is not the right way to interpret the null result (insufficient evidence to reject null hypothesis that it has no effect) because the prior for supplements that people are trying to sell you is so low. In the absence of clear, strong evidence, you should assume the the whole thing is just an example of motivated reasoning. People want nootropics to be real, and other people really want to sell you readily available powders by claiming they have nootropic properties. In that environment, they were always going to trying to concoct a similar narrative about some supplement, and it just happened to be creatine. Those efforts were always going to result in a handful of "positive" studies that turn out to be non-reproducible, maybe because of p-hacking, maybe because of publication bias, maybe because of outright fraud. This is what the literature always looks like for stuff that just doesn't work. If it did work - if the effect size was large enough that you could personally detect it in your own life - then the papers would be trying to put error bars around the effect size, not trying (and failing) to barely distinguish it from a placebo.
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” - Ernest Rutherford
People have no idea how successful big pharma’s info campaign has been since what I’m increasingly calling the real Web 3.0 (post-influencer social media and arrival of big corporate narratives).
According to Reddit, Epsom salt has no effect (doesn’t absorb) - you’re wasting your time by using it. They’ll cite all sorts of real, funded studies that agree and yet always the comment section is filled with anecdotal evidence of the contrary - to which a typical response is “hot water in general is soothing” (ignoring efficacy of magnesium sulfate in ice baths).
I digress - creatine is a similar situation. All this confusion at best. It’s also not unlike the health effects of cannabis just prior to going effectively legal - it either causes or cures cancer, or something? We need more research! That’s the real problem!
Any time you see this sort of narrative it’s corporate politics and influence at play.
By virtue of how hard it is to get any information on creatine, it probably threatens some market or vertical at least (whether or not it “works”). Like A. muscaria mushroom or sassafras, you’ll have to do your own research to really know.
if there's a strong measurable effect to any of these supplements, why can't it be studied? there are companies on both sides, so someone who sells creatine could fund one if they like.
There is an incredible amount of evidence for creatine being beneficial for making you stronger/muscle growth. Which is probably the primary reason it's sold. So it's not as if it's not studied or there are no known effects of supplements.
> Magnesium? Its widely known that magnesium is used by the body lol
Who disputed this?
> What they “doubt” is that it can be absorbed through the skin
The science is helpful. Magnesium sulfate is absorbed less effectively than magnesium chloride. Of course, you're not eating the amount of Epsom salts one dumps in a bath.
> And it is studied btw - problem is there are countless on both sides
Reddit is shit tier source for all kinds of information about commercial products. Even subreddits for niche hobbies are full of astroturfed advertising for random online businesses. There is no way the supplement industry isn't doing its own campaign over Reddit and other platforms especially when you consider how large of a market it is.
I think this is quite different because (1) creatine has been proven to be completely harmless for people of all ages absent some rare thing like a kidney disorder and (2) it has a bunch of clearly measurable positive effects.
So this is more like trying to determine whether ginseng is good at keeping away colds or whatever. Maybe it does (actually quickly searching this, it definitely does but let's pretend it's as folksy as it sounds for a minute) but even if it doesn't then it's harmless and has a bunch of other effects, so when one takes it - the whole possible cold prophylaxis can just be seen as an added perk.
Issue being that if you took everything that's "probably harmless" at once, cramming your body full of supplements, you might just end up harming yourself with substances that are toxic above certain amounts (acute iron toxicity etc.). Also the more random stuff you take, the more likely it is that something you took actually does turn out to have been harmful later.
So no, you should not take something merely because it's "probably harmless".
> So no, you should not take something merely because it's "probably harmless"
You and I should not. But I'm also not going to bother correcting someneone taking homeopathy for a cold. It doesn't do anything. But unless it contains heavy metals, it also isn't hurting.
When I found ivermectin in my father's fridge, on the other hand, I absolutely asked him what he was taking it for. When I confirmed he's also taking real medicine, I dropped it provided he told his doctor in case there are drug interactions. (There aren't. Ivermectin is pretty safe. That's why the nutters congregate around it.)
You are strawmanning what he said. What he said is much better summarized as if a substance has other beneficial effects and there is one that is potentially just placebo, then it is ok. That is completely different than your paraphrase.
Is there a particular rare kidney disorder that creatine is contraindicated for? Because kidney disease is not rare, something like 14% of US adults have kidney disease.
My lay person understanding is that supplemental creatine screws with a common lab test to screen for kidney problems. Let your physician know if you are taking any supplements so they can interpret your lab test results appropriately or order different tests.
It’s not completely harmless, for me it causes heart palpitations that are so bad my watch tells me I’m in atrial fibrillation. Yes I know this sounds crazy. I’ve ruled everything else out. No, it is not creatine mixed with caffeine or whatever. Just pure creatine. No, I don’t have any other heart issues. I can give myself an irregular heartbeat just by having some creatine. It doesn’t happen otherwise. I have seen a cardiologist, he said it’s rare but it is theoretically possible.
Given creatine is present in several foods, do you have an intolerance to those as well as creatine in supplement form? Curious if it's a simple allergy or the dosage.
Creatine breaks when cooked, so for the most part he's not gonna get too much from eating a steak or whatever. Taking 5g/day of pure creatine to satiate your stores might be too much for this particular individual. Anyway, the parent produces its own creatine as well!
and the thing people seem to not understand: how exactly do you _expect_ to be able to notice this change?
Its something that happens after you take it for a prolonged period of time (>7days) and only has a minor/medium effect.
It doesn't make you a genius. I think a better view on it is that it may mitigate some of the adhs symptoms (at least for me).
I can keep on track for a significantly longer time since ive started supplementing with it at ~15g/day - and while i dont feel a difference, i can observe it when actually paying attention to what i do / how often i drift off etc.
What I'm getting from all this is that we have an armchair expert explaining details about something they're not an expert in, and we have you reviewing the way they present this information, saying their very weak hedge wasn't strongly negative enough. Based on priors about the industry.
Basically, HN doing HN things - having a good deep think about topics outside their realm of expertise, then debating the minutiae. I'd just rather trust someone who has spent their career researching this stuff, thanks (unless that's what you do - in which case please tell us more).
"HN doing HN things" over someone saying "good discussion, however, one point about the conclusion" and having that point be very rational and still open to debate.
Is discussing such secondary but still highly relevant aspects verboten? Must every comment here be by a lead researcher in the specific field? Would a biomedical science researcher necessarily have any more expertise on these important secondary aspects?
It may be minutiae, but olooney’s point is valid: the evidence doesn’t seem to support saying “maybe a little”. Remove that statement from the conclusion and it’s on the right track, aside from the arbitrary IQ point calculation which is nonsensical.
Even as an informal conclusion I think it's important to know who you're up against and what their motivations are. Waving that away is how we get people like known, obvious charlatans like RFK Jr in any sort of position of power. I know this is nitpicking word choice but the informal conclusion is "Not likely, and not enough to matter for anything."
With most industries companies live and die by their reputation. Find a bulk provider with a positive reputation and the creatine you buy is almost certainly going to be safer than e.g. eating at Taco Bell. And with creatine in particular it's so dirt cheap that a lot of motivation for dodgy stuff goes away unlike e.g. with protein powders where amino acid spiking can save a company a bunch of money. And incidentally creatine is one of the substances dodgy companies use for amino acid spiking, just because it's so cheap!
That said it's obviously the right decision to drop it if you're not seeing any effects. The interesting thing about creatine is that people's bodies are very different in their natural levels of creatine, and if you're already at 'saturation' then more creatine isn't going to do anything. Same reason the typical benefits of creatine don't show much difference beyond 5g/day. That's enough to send the overwhelming majority of people towards 'saturation.'
There is a brand of creatine manufactured in the US (con-cret) and a brand manufactured in Germany (Creapure). Either of those companies should address the concern around adulterated powder.
> That's why I dropped creatine since I didn't notice any benefits when I tried it for a year.
Some percentage of people (~20%) are creatine non-responders [1]. It's pretty reasonable to try creatine and then drop it if you find no benefit. I personally find the gain very marginal.
What value is there to an informal conclusion when the topic is as important as intelligence? The downsides to creatine if taken without good scientific backing should not be disregarded, yet that’s exactly what many ordinary people are now doing because of “informal conclusions” like this.
Are there really downsides to creatine though? (Genuine question). All the advice I've seen makes it seem like it's basically just good for you even if it doesn't accomplish some specific thing. The only downside I've heard is maybe water retention?
That's not the point. Often in medicine, the downside of using one thing is that you're not using another thing that would be safer and more effective. When people chase results from unproven therapies, often it means they're avoiding doing something else that is known to produce a result - even if the result of the alternative is not as spectacular as the unproven therapy promises to be.
But speaking of creatine itself, while not inherently toxic, consuming large doses can cause serious indirect harms, such as triggering falsely elevated kidney markers on blood tests that lead doctors to misdiagnose organ failure, unnecessarily cancel crucial medical treatments, or order invasive biopsies. Furthermore, overloading the body with creatine while taking kidney-stressing medications (like heavy doses of ibuprofen) or having an undetected renal condition can cause actual acute kidney strain, while the massive shift of water into muscle cells can trigger severe dehydration, heat exhaustion, and electrolyte imbalances during intense heat or exercise if fluid intake falls behind.
But, I don't want to belabour the point about creatine. Rather, I want to focus on the negatives stemming from NOT doing other things that ARE proven to be safe and effective. People tend to think creatine will solve a lot of their problems (for instance, they may believe it will fix their feeling of being "low energy). But by avoiding things that might actually help their problem get better, they're persisting a poor state of health.
The null is surely different in this case because we know that supplemented creatine goes to the brain and the brain uses it, which is definitely not a claim all supplements can make.
The fact that there's a biologically plausible mechanism plus mixed statistical evidence makes "maybe" a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
I was visiting a friend’s lab at NASA Ames the other day. I smiled seeing this on the wall there. I sometimes daydream about what it’d be like if our primary education system devoted an hour a week to reading / discussing comics (well, XKCD specifically), or pages form What If…? Maybe it’d kill the magic of it, but I still feel plenty of seeds would get planted along the way for more critical thinking later in life.
Just the green ones. If they found a link, they found a link
I'm sure that the comic wants to be sarcastic but is missing the mark here. This is how science works. Trying and failing every color except green, does not mean that the green experiment has an invalid result.
The author is not understanding that each experiment is independent.
The correct cartoon should show researchers trying green jellybeans 100 times, with 99 negative results and one positive result, and then the press keeping only the positive (Or in this comic, claiming that all jellybeans produce acne).
Mocking the scientific method, and showing scientists as lazy people that play video-games is funny, but is just a cartoon, not the reality. People should not take XKCD as god's speech without any critical thinking. This in your workplace says to me "I don't really understand statistics".
There is an effect that is statistically rare just by chance, AND is consistently absent within a huge control group of "non-green jellybeans" (the author seems to think that this weakens the result, but in fact is reinforcing it). And it needs further research. Not less, not more.
Munroe didn’t misunderstand the independence of the experiments at all. He understands that misleading spurious results can arise from repeated experiments.
> And it needs further research. Not less, not more.
No it doesn’t. At least not anymore than the other colors. A positive result is no more deserving of further investigation than a negative result. What you are describing is bad science.
I think the way you interpret the null result is downstream of considering creatine as "a supplement". You can make the null result say anything by changing your prior about creatine or supplements. That's the issue with priors.
You also seem to reject the possibility that some things help just a bit. The author has another article in the same vein about "things that can help maybe a bit but the evidence we have doesn't really help detecting small effects" https://dynomight.net/vitamin-d/
Heavily agreed. The supplement industry has such a low level of reliability that it has really soured me on so many practices people have. And I flat out do not understand how some of the supplement stores survive.
Hard sell. I remember the time I went to GNC and they gave me a free sample of the notorious Jack3D which had some kind of amphetamine-like stimulant in it and was associated with young soldiers in the US Army falling down dead.
They survive because people want to believe. Look at the history: the phrase “snake oil” exists because people actually sold products by that name as a remedy. There were also tonics based on radium.
The story of how the phrase snake oil came to be is a fascinating one. Clark Stanley, an American, ripped off a Chinese product which was actually a decent anti-inflammatory, and didn't put any snake oil in his snake oil, which is why it didn't work!
>And I flat out do not understand how some of the supplement stores survive.
I think mostly through placebo effect, people buy a supplement to treat condition X and they think it's getting better, so they keep buying.
I mean, just look at the wide variety of homeopathic "cures" that are often so diluted that there might not be any molecules of the active ingredient left. Yet people keep buying it.
Okay, but it kind of sounds like you want to nanny-state the writer's language.
Their conclusion seems like an absolutely fair interpretation of what they saw, and it also strikes me as dangerous -- perhaps more dangerous -- to suggest "writer genuinely believes, or doesn't believe, a thing, but they should say it differently from their own interpretation because..people are dumb?" Something like that.
What kind of metaphor? You can be a metaphorical nanny state of something smaller like a household or comment section, I suppose, but even then not with a single statement. The problem with a nanny state is the scope. And people expressing contrary opinions isn't nannying.
I have severe sleep apnea as well as insomnia. I may also be a multi-phasic sleeper. In any case my average sleep per night is ~3.5 hours with only ~1.5 hours of deep sleep. I use light therapy, CPAP, medications, etc but none of it solves my problems. I started taking creatine daily a couple of months ago. I've noticed a significant uptick in my cognitive abilities, despite being constantly sleep deprived. TFA doesn't touch on this apparent benefit of creatine, so thought I'd mention it for others who might be suffering from similar sleep issues.
Apnea sufferer here, for whom cpap stopped working after weight loss. It turned out that my mouth was opening during sleep, reducing the effectiveness of cpap, and after adding a chin strap to keep my mouth shut I have had very few apnea events.
The mouth-tapers aren’t always wrong (though we do always look silly).
For sleep apnea you may look into playing the didgeridoo for 30 minutes a day. The circular breathing every day really improve people's symptoms, and I've heard you see results after a few weeks or months. I'm in the middle of trying this but unfortunately I just haven't been doing it every day.
I've also heard just practicing circular breathing by blowing through a straw into a cup of water can produce the same effect but playing a didge is just so much cooler.
Last year, I was severely sleep deprived, but needed to focus. On a whim, I took 25 grams of micronized creatine and it removed the issue with the dampened cognitive abilities. It just worked. It's nothing I would recommend as a long-term solution to sleep problems, but as a possible solution in a pinch, it could work.
Just a word of caution, 25g has a very strong chance of causing intense bloating. I'm part of multiple athletic teams, and the general consensus is that more than 10g is generally "uncomfortable" for its bloat pressure effects.
FYI, your sleep hygiene sounds good, but doctors have started to agree that primary, idiopathic insomnia doesn’t exist. It’s either anxiety or evidence of some severe disease or physiological condition.
So as long as you’re trying things, CBT is the most evidence-based long-term solution for the (very likely) cause of your insomnia.
I take 5g/day, through better part of last 9-12 months (don't remember when I started).
No noticeable cognitive difference/improvement. And the more I've researched creatine the less convinced I am that there are reliable conclusions about cognitive impacts.
Significant physical changes! But other than the pure aesthetics, it's hard to say that my strength increases are tied to creatine or instead a solid routine, plan, diet, and progressive overload. Probably some all of above.
I also take whey protein isolate (20-25g at least once a day)
The Nootropic space fascinates me. A few observations:
- Not sure if caffeine is considered nootropic. Caffeine definitely makes a difference.
- Unclear if placebo effect or real, L-theanine seems to help with calm and focus.
- Otherwise, when it comes to what I'm sure alters my state/body/etc. - drugs! And I'm not suggesting anything specific but my point is the effects are obvious/real/etc. vs. much of the supplement space that suffers from very murky conclusions (imo).
It's my understanding that creatine doesn't directly make you stronger, instead it gives your muscles the ability to work a bit longer. This means you can do more strength training per session which is the part which makes you stronger.
Im curious, since I don’t drink coffee nor take protein supplements and the like, my question is: is the plan you keep taking what you take, let’s say, “forever”? Because the moment you stop taking, wouldn’t you notice a big drop?
Well, for caffeine you might... at least in the short term.
But to be more specific:
* Protein supplements make it easier for your body to get the protein required for whatever demand you're putting on it. You need higher protein intake to growth than to sustain muscle. If you were on protein supplementation during a growth phase, and then transitioned to a maintain, and stopped supplementing, while making sure your actual diet was sufficient, then you could in principle maintain your muscle mass with no problem. The extrapolation of this is that in principle, you could always replace protein supplements with "real food", regardless of phase and get pretty much the same benefits. There may be lifestyle/ease/cost tradeoffs.
* Creatine supplementation helps your body get "a little extra" work done. The direct boost that creatine grants you is real, but also like... small. I think it's often visualized as "it helps you get that one extra rep/half rep". Where creatine pays off is that by sustainably helping you get that one extra rep, it helps create greater demand on your body over time, therefore promoting more growth. If you stopped creatine supplementation, you would probably lose that "extra rep", but all the extra growth that you got would be locked in.
* Caffeine... well, that's far more psychological. Leaving the world of sports, as a knowledge worker, I've committed myself to my addiction. The withdrawal is real, and even if I worked through the headache, I definitely do not feel as sharp.
I am experimenting with less caffeine - not a total cut. Nothing conclusive to report but my goal is to cut somewhat to understand how much caffeine is driving anxious behaviors.
I switched from creatine to eating pickled herring or steak instead. It's WAY more expensive, but considering I don't live in a country with very great control over stuff like adulterants, I'll definitely elect for tasty and safe.
Each 2-ounce rollmop contains about a gram or two of creatine, sometimes more. Steak is about a gram per 8 ounces.
If you can afford it, it's way nicer than choking down that powder in water getting all crunchy in your teeth and stuff.
It's decent pre-workout food although not for everyone as mentioned elsewhere in the comments here (Something like 20% of people don't see any workout endurance benefits)
Sometimes I stay up until 1–3 a.m. because I'm working on a problem that's so interesting I can't stop until I make progress.
If I know I'm only going to get a few hours of sleep, I'll take 5–10 g of creatine, drink plenty of water, and go to bed. The next morning, I usually don't wake up with a headache.
If I skip the creatine under the same conditions, I'm much more likely to wake up with a headache after a short night's sleep.
Now it's become a habit, I automatically take creatine whenever I know my sleep duration is going to be much shorter than usual.
Do you still drink water when you skip creatine? Being dehydrated causes headaches, so it may be the extra water intake that's helping and not the creatine.
yes, i always drink plenty of water throughout day and night too, infact when i get stuck on a problem i go for a walk and drink water.
So drinking water part is consistent with or without creatine. I do know the creatine takes a while to build up, so i don't know why it works but it does.
Yes, but hydration isn’t really a problem for me. I’m a bit of a water purification nerd, I collect water from a natural waterfall, run it through multiple stages of purification, and then start convincing myself it has some magical properties. I don’t drink soda or caffeine, I mostly just drink water.
Most people taking creatine just need to drink water. They drink more water using creatine. In reality, the water/hydration is doing the heaviest lift, not the creatine.
I was taking 5mg of Creatine and was in the ER for an unrelated reason. My metabolic panel measured creatinine at 1.34 mg/dL. A panel from last year without the supplement was a very normal 0.95. These were gummies and I wasn’t slamming water.
BTW, it tends to trash the eGFR test which relies on an unbiased creatinine reading.
I don’t know. I personally wouldn’t take it if you aren’t also working out/lifting frequently (even if you drink a ton of water).
Anecdotal so safe to ignore this… but my hair did thin out but only after I was lazier on my work outs. Stopped taking and hair mostly returned to normal thank God.
> but my hair did thin out but only after I was lazier on my work outs.
How old are you?
Also, working out helps reduce stress. Does it seem more plausible that getting lazier on your workouts, rather than the creatine, increased stress in your life, thus the hair thinning?
I have never heard of creatine causing thinning hair.
Antacids did this to me. I was convinced it was electrolytes, would take supps etc but I believe it came down to calcium absorption. Taking a break from the antacids immediately stopped the cramping.
The reason I asked is that creatine will allow you to lift a bit more (a little more weight, a few more reps). This will cause more muscle fatigue which in turn can lead to more cramping. Water and electrolytes can help, but when the muscles are fatigued they are still more likely to cramp.
I like creatine when I’m lifting because it reduces soreness. For some people that effect helps them push further and train harder, for me it’s just proactive pain relief
Plausible-sounding mechanisms like you're presenting here do not add value to the discourse without data. There are tons of plausible mechanisms we could make up absent empirical evidence to distinguish them.
Clouds of intracellular water more efficiently retained in muscle due to creatine supplementation[?]. Hydration is controlled for in some studies but not all.
There are lots like Vitamin water, alkaline, and coconut water. And overpriced salt packets like Nuun and LMNT.
There's also no shortage of expensive water bottles being sold, and smart water bottles that track your drinking frequencies and flavor pods sold via subscription.
To go off topic a bit further, I recently went into Walgreens to buy some bottled water, and other than Evian, it was all advertised as alkaline. Is that just a trend, was it already alkaline and now that’s just in fashion? Personally I see it and worry I’ll get an upset stomach if it start messing with my pH.
Water that's coming out of your tap is generally aiming for neutral (~7 ph). The alkaline waters in the store are using minerals to elevate it into probably the 9s.
Like many hippie health trends that then go mainstream, a lot of it seems to filter in from Rastafarian traditions, where in the Ital diet they believe that alkaline water coming from the Blue Mountains in Jamaica (and other natural springs there which are naturally alkaline) help detoxify the acids in the body.
I slam a lot of water. I also have a toddler and baby who suck at sleeping (I've done all the things, these kids just suck at sleeping).
Since taking creatine I feel so much more energized. I can make it through the day with just 2 coffees (was previously drinking 5 coffees and an energy drink).
Maybe it's placebo. Maybe it's not. I don't really care. I feel the benefit and I love it.
I also drink a lot of water (always have). I also train Muay Thai and am in my 40s, which means an hour of 1:1 with my trainer would just leave me ridiculously tired. I started supplementing with creatine and immediately it was evident that it was working -- after 8-10 rounds on pads and the heavy bag I was fine. To the point where my trainer would often tell me to take another round on the bag.
At a certain point I was wondering if it was just placebo, stopped taking it for a month or so, and was quickly back to feeling tired after training. Started taking it again, back to feeling energized. It really does work.
"Other studies already proved those effects with creatine with a normal dose schedule, what they were testing is if a single high dose would have a beneficial effect too, which it did.
A normal schedule is 3-5g per day with an optional loading phase of 10-20g per day during 7 days.
In the study they used a single dose of 0.35g/kg which means 20-40g per dose. How do they not get diarrhea? The loading phase is usually split into several doses to avoid diarrhea and I can personally attest to that being a good idea."
What the above doesn't tell you is that taking a loading dose can draw water into your intestines causing diarrhea. You probably can guess how I found this out.
I take my creatine with as little volume of water as possible, probably less than 50ml. I doubt that 50ml is having much impact on my overall hydration.
How much water are you drinking the rest of the day? Creatine in theory makes you more thirsty such that you should be drinking more water throughout the day
Knowledge of the potential is peripheral expectation.
If you can say "Oh yea that makes sense" with the same set of knowledge you had both before and after some event happens, all else being equal, you have an expectation. That is enough for placebo.
You have to have literally 0 knowledge about an event to rule out placebo.
Are you suggesting that the placebo effect applies retroactively? I'd been using creatine for months before I even heard there were conversations about supposed cognitive effects (and I hadn't noticed any myself, either, and I continue to not notice any. That isn't why I take it.)
Why are you so sure that the poster (or anyone else commenting here) isn’t drinking enough water?
I drink lots of water. Lots and lots, to the point that it’s already kind of annoying how frequently I have to piss. I’m fairly skeptical that drinking yet more would yield any benefits.
Yes. It’s very rare for a supplement to have such strong and consistent evidence.
A widely-cited review says that short-term supplementation increases maximal power/strength by 5-15%. This in turn may increase the long-term gainz from strength-training exercise. Creatine also increases sprint performance by 1-5%. Though, there seems to be little if any benefit for endurance exercise like long-distance running.
This matches what Gwern wrote years ago [0]. It does unequivocally make you stronger though. So if you're training anyway, may as well take it and hope it makes you smarter as well (just believing might be enough for that sweet placebo effect).
This made me wonder if sun exposure/vitamin D has any impact on storing or processing creatine, and maybe that's why the results in Australia were so much greater
>Contrary to the common myth, thinking hard does not burn significantly more calories. (Demonstration: Start thinking hard, and watch as your heart rate does not increase.)
The original claim is not wrong. Thinking hard does not burn significantly more calories.
If it’s really hard to measure because the amount is so small that it requires precise equipment, it’s not significant relative to the rest of the body’s energy expenditure.
I wonder if there’s any long term studies like how the body gets adjusted to creatine. Because human body is remarkable at adjusting and setting new baselines and I wonder if it’s true with creatine as well, like to have the same effect you need to take more creatine the longer you keep on taking it
I'd say probable in some situations - maybe more effect for people who are not eating well. I am not someone who takes or used drugs or alcohol - but the 90s I used pure low dose of creatine at about half teaspoon a day to help repair neck muscles damaged from treated-too-late whiplash. At the time my diet was probably poor even though I ate meat daily, had a low grade cold I hadn't been able to shake off for three years, and would blow a fuse easily around idiotic BS. After a few weeks I was pretty mellow and easy going, not to mention the cold had finally cleared up. I stopped taking it for various reasons, needing to be on top of BS quicker was one of those reasons. Later in life I have used it but not with the same pronounced effects.
Personal anecdotal experience, but I experienced my most rapid period of hair loss while taking creatine. This was for about 1 year when I was 22-23.
It could be underlying genetic predisposition to hair loss, but I do believe the creatine had an accelerating effect. When I stopped taking creatine, the rate of hair loss noticeably slowed down throughout the rest of my 20s.
Yeah, enough people say this that I avoid taking creatine knowing I have the genetic predisposition for male pattern baldness, despite the lack of solid evidence.
Although OP's post says "There is no mechanistic reason to think that would happen." but I don't think that's true. Creatine is known to increase DHT, and higher levels of DHT is linked to hair loss.
I have definitely noticed improvements taking a larger dose with my energy when low on sleep, check out McMorris et al. (2006) which is not cited here. I agree it probably doesn't make you generally more 'smart' but it does may improve function under stress, e.g. when sleep deprived, also see Gordji-Nejad et al. (2024). I think the sleep benefits should at least be mentioned in this article.
Also search for 'sleep' in this comment section, seems many see similar improvements!
> Wikipedia quotes a paper saying people make / recycle around 50 kilograms per day. That would imply that people make around 0.5787 grams per second. But this is in tension with the idea that people use 100 watts at rest. Since that 100 watt number seems to be more strongly established, I think 1 gram per second is a better estimate.
The cited paper in Wikipedia might be accurate and the author is just expecting "at rest" to mean awake but mostly idle. I'd wager that during sleep, we use less than 100W. For the sake of argument if you take out 8 hours (asleep time) from a 24 hour period, you end up with a rate of ~0.8681 grams per second, much closer to 1g/s. Anyway, just a little fun with numbers.
> Available short and long-term studies in healthy and diseased populations, from > infants to the elderly, at dosages ranging from 0.3 to 0.8 g/kg/day for up to 5 > years have consistently shown that creatine supplementation poses no adverse
> health risks and may provide a number of health and performance benefits.
Yep. From what I read mental fatigue (mental math problems is what the study used) or sleep deprivation are two scenarios in which creatine boosted cognition and memory.
Personally I have noticed a lot less cognitive impairment after a poor night’s sleep since starting on 10g per day. It seems to make a noticeable difference in my ability to reason and to act having slept less than 7 hours per night, even on consecutive nights.
> thinking hard does not burn significantly more calories
Up to 50 Cal extra over ~2 hours of intense thinking IS significant given brains consume 240-400 Cal over 24 hours.
> Start thinking hard, and watch as your heart rate does not increase.
And yet you soon get tired and slow down. Now try the opposite. Stretch or punch the air a few times to get the heart rate going. You'll sustain brain performance for longer. Try it.
Perhaps the problem is that higher brain activity SHOULD trigger heart rate increase, but doesn't due to one of many design defects of the human body.
I started taking 5g for cognition. Never any clear signal for that, but it does seem to help a bit with my (more than occasional) sleep deprivation. Mostly with fighting off headaches.
It’s always been popular among athletes and weight lifters but now nootropic influencers have gotten ahold of it. It’s one of the few supplements with robust scientific evidence of a strong effect but that’s in athletic performance not nootropics.
No, creatine has been studied for decades and it’s been part of fads before (I remember Mac making a joke about creatine shits in It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia a decade ago).
It’s just resurfacing as a general health fad/marketing campaign.
JRE mentioned it several times recently, I imagine it could have spiked interest but overall it's been growing over the past decade because of the advances in fitness trackers, IMO. It's been very easy to see its effect with trackers measuring FTP and VO2max.
I've been taking 5g/creatine daily for nearly 30 years. In weightlifting circles it's always been popular because it's cheap and one of the few non-steroidal supplements that actually works.
Creatine is a health fad? No other supplement has been this widely-used for such a long time. It was considered safe and effective when I started using it 30 years ago. The benefits are/were well established, the mechanisms well-known, the safety is impeccable. If anything, it's the most well-established supplement on the market - the exact opposite of a fad!
> This in turn may increase the long-term gainz from strength-training exercise
Why is "gains" spelled this way? I found myself suddenly trusting the whole thing a little less. But maybe I'm missing something. Is this jargon in the body building world or something? Author being cheeky?
I experienced dramatic and obvious hair loss in my late twenties after starting creatine supplementation. I'm talking hundreds of hairs coming out every shower. It stopped when I stopped creatine. No I didn't make any other changes in diet or lifestyle at the time. I hadn't even heard of the link before that. This is actually one of those things that made me start doubting "the science" in general because it's supposedly not true, but, it obviously is true for my head beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think another source of variation on the results is the actual nutritional intake of the subjects.
The vegan/vegetarian is a big spectrum. A vegetarian eating plenty of dairy products and eggs should in theory be much better creatine-equipped than a poor vegan student feeding on noodles and ketchup pastas. A lot of pseudo-meat for vegans are full of processed shit.
Confusion will be even higher if you include fish in the vegetarian diet, which is odd but some people do that.
Could the cognitive effect works in the case of creatine deficiency (vegan) and not in the case a vegetarian (low creatine but not deficient) ?
I just ordered some yesterday because I saw something that reminded what my friend said recently about it boosting cognition. Then this morning I saw it mentioned in some health segment on tv. Now I stumble upon this discussion. Hmmm.
Cycling is also a marketing ploy, since it makes it sound more like a PED and less like a compound found naturally in meat. It's the same reason people say they 'take' whey, when Miss Muffet simply ate it.
I don't ever remember needing or being advised to cycle it.
It was always start by 'loading' and then cruise at 5g. Of course GNC was filled with sugar filled "delivery" products like Celltech that claimed to forego any need for 'loading'.
I've never heard of cycling it. We're you a teen during the steroid arrival? Maybe people were confusing things. I've always just done 5mg a day, but now people are talking about taking mega doses of like 20-30mg a day, shrug
Yes, they did, and many still do write it on the package, but it is, and always was a myth born God knows when out of precaution, because nobody really knows anything about how all this stuff really works now, and they did know even less than that 30 years ago. There never really was any evidence that you have to cycle it, and nobody (aside from the manufacturers) ever says it anymore. It makes about as much sense as cycling protein powder.
As for pills, yes, there is about every form of creatine supplement now, even chewing gum, but this is just dumb, how much of creatine do you think you can consume this way in a day?
The conclusions aren't any different (it's one of the few thing that helps strength, poses no danger to your hair, and almost certainly does nothing for cognition), but the articles at https://www.strongerbyscience.com/?s=creatine are far more comprehensive, including the famous extremely long podcast episodes they used to do.
The one thing this misses is many supplements are tainted, which skews the popular perception of both upsides and risks. This was especially true in the US prior to 2005 or so when prohormones were still legal over the counter. Anything branded that wasn't just pure creatine was extremely likely to actually be a low-dose oral steroid, which really can make you lose hair and will increase strength quite a bit more than any dietary supplement.
This also misses caffeine as the other a-tier supplement that consistently shows strength increases in RCTs, though of course, caffeine is more frought than creatine because you build tolerance and it can disturb sleep.
"poses no danger to your hair" I keep hearing folks say this, and even in this thread there's someone who's experienced that and had it stop when they eliminated creatine. I too have experienced exactly that with exactly the stopping of issues once I stopped taking creatine.
Perhaps you can say "danger to your hair is rare", but there's very clearly (to me at least) an effect there, and the way it gets hand-waved away is strange to me.
Last I checked, the only study actually focusing on this is n=38, out of Iran, and has heavy conflict of interest issues (funded by the supplement industry).
That's not remotely sufficient to consider this a settled fact.
I feel like you would need to find some correlation between dosing creatine and increased DHT production to find a link between the two.
Creatine is not an anabolic steroid and does not increase testosterone levels, according to Harvard Health, so while there was 1 suspicious study that claimed that creatine increased DHT, that study has afterwards not been able to be replicated, and since creatine does not manipulate hormones but rather energy instead, it seems to as closes a possible to being a settled fact sans the final nail in the coffin.
> This also misses caffeine as the other a-tier supplement
In college Ripped Fuel wasn't banned yet. We would take two, go to the gym for 2 hours, shower, then go out until the sun came up the next day. It's no surprise it was eventually banned. I think some people ended up dying by taking too many.
I don’t think they’re strong evidence that it does anything beyond helping you build muscle. There are some people say they think clearer, but I don’t think that’s been measured in any significant way.
Of course it is. LLMs aren't as smart as you think, or at least their "intelligence" isn't comparable to ours. They're just a useful tool, and they will always need someone to guide them.
Productivity isn’t the only reason to be smarter. For example, there’s also the benefit of asking fewer inane questions on the internet (hypothetically)
> I don’t know. Maybe a little.
is not the right way to interpret the null result (insufficient evidence to reject null hypothesis that it has no effect) because the prior for supplements that people are trying to sell you is so low. In the absence of clear, strong evidence, you should assume the the whole thing is just an example of motivated reasoning. People want nootropics to be real, and other people really want to sell you readily available powders by claiming they have nootropic properties. In that environment, they were always going to trying to concoct a similar narrative about some supplement, and it just happened to be creatine. Those efforts were always going to result in a handful of "positive" studies that turn out to be non-reproducible, maybe because of p-hacking, maybe because of publication bias, maybe because of outright fraud. This is what the literature always looks like for stuff that just doesn't work. If it did work - if the effect size was large enough that you could personally detect it in your own life - then the papers would be trying to put error bars around the effect size, not trying (and failing) to barely distinguish it from a placebo.
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” - Ernest Rutherford
According to Reddit, Epsom salt has no effect (doesn’t absorb) - you’re wasting your time by using it. They’ll cite all sorts of real, funded studies that agree and yet always the comment section is filled with anecdotal evidence of the contrary - to which a typical response is “hot water in general is soothing” (ignoring efficacy of magnesium sulfate in ice baths).
I digress - creatine is a similar situation. All this confusion at best. It’s also not unlike the health effects of cannabis just prior to going effectively legal - it either causes or cures cancer, or something? We need more research! That’s the real problem!
Any time you see this sort of narrative it’s corporate politics and influence at play.
By virtue of how hard it is to get any information on creatine, it probably threatens some market or vertical at least (whether or not it “works”). Like A. muscaria mushroom or sassafras, you’ll have to do your own research to really know.
What they “doubt” is that it can be absorbed through the skin.
But anyone who takes magnesium tablets can tell you the effect is the same.
And it is studied btw - problem is there are countless on both sides.
Who disputed this?
> What they “doubt” is that it can be absorbed through the skin
The science is helpful. Magnesium sulfate is absorbed less effectively than magnesium chloride. Of course, you're not eating the amount of Epsom salts one dumps in a bath.
> And it is studied btw - problem is there are countless on both sides
This is why meta analysis exists.
But sure, keep believing they are on your side.
So this is more like trying to determine whether ginseng is good at keeping away colds or whatever. Maybe it does (actually quickly searching this, it definitely does but let's pretend it's as folksy as it sounds for a minute) but even if it doesn't then it's harmless and has a bunch of other effects, so when one takes it - the whole possible cold prophylaxis can just be seen as an added perk.
So no, you should not take something merely because it's "probably harmless".
You and I should not. But I'm also not going to bother correcting someneone taking homeopathy for a cold. It doesn't do anything. But unless it contains heavy metals, it also isn't hurting.
When I found ivermectin in my father's fridge, on the other hand, I absolutely asked him what he was taking it for. When I confirmed he's also taking real medicine, I dropped it provided he told his doctor in case there are drug interactions. (There aren't. Ivermectin is pretty safe. That's why the nutters congregate around it.)
https://www.kidney.org/kidney-topics/creatinine
That might be relatively likely.
It doesn't make you a genius. I think a better view on it is that it may mitigate some of the adhs symptoms (at least for me).
I can keep on track for a significantly longer time since ive started supplementing with it at ~15g/day - and while i dont feel a difference, i can observe it when actually paying attention to what i do / how often i drift off etc.
Basically, HN doing HN things - having a good deep think about topics outside their realm of expertise, then debating the minutiae. I'd just rather trust someone who has spent their career researching this stuff, thanks (unless that's what you do - in which case please tell us more).
Is discussing such secondary but still highly relevant aspects verboten? Must every comment here be by a lead researcher in the specific field? Would a biomedical science researcher necessarily have any more expertise on these important secondary aspects?
"Trust me, I'm a scientitian". No thanks.
That's why I dropped creatine since I didn't notice any benefits when I tried it for a year.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B...
That said it's obviously the right decision to drop it if you're not seeing any effects. The interesting thing about creatine is that people's bodies are very different in their natural levels of creatine, and if you're already at 'saturation' then more creatine isn't going to do anything. Same reason the typical benefits of creatine don't show much difference beyond 5g/day. That's enough to send the overwhelming majority of people towards 'saturation.'
> That's why I dropped creatine since I didn't notice any benefits when I tried it for a year.
Some percentage of people (~20%) are creatine non-responders [1]. It's pretty reasonable to try creatine and then drop it if you find no benefit. I personally find the gain very marginal.
[1] https://fitchef.com/shorts/creatine-non-responder/
My level at tennis dropped too, but bicycle endurance remained the same.
I stopped because of high blood creatinine, and wanted to see what baseline was
But speaking of creatine itself, while not inherently toxic, consuming large doses can cause serious indirect harms, such as triggering falsely elevated kidney markers on blood tests that lead doctors to misdiagnose organ failure, unnecessarily cancel crucial medical treatments, or order invasive biopsies. Furthermore, overloading the body with creatine while taking kidney-stressing medications (like heavy doses of ibuprofen) or having an undetected renal condition can cause actual acute kidney strain, while the massive shift of water into muscle cells can trigger severe dehydration, heat exhaustion, and electrolyte imbalances during intense heat or exercise if fluid intake falls behind.
But, I don't want to belabour the point about creatine. Rather, I want to focus on the negatives stemming from NOT doing other things that ARE proven to be safe and effective. People tend to think creatine will solve a lot of their problems (for instance, they may believe it will fix their feeling of being "low energy). But by avoiding things that might actually help their problem get better, they're persisting a poor state of health.
The fact that there's a biologically plausible mechanism plus mixed statistical evidence makes "maybe" a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
I'm sure that the comic wants to be sarcastic but is missing the mark here. This is how science works. Trying and failing every color except green, does not mean that the green experiment has an invalid result.
The author is not understanding that each experiment is independent.
The correct cartoon should show researchers trying green jellybeans 100 times, with 99 negative results and one positive result, and then the press keeping only the positive (Or in this comic, claiming that all jellybeans produce acne).
Mocking the scientific method, and showing scientists as lazy people that play video-games is funny, but is just a cartoon, not the reality. People should not take XKCD as god's speech without any critical thinking. This in your workplace says to me "I don't really understand statistics".
There is an effect that is statistically rare just by chance, AND is consistently absent within a huge control group of "non-green jellybeans" (the author seems to think that this weakens the result, but in fact is reinforcing it). And it needs further research. Not less, not more.
You could have skipped the wall of text. They didn’t find a link. They found a random correlation.
The scientists here essentially engaged in P-hacking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging
Munroe didn’t misunderstand the independence of the experiments at all. He understands that misleading spurious results can arise from repeated experiments.
> And it needs further research. Not less, not more.
No it doesn’t. At least not anymore than the other colors. A positive result is no more deserving of further investigation than a negative result. What you are describing is bad science.
You also seem to reject the possibility that some things help just a bit. The author has another article in the same vein about "things that can help maybe a bit but the evidence we have doesn't really help detecting small effects" https://dynomight.net/vitamin-d/
“There's a sucker born every minute.”
I think mostly through placebo effect, people buy a supplement to treat condition X and they think it's getting better, so they keep buying.
I mean, just look at the wide variety of homeopathic "cures" that are often so diluted that there might not be any molecules of the active ingredient left. Yet people keep buying it.
Their conclusion seems like an absolutely fair interpretation of what they saw, and it also strikes me as dangerous -- perhaps more dangerous -- to suggest "writer genuinely believes, or doesn't believe, a thing, but they should say it differently from their own interpretation because..people are dumb?" Something like that.
The mouth-tapers aren’t always wrong (though we do always look silly).
I've also heard just practicing circular breathing by blowing through a straw into a cup of water can produce the same effect but playing a didge is just so much cooler.
You need a dose high enough to penetrate the blood-brain barrier, around 0.3g/kg (so ~30g for a 100kg person).
So as long as you’re trying things, CBT is the most evidence-based long-term solution for the (very likely) cause of your insomnia.
No noticeable cognitive difference/improvement. And the more I've researched creatine the less convinced I am that there are reliable conclusions about cognitive impacts.
Significant physical changes! But other than the pure aesthetics, it's hard to say that my strength increases are tied to creatine or instead a solid routine, plan, diet, and progressive overload. Probably some all of above.
I also take whey protein isolate (20-25g at least once a day)
The Nootropic space fascinates me. A few observations:
- Not sure if caffeine is considered nootropic. Caffeine definitely makes a difference.
- Unclear if placebo effect or real, L-theanine seems to help with calm and focus.
- Otherwise, when it comes to what I'm sure alters my state/body/etc. - drugs! And I'm not suggesting anything specific but my point is the effects are obvious/real/etc. vs. much of the supplement space that suffers from very murky conclusions (imo).
No. They're not steroids.
But to be more specific:
* Protein supplements make it easier for your body to get the protein required for whatever demand you're putting on it. You need higher protein intake to growth than to sustain muscle. If you were on protein supplementation during a growth phase, and then transitioned to a maintain, and stopped supplementing, while making sure your actual diet was sufficient, then you could in principle maintain your muscle mass with no problem. The extrapolation of this is that in principle, you could always replace protein supplements with "real food", regardless of phase and get pretty much the same benefits. There may be lifestyle/ease/cost tradeoffs.
* Creatine supplementation helps your body get "a little extra" work done. The direct boost that creatine grants you is real, but also like... small. I think it's often visualized as "it helps you get that one extra rep/half rep". Where creatine pays off is that by sustainably helping you get that one extra rep, it helps create greater demand on your body over time, therefore promoting more growth. If you stopped creatine supplementation, you would probably lose that "extra rep", but all the extra growth that you got would be locked in.
* Caffeine... well, that's far more psychological. Leaving the world of sports, as a knowledge worker, I've committed myself to my addiction. The withdrawal is real, and even if I worked through the headache, I definitely do not feel as sharp.
Each 2-ounce rollmop contains about a gram or two of creatine, sometimes more. Steak is about a gram per 8 ounces.
If you can afford it, it's way nicer than choking down that powder in water getting all crunchy in your teeth and stuff.
It's decent pre-workout food although not for everyone as mentioned elsewhere in the comments here (Something like 20% of people don't see any workout endurance benefits)
If I know I'm only going to get a few hours of sleep, I'll take 5–10 g of creatine, drink plenty of water, and go to bed. The next morning, I usually don't wake up with a headache.
If I skip the creatine under the same conditions, I'm much more likely to wake up with a headache after a short night's sleep.
Now it's become a habit, I automatically take creatine whenever I know my sleep duration is going to be much shorter than usual.
So drinking water part is consistent with or without creatine. I do know the creatine takes a while to build up, so i don't know why it works but it does.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/21517-dehydra...
>Headache pain often appears along with other signs and symptoms of dehydration, including darker-than-usual pee, dry mouth and fatigue
none of these symptoms are true for me.
But they fail to account for ice baths with Epsom.
Similarly you fail to account for anyone who takes creatine with any other food or beverage.
So I don’t love such theories.
BTW, it tends to trash the eGFR test which relies on an unbiased creatinine reading.
Anecdotal so safe to ignore this… but my hair did thin out but only after I was lazier on my work outs. Stopped taking and hair mostly returned to normal thank God.
How old are you?
Also, working out helps reduce stress. Does it seem more plausible that getting lazier on your workouts, rather than the creatine, increased stress in your life, thus the hair thinning?
I have never heard of creatine causing thinning hair.
There's also no shortage of expensive water bottles being sold, and smart water bottles that track your drinking frequencies and flavor pods sold via subscription.
Like many hippie health trends that then go mainstream, a lot of it seems to filter in from Rastafarian traditions, where in the Ital diet they believe that alkaline water coming from the Blue Mountains in Jamaica (and other natural springs there which are naturally alkaline) help detoxify the acids in the body.
Creatine works because of buffering ATP and creatine kinase.
A problem though is that 1lb of chicken breast contains about 1.5 grams of creatine.
If a person is already eating a modern high protein diet, they are most likely already getting a decent amount of creatine.
I would imagine a vegetarian taking creatine would get a much better effect.
Since taking creatine I feel so much more energized. I can make it through the day with just 2 coffees (was previously drinking 5 coffees and an energy drink).
Maybe it's placebo. Maybe it's not. I don't really care. I feel the benefit and I love it.
At a certain point I was wondering if it was just placebo, stopped taking it for a month or so, and was quickly back to feeling tired after training. Started taking it again, back to feeling energized. It really does work.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40170474
"Other studies already proved those effects with creatine with a normal dose schedule, what they were testing is if a single high dose would have a beneficial effect too, which it did. A normal schedule is 3-5g per day with an optional loading phase of 10-20g per day during 7 days.
In the study they used a single dose of 0.35g/kg which means 20-40g per dose. How do they not get diarrhea? The loading phase is usually split into several doses to avoid diarrhea and I can personally attest to that being a good idea."
What the above doesn't tell you is that taking a loading dose can draw water into your intestines causing diarrhea. You probably can guess how I found this out.
If you can say "Oh yea that makes sense" with the same set of knowledge you had both before and after some event happens, all else being equal, you have an expectation. That is enough for placebo.
You have to have literally 0 knowledge about an event to rule out placebo.
I drink lots of water. Lots and lots, to the point that it’s already kind of annoying how frequently I have to piss. I’m fairly skeptical that drinking yet more would yield any benefits.
Yes. It’s very rare for a supplement to have such strong and consistent evidence.
A widely-cited review says that short-term supplementation increases maximal power/strength by 5-15%. This in turn may increase the long-term gainz from strength-training exercise. Creatine also increases sprint performance by 1-5%. Though, there seems to be little if any benefit for endurance exercise like long-distance running.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5469049/#CR46
[0] https://gwern.net/creatine
this is wrong [0] , it's just hard to measure.
[0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32314956/
If it’s really hard to measure because the amount is so small that it requires precise equipment, it’s not significant relative to the rest of the body’s energy expenditure.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48346947
It could be underlying genetic predisposition to hair loss, but I do believe the creatine had an accelerating effect. When I stopped taking creatine, the rate of hair loss noticeably slowed down throughout the rest of my 20s.
Although OP's post says "There is no mechanistic reason to think that would happen." but I don't think that's true. Creatine is known to increase DHT, and higher levels of DHT is linked to hair loss.
Also search for 'sleep' in this comment section, seems many see similar improvements!
The cited paper in Wikipedia might be accurate and the author is just expecting "at rest" to mean awake but mostly idle. I'd wager that during sleep, we use less than 100W. For the sake of argument if you take out 8 hours (asleep time) from a 24 hour period, you end up with a rate of ~0.8681 grams per second, much closer to 1g/s. Anyway, just a little fun with numbers.
They missed a zero behind the comma, didn't they?
Like being tired, stressed, etc...
Here are the sleep deprivation studies
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54249-9
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16416332/
Up to 50 Cal extra over ~2 hours of intense thinking IS significant given brains consume 240-400 Cal over 24 hours.
> Start thinking hard, and watch as your heart rate does not increase.
And yet you soon get tired and slow down. Now try the opposite. Stretch or punch the air a few times to get the heart rate going. You'll sustain brain performance for longer. Try it.
Perhaps the problem is that higher brain activity SHOULD trigger heart rate increase, but doesn't due to one of many design defects of the human body.
Well, yes. It is well known that you must eat fish, beef, i.e., animal protein, to get close to optimal levels of creatine.
Is creatine safe to supplement for children?
It’s just resurfacing as a general health fad/marketing campaign.
Why is "gains" spelled this way? I found myself suddenly trusting the whole thing a little less. But maybe I'm missing something. Is this jargon in the body building world or something? Author being cheeky?
The vegan/vegetarian is a big spectrum. A vegetarian eating plenty of dairy products and eggs should in theory be much better creatine-equipped than a poor vegan student feeding on noodles and ketchup pastas. A lot of pseudo-meat for vegans are full of processed shit.
Confusion will be even higher if you include fish in the vegetarian diet, which is odd but some people do that.
Could the cognitive effect works in the case of creatine deficiency (vegan) and not in the case a vegetarian (low creatine but not deficient) ?
Meat Is Murder but Fish Is Justifiable Homicide.
- Something in the way, Nirvana
I never ended up doing it because you had to cycle it, and it was just one more thing to track
Is it the same case in 2026? Is there a simple pill I can take?
You can just take 3-5g daily.
It was always start by 'loading' and then cruise at 5g. Of course GNC was filled with sugar filled "delivery" products like Celltech that claimed to forego any need for 'loading'.
As for pills, yes, there is about every form of creatine supplement now, even chewing gum, but this is just dumb, how much of creatine do you think you can consume this way in a day?
if you truly want fuel for the brain nothing beats keto
> Does creatine make you smarter?
> I don’t know. Maybe a little.
People are throwing away their money
The one thing this misses is many supplements are tainted, which skews the popular perception of both upsides and risks. This was especially true in the US prior to 2005 or so when prohormones were still legal over the counter. Anything branded that wasn't just pure creatine was extremely likely to actually be a low-dose oral steroid, which really can make you lose hair and will increase strength quite a bit more than any dietary supplement.
This also misses caffeine as the other a-tier supplement that consistently shows strength increases in RCTs, though of course, caffeine is more frought than creatine because you build tolerance and it can disturb sleep.
Perhaps you can say "danger to your hair is rare", but there's very clearly (to me at least) an effect there, and the way it gets hand-waved away is strange to me.
Last I checked, the only study actually focusing on this is n=38, out of Iran, and has heavy conflict of interest issues (funded by the supplement industry).
That's not remotely sufficient to consider this a settled fact.
Creatine is not an anabolic steroid and does not increase testosterone levels, according to Harvard Health, so while there was 1 suspicious study that claimed that creatine increased DHT, that study has afterwards not been able to be replicated, and since creatine does not manipulate hormones but rather energy instead, it seems to as closes a possible to being a settled fact sans the final nail in the coffin.
In college Ripped Fuel wasn't banned yet. We would take two, go to the gym for 2 hours, shower, then go out until the sun came up the next day. It's no surprise it was eventually banned. I think some people ended up dying by taking too many.
It safely builds muscle and boosts cognition.
More like "probably", "yes", and "probably not."