulk seperately either in pill or powdered form.
the__alchemist
This sort of study is important, given how highly taken creatine is. I will highlight a part that I think may be especially relevant:
> “The people taking the creatine supplement saw changes before they even started exercising, which leads us to believe that it wasn’t actual real muscle growth, but potentially fluid retention,” Dr Hagstrom said.
I think this is well-known, right? People take creatine specifically because it increases water retention in muscles, making them look slightly bigger. I'm not sure if many people think it will help build muscles and strength directly in the way "TRT" does, but maybe I'm wrong!
My understanding of the conventional wisdom:
- Caffeine and other uppers work from a motivational perspective during workouts
- "TRT" provides massive gains, and nasty side effects
- Creatine makes your muscles look slightly bigger
- Nothing else worksRetric
It also helps with short term energy so maximum performance over a 30-90 second window increases, which fits many sports. It’s less useful for endurance athletes or 1 rep max.
“By taking a creatine supplement, such as creatine monohydrate, you can change the amount of phosphocreatine and creatine in your muscles. The extra creatine can help your muscles make more ATP faster as you use it to fuel your cells during high-intensity exercise.
One reason your body builds more lean muscle tissue when you take creatine is that your muscles will hold more water. The pressure from the water in your cells causes your muscles to swell. This water and swelling can also make cells grow.” https://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/creatine
On average it also improves cognitive function slightly etc, but like most supplements individual results vary. “especially as you get older. But studies have not shown a strong effect.”
notesinthefield
Curious to see support for the TRT statement - I myself have been on test cyp and anastrazole for the better part of two years with not one side effect. Been in and around steroid users in the strength sport realm for 15. The people with "nasty" side effects are almost always abusers that blast/cruise too often with no AI or PCT e.g dumbasses. Its been a life changing experience for me (going from low 200 ng/dl free T to 800-900 at 32)
gavinray
Do you really need Anastrazole at that dose?
General marker is x4-6 weekly dose for free test, so I'd wager you're taking somewhere between 150-200mg?
I found that contrary to popular advice, I felt much better without taking an aromatase inhibitor and letting my estradiol float at the higher end of the reference range.
There's some science backing the idea that Test/E2 are meant to exist in terms of a relative ratio to each other, rather than concrete numbers.
IE, if your free test is 1,000ng/dL, you'd want more E2 than if you were sitting at 300ng/dL.
notesinthefield
I only take the guidance of my doc as recommendations for AI's have always been all over the place and ive been with him forever - I started at 2x/2weeks and now its once every other week. On top of that my estrogen numbers have always been high so it makes sense. Its been an experiment - I did tank it once and uhh, the side effects were interesting
the__alchemist
I think I screwed up the adjectives there. Gains and side effects are ~ proportional to dose.
seadan83
Caffeine has impacts beyond motivation. It has been studied on the context of cyclists and boosts ability to ride. So does beet root.
Creatine has been studied to have other small effects too..
What too, the above have effects on muscle endurance, though for resistance training the effects may vary well be small. Further, this study took people that were not trained. 5lbs of muscle is a lot.. these folks might have gone from 50lbs to 55lbs, an extra 0.1lbs due to a supplement would be noise. I think this study needs muscle biopsies to measure creatine levels accurately to tease out those that are getting plenty from their diet vs not. Or.. try to have a large control group that gets zero creatine in their diet.
AFAIK creatine supplementation is something to think about after a year or two of training, for advanced intermediates.
Here are some sources with how caffeine and nitrates help at least endurance performance:
benmmurphy
I thought runners were also using creatine but I can only find discussion around this for amateurs online. I'm not sure if professional runners are using it. It would be interesting to know if professionals are using it because as far as I'm aware it is not a banned substance and presumably if it had a benefit they would be using it. But maybe I'm just bad at googling because I found this article that claimed 80% of athletes at the Atlanta Olympics were using creatine (https://runmrrun.com/creatine-for-running/). Though, this page seems to be trying to sell creatine supplements so maybe should be taken with a bit of skepticism.
LostMyLogin
Yes, it's well-known. It's also the reason people take it.
yza
Title is slightly misleading. Turns out, sex-disaggregated analysis showed that the supplement group, only in females, gained 0.59 ± 1.61 kg more lean body mass than the controls (p = 0.04)
Direct link to this study: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/6/1081
julianeon
That's an important clarification! So for half the population, creatine works.
TomHenderson3
So you know, they are misunderstanding the paper.
TomHenderson3
"There were no group differences in lean body mass growth following resistance training in females (p = 0.10) or males (p = 0.35)"
chank
Over the years through my own involvement in sports and physically demaning jobs with trying a lot of different supplementation, I've come to the conclusion that most (if not all) supplements provide little to no value beyond a good diet. If they do, they're either illigal as non-perscription and/or require regular physician monitoring use correctly.
iamacyborg
There are plenty of well researched performance enhancers which are legal, for example beta-alanine for middle distance runners.
chank
The meaningfull context here was "good diet". If middle distance runners ate for middle distance running would they need to take beta alanine? E.g. ate more organ meat which contains high levels of beta alanine.
iamacyborg
How much organ meat do you think would be needed daily to have an optimal dosage of beta alanine? What side effects are associated with eating large quantities of organs meats regularly?
Sometimes supplements are just the better option.
tekla
Every second thinking about what supplements you should take is probably better spent in the gym.
bn-l
I don’t want to be rude but your anecdote (and all anecdotes like this on anything to do with health) is uninteresting and useless.
Johanx64
Unironically, I trust anecdotes more than any random nutrition study.
The more I personally know the person, or the more connectedness I have, the more his anecdote is worth listening to.
This study is a collection of mere 54 random anecdotes (!), random people of the street.
Anecdote of a random min-maxing turbo nerd on hackernews >= 54 random people from the street.
bn-l
.
hnuser123456
I support their anecdote. Any "supplements" that have significant effects are highly regulated and somewhat risky. Worrying about things that will make a 1-2% difference isn't worth the time, just workout one more rep.
Johanx64
> Just one more rep
It don't work like that.
The amount you can work out (at intensity) is limited by your recovery time.
Thus you take that "supplement" and can do one more rep, or go to gym extra time a week, especially if it comes to "regulated and risky" supplements, then you can do many, many more reps.
chank
I don't want to be rude, but your off-topic anecdote about my uninteresting and useless anecdote is also... uninteresting and useless.
aoeusnth1
One more N=54 trial makes absolutely no difference to the mountain of evidence in favor of creatine. The news article should reference meta studies, not chasing headlines from the drip drip drip of meaningless small studies
TomHenderson3
It actually does if the other studies failed to control for the gains just during the loading period, which is what the study is claiming may be happening.
unionjack22
This adds nothing to the conversation but seeing the lively discussion here on hn about lifting, exercise, and studies is quite rewarding. Good to see technical folks passionate about their health and fitness.
sebastiennight
This reminds me of watching the original infomercials for P90X and Insanity and thinking that their testimonials seemed to include a disproportionate number of tech geeks... Maybe we're the real prime market for this after all
reverendsteveii
I'm just here to remind everyone that the results of a single trial can fall anywhere on the bell curve. Below I've linked a meta-analysis of 10 studies that shows evidence for "a very small effect favoring creatine supplementation when combined with RT[resistance training] compared to RT and a placebo".
skadamat
I've had the pleasure of working with a personal trainer who has a broad educational training background. She emphasized that creatine "kind of helped" but it was really only that last mile 5% benefit. And the effect would mostly be long-term (1-2 years of dedicated training). She just told me to focus on trying to get 1 gram of high quality protein daily for pound of body weight.
This study is just one study, but to me just highlights her same observation even more.
itsoktocry
>She just told me to focus on trying to get 1 gram of high quality protein daily for pound of body weight.
You hear this a lot, but it is incredibly difficult to eat eg 175g of protein every day. That's 4 chicken breasts, every day.
elbows
I don't think it's that difficult if you're training a lot and eating accordingly. For someone eating 3000 calories a day, that's less than 25% of calories from protein, which is pretty reasonable.
It's harder if you're not eating a lot overall, but still doable with some planning and the occasional protein shake.
DontchaKnowit
Its really not that hard. I mean sure it takes some planning and avoiding excess fat=carbs but lots of the following will get you there easily - - eggs - beans - yogurt - beef - chicken - some kinds of cheese
kjkjadksj
Thats basically how all my lifting friends eat. In college it was chicken breast and white rice and franks red hot sauce to make that otherwise unseasoned food palatable every dinner and lunch. Copious protein shakes. You can imagine the farts from my roommates during bulking…
markkat
Those error bars suggest this was underpowered, and it did find a significant increase in females:
https://www.mdpi.com/nutrients/nutrients-17-01081/article_de...
Poor interpretation of the study.
TomHenderson3
You are misinterpreting the study. They are interested in the change in lean body mass wash-in to post RT because that is the lean body mass that can be attributed to more than just the initial increase from simply taking creatine. The increase in females that you cite is including that initial increase, which is not interesting.
The way I understood it creatine by itself doesn't promote muscle gain all that much. It's the fact that you can potentially do one to three more reps which does. But that still means you have to do the reps. https://leangains.com/supplements-you-might-actually-find-us...