6 ms·

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 doe

• xiande04 2y ago
  Exactly. As ATP is broken down to adenosine and phosphate to produce energy, creatine re-phosphorolates adenosine. So it gives you more energy at molecular level. But as you said, you have to actually use that energy.
  • Frost1x 2y ago
    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.
• cratermoon 2y ago
  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.
  • DataDaoDe 2y ago
    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
  • maerF0x0 2y ago
    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 :)
  • wqweto 2y ago
    > 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.
  • kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Assuming your body doesn’t form a dependency to it somehow and becomes sluggish weening off of it.
• dgfitz 2y ago
  This has been known for ~15 years. I'm not sure what this study thought it was debunking.
  • ahoy 2y ago
    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 https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/6/1081
    • dgfitz 2y ago
      Given the glaring reproducibility crisis in the scientific community, creatine seems the wrong focus at the moment.
      • pessimizer 2y ago
        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?
        • dgfitz 2y ago
          It just doesn't matter. People who use creatine understand how it works and what the purpose it serves. Read the rest of this thread for anecdotes. Study it to death, I care not. If I had research money, I wouldn't use it to kick a dead horse.
  • ActivePattern 2y ago
    If you read the study, you can see that they controlled for training intensity. All exercises were done to repetition maximum.
  • TomHenderson3 2y ago
• parthdesai 2y ago
  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.
  • Tumlomu 2y ago
    [dead]
  • graeme 2y ago
    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/ 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/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8637535/
  • maerF0x0 2y ago
    > 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 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).
• iambateman 2y ago
  For what it’s worth, I didn’t know this and I suspect a lot of people don’t. Thanks for this!
• aNapierkowski 2y ago
  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].
  • svnt 2y ago
    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.
    • daveguy 2y ago
      It seems like the protocol would detect either benefit, if present. It makes sense that the body's adenosine re-phosphorylation is not rate limited by creatine at all (which the body produces naturally). In that case, having extra creatine lying around would just make your pee more expensive and give you a nice placebo effect from believing you can lift more. (And placebo effects are real effects, particularly for effort related tasks. Just not due to chemistry of the treatment.)
• Nifty3929 2y ago
  From the actual study: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/6/10812.3.4 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.
  • n4r9 2y ago
    > it does somehow suggest that they were pushing the participants to do as much as they could I have the same impression. Possibly it could be made less subjective by literally repping to failure, but I'd guess that has potential ethical implications.
    • Frost1x 2y ago
      Repping to failure has potential ethical implications? Reps to failure can be done pretty darn safely with machines and incredibly low risk of injury if done on the higher rep ranges (say 20 per set). You’re not going to get rid or risk of injury but in order to even do this study, my opinion is you have to be at a normal level of injury risk or the study is pretty much flawed by design.
• ActivePattern 2y ago
  The study seems to have controlled for training intensity -- all exercises were done to repetition maximum.