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...

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.

> 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.

> 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.)

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.

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.

The study seems to have controlled for training intensity -- all exercises were done to repetition maximum.

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].

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.

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.

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, just not due to chemistry of the treatment.)

For what it’s worth, I didn’t know this and I suspect a lot of people don’t. Thanks for this!

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.

> 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.

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 :)

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

This has been known for ~15 years. I'm not sure what this study thought it was debunking.

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.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/6/1081

Given the glaring reproducibility crisis in the scientific community, creatine seems the wrong focus at the moment.

Because of this crisis, no one should be allowed to study creatine? What other things shouldn't be studied in order to solve the glaring reproducibility crisis? How does not studying things help?

Is the scientific community "focused" on creatine?

If you read the study, you can see that they controlled for training intensity. All exercises were done to repetition maximum.

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.

> 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).

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

> no change in my life has been more important besides kids

Quick note to add: if you're reading the above comment and you still want kids, it's important to note that loss of fertility is one of the most significant side effects of testosterone (or any steroid). There are additional medications that can reduce the risk (and possibly reverse it after fertility is already lost), but it's not guaranteed.

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."

The proper takeaway is something like: "Untrained males without prior AAS use gained more muscle over a 10 week non-exercise period than similar males who performed exercise."

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.

I understand what you're saying... You're talking about total gains over a long period of time like a 10 year sedentary steroid use versus a 10 year natural lifter doing lots of the right things... I'm not sure if there's any data on the subject besides anecdotes.

Do you have a longitudinal study source?

> "Untrained males without prior AAS use gained more muscle over a 10 week non-exercise period than similar males who performed exercise."

There's lots of studies that show steroid users accumulate about 2x as much muscle as non steroid users, but those are both in trained groups. Unclear about what happens if someone takes steroids across 10 years, and how much total muscle they accumulate relative to a natural over the same time period.

This doesn’t need to be longitudinal — the parent’s point seems to be much simpler: people who don’t work out will have quicker initial muscle gains upon starting than those who already regularly work out. This could be measured over a period of weeks but I wonder if it has been studied because it is so obviously true.

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.

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8637535/

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.

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.

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.

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/

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).

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

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.

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.

Wouldn't the extra stamina have been rewarded, assuming creatine allowed you to perform extra repetitions? All exercises were done to repetition maximum.

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.

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.

Definitely a typo

Sorry, yes - typo! I take ~5g.

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.

The dose is 5g, not 5mg

Was a typo on my part. Too early to be on HN haha.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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

But isn't it like 1kg more water retention? How did you notice it?

This.. These articles are fake news.

    Participants were instructed to maintain their current 
    dietary habits and physical activity levels for the 
    duration of the study.

My understanding is that creatine increases the amount of available energy for muscles to use (hence increases sports performance, training performance, and recovery) - not increase muscle growth alone. That said - it is an interesting study which helps decompose the effect, this shows that creatine likely provides no other additional benefits.

I've found it gives me a lot more mental energy too. Like I can think better with creatine.

>>> more mental energy too

Is that the creatine, or the caffeine added to virtually ALL creatine supplements?

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.

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?

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.)

Thank you for reminding people of this.

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.

It's like the CDO of science.

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 compared to RT and a placebo".

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10180745/

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

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 works

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.”

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)

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.

I think I screwed up the adjectives there. Gains and side effects are ~ proportional to dose.

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.

Yes, it's well-known. It's also the reason people take it.

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.

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

That's an important clarification! So for half the population, creatine works.

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.

>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.

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.

Effects of Creatine Supplementation and Resistance Training on Muscle Strength Gains in Adults <50 Years of Age: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/16/21/3665#:~:text=In%20the%2... and Creatine Supplementation for Muscle Growth: A Scoping Review of Randomized Clinical Trials from 2012 to 2021 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8949037/

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.

> A UNSW-led clinical trial that put 54 people through a 12-week resistance training program found no difference between those who took the supplement at the recommended dose and those who did not,

Small studies like this are usually combined with others in order to get a better picture. Given the huge variety of ways to run a resistance training program, a single protocol study is unlikely to explore the space very well. So lots of small studies trying things different ways is going to be a more effective exploration of the space (in addition to matching the amount of funding that any researcher is able to get).

Unfortunately lots of little studies does not make for good press releases, nor does it fit the news media cycle very well.

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.

There are plenty of well researched performance enhancers which are legal, for example beta-alanine for middle distance runners.

36 raw eggs per day seems the funny example here

Every second thinking about what supplements you should take is probably better spent in the gym.

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.

I don't want to be rude, but your off-topic anecdote about my uninteresting and useless anecdote is also... uninteresting and useless.

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.

> 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.

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.

Led me tel u. I always!! Brush my teeth. Always! This is a must with me. As it has always been. This was explained to me by an old man I met once who had great teeth. So that’s just me. And it’s what I do.

Are you a type of guy that needs "peer-reviewed" "scientific" study to brush your teeth?

Amazing, great job buddy, very proud of you

> Participants completed a 3-day food log for the 3 days prior to each assessment (baseline, post seven-day wash-in phase, and post 12-week RT intervention) to provide an estimate of their typical total kilocalorie (kcal/day) and macronutrient (g/day of carbohydrate, fat, and protein) intake

That's a lot of extrapolation, Marmite-flavored protein powder, no doubt?

> that comprising 3 full-body sessions a week for 12 weeks (Supplementary Materials, Table S1) [Table S1 describes 3 different bro-splits, comprised of 45 different assistance exercises and no planned progression in intensity, excepting "To failure"]

Ah yes, I see they've confused resistance exercise with resistance training, indeed a mistake.

Granted, it does seem like a fine time to avoid "fitness powders" in light of "The Rhisotope Project" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40819617

As a total noob in this domain, general evidence of increased sleep and muscle recovery with creating points me towards taking some, just to be more efficient at work: any counterarguments ?

> Apparently healthy individuals (18 to 50 years), with a body mass index of ≤30 kg/m2 and *not meeting current physical activity guidelines* of at least 150 min of moderate-intensity exercise were included.

I'm curious what the same study would say about athletes of various disciplines. It makes sense to me that creatine does not make a difference for these folks.

If (as in this study) the athletes stuck to their same level of resistance training (ie weight + reps) I would expect the study to hold with the exception of finely measured muscle teardown.

As other commenters have posted, the popular suggested use of creatine use it to either increase resistance (extra reps at a greater weight) or decrease downtime (lack of atp / lactic acid buildup that breaks down muscles)

If they don't train, difference in what are they even on about?

The effect is dramatically different for different people. I have something around 30-60% more endurance with creatine which is insane. From what little I understand it helps move fluids though muscles. I can't imagine muscle growth doesn't benefit from that specially in seemingly poorly hydrated dry muscles like mine.

For myself, after switching to vegan food, taking a creatine supplement had very noticeably improved the endurance for things like weight lifting or short sprints at maximum speed.

However, that has just restored the level of performance from when eating non-vegan food.

The effects of creatine should vary both between humans, because they may have different capacities for internal creatine synthesis, and depending on the kind of food that they eat, i.e. whether it is naturally rich in creatine, or not.

> I do not understand why would anyone believe that creatine can influence muscle gains.

This is the entire fitness/supplement industry.

Steroids increase muscle growth despite having no relationship with adequate protein intake.

What's the source?

How can you build muscle without amino acids, the building blocks of protein, which muscles need to grow?

Are you seriously demanding a source for the claim that steroids lead to greater muscle gains?

> I do not understand why would anyone believe that creatine can influence muscle gains.

Simple. Being able to work out harder and longer, assuming proper sleep and nutrition, leads to greater muscle gain. There's no mystery.

I read the comments and now i m going to start it

I tried creatine. Taking it in powder form mixed with my protein shake made me feel awful.

Not worth it. Seemingly does nothing.

There are cognitive benefits to creatine, so don’t stop taking it. Especially if you’re old as fuck (50+, etc)

Or if you're vegetarian.

I didn't even know about the cognitive benefits until I felt them so strongly that I did a search to see if it was a common thing people experienced.

What did you do experience?

That's one slightly gross drink less for the gym then

People who know better shouldn't publish misleading and damaging headlines like this.

This isn’t a good study. First, aren’t researchers passed treating all muscle randomly? Don’t genetics play a role, particularly with adenosine triphosphate synthesizing? And second, shouldn’t creatine have results for those working out 5+ times a week? I’d like to see a study of one ethnic group weight training 7 days a week for 12 weeks and one half taking the supplement and the other not.

No? There are a lot of studies showing positive benefits: >The primary benefit of creatine is an improvement in strength and power output during resistance exercise. Creatine is well-researched for this purpose, and its effects are quite notable for a supplement, both in the general population,[6][7][8][9] and specifically in older adults.[10][11][12] When used in conjunction with resistance exercise, creatine may modestly increase lean mass.[7][12][11][13] In trained athletes, creatine has been reported to reduce body fat and improve some measures of anaerobic exercise performance, strength, and power output.

https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/?show_conditions=tr...

And as a general rule of thumb: Don't take anything from 4chan seriously.