Does creatine make you smarter?(dynomight.net)
dynomight.net
Does creatine make you smarter?
https://dynomight.net/creatine/
54 comments
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.
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".
> 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 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.)
But as you hint at in your second paragraph, people do take them instead of real medicine. So in that sense, it can be harmful.
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.
https://www.kidney.org/kidney-topics/creatinine
https://www.kidney.org/kidney-topics/creatinine
I don't know the specifics beyond the fact that your kidneys play a key role in both synthesizing natural creatine and filtering out creatine from your body, and as thus is generally not recommended as a supplement if you have any sort of kidney disorder.
Creatine raises creatinine in kidney function tests. For a healthy person, this isn't a problem, but if you already have high creatinine (from a kidney problem), it makes it harder to interpret test results.
This is basically "wanting" it to be true then it actually being there are so many variables and so many other things that even the minuscule benefit you gain from this heavily marketed science backed supplement could get completely offset by your other lifestyle problem like poor inconsistent sleep. I at one point was deep in this "optimizing" phase listening to all these pseduo-intellectual channels like "What I've Learned" and articles like the one linked and they always overblow the finding to support some conclusion. I tried creatine for full year and didn't felt any different no extra 20% energy nothing still fatigued after work same with fish oils all this stuff is at best either placebo or in case of creatine only tiny benefits that might only be felt by someone really at peak of their training.
The actual things that I now swear by and actually help is consistent sleep of whatever hours that doesn't make you feel sleepy in the day/night (depending on shift) since actual consistency matters more then timing and also in case of workouts really balancing the fatigue to intensity ratio. I understood this late and thought one should always push hard but there needs to be a balance. It's kind of like how cheetah can run really fast but only for 20-30 seconds and then it needs a 30 minute reset period or something. So if you go to failure or always at very high intensity it affects later sets and increases recovery period and in a way driving down overall weekly sets/volume which is main hypertrophy factor.
The actual things that I now swear by and actually help is consistent sleep of whatever hours that doesn't make you feel sleepy in the day/night (depending on shift) since actual consistency matters more then timing and also in case of workouts really balancing the fatigue to intensity ratio. I understood this late and thought one should always push hard but there needs to be a balance. It's kind of like how cheetah can run really fast but only for 20-30 seconds and then it needs a 30 minute reset period or something. So if you go to failure or always at very high intensity it affects later sets and increases recovery period and in a way driving down overall weekly sets/volume which is main hypertrophy factor.
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.
Have you ruled out your supply is contaminated with something that causes your side effects?
That might be relatively likely.
That might be relatively likely.
Scientifically interesting, but it's kind of the same problem whether supplements are dangerous on their own or from contamination. Given how little value an unnecessary medication is it makes no sense to test it to eliminate a risk that is also eliminated by not taking it.
No, I haven’t, I could theoretically try a new brand and see what happens
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!
> (2) it has a bunch of clearly measurable positive effects.
Clearly measurably neutrally and scientifically -- or clearly measurable as measured by supplement company funding studies or cherry-picked by health influencers?
Clearly measurably neutrally and scientifically -- or clearly measurable as measured by supplement company funding studies or cherry-picked by health influencers?
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
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.
Lots of state actors criticizing the US too. Bots everywhere.
30-50% of social media at this point
"look to the left of you, look to the right of you, one of you isn't real"
"look to the left of you, look to the right of you, one of you isn't real"
It's me. I'm funded by a network of stodgy older devs to be a shill for clean code.
"clean code" is one of my favorite myths.
Especially when the guy so into code cleanliness can barely dress himself, can't design well, and so-on.
A lot more parallels between visual design / art and people who structure code nicely in files and use the "latest syntax" (omg so clean)
Especially when the guy so into code cleanliness can barely dress himself, can't design well, and so-on.
A lot more parallels between visual design / art and people who structure code nicely in files and use the "latest syntax" (omg so clean)
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.
Magnesium? Its widely known that magnesium is used by the body lol
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.
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.
> 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
This is why meta analysis exists.
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.
> Magnesium sulfate is absorbed less effectively
Drinking the same Epsom salt in water that you soak in has the same effect as soaking in hot or cold water with it, and it's also the same effect as taking magnesium supplements sold over the counter.
You can try it yourself - totally safe. You already eat magnesium all the time.
Whatever you're doing with your comment, I'm not convinced.
Drinking the same Epsom salt in water that you soak in has the same effect as soaking in hot or cold water with it, and it's also the same effect as taking magnesium supplements sold over the counter.
You can try it yourself - totally safe. You already eat magnesium all the time.
Whatever you're doing with your comment, I'm not convinced.
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.
> By virtue of how hard it is to get any information on creatine
What exactly is hard about that? You can get all sorts of information about creatine, it is one of the most studied supplement ever.
What exactly is hard about that? You can get all sorts of information about creatine, it is one of the most studied supplement ever.
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.
But sure, keep believing they are on your side.
But sure, keep believing they are on your side.
That website examine is good for supplement info. They had to paywall most info because LLMS scraped the c$#p out of them m
They paywalled it before LLMs.
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).
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?
"Trust me, I'm a scientitian". No thanks.
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.
They're not saying "one point" about the conclusion, they're saying that their statement isn't nearly confident enough, and that they would prefer that they say with strong confidence that there is unequivocally NO positive effect on cognition.
It is a hell of a thing for a random person on an internet forum to be so unilateral, without providing some kind of strong evidence (aside from statements about "the industry", which is kind of beside the point). I would also suggest if you want to be so unequivocal, that the burden of proof is especially high for you.
This "point" isn't actually all that rational - it's knee jerk skepticism. It's a fine default for yourself, but it's not something you get to force on others because they admit there's room for the potential of benefit.
Again: You're perfectly fine to hold that opinion yourself, but when you start trying to force that on others - you now have an especially high bar to reach, and yes - being a lead researcher in the field is exactly what I'm looking for when someone says "X has been proven to not have a benefit for Y".
"Trust me, I'm a scientitian" - Not sure the point of that juvenile wordplay, but Ok: we do have these things called scientists, some are good, some are terrible. You still need to back up your statements - that's the key part, this isn't a blind appeal to authority. And it's a hell of a lot better than "Trust me, I'm a nerd with very strong beliefs about a topic I know very little about".
It is a hell of a thing for a random person on an internet forum to be so unilateral, without providing some kind of strong evidence (aside from statements about "the industry", which is kind of beside the point). I would also suggest if you want to be so unequivocal, that the burden of proof is especially high for you.
This "point" isn't actually all that rational - it's knee jerk skepticism. It's a fine default for yourself, but it's not something you get to force on others because they admit there's room for the potential of benefit.
Again: You're perfectly fine to hold that opinion yourself, but when you start trying to force that on others - you now have an especially high bar to reach, and yes - being a lead researcher in the field is exactly what I'm looking for when someone says "X has been proven to not have a benefit for Y".
"Trust me, I'm a scientitian" - Not sure the point of that juvenile wordplay, but Ok: we do have these things called scientists, some are good, some are terrible. You still need to back up your statements - that's the key part, this isn't a blind appeal to authority. And it's a hell of a lot better than "Trust me, I'm a nerd with very strong beliefs about a topic I know very little about".
The top of HN threads is generally nitpicking minutiae which are more likely technically correct than not but also highly irrelevant. It's done by non-experts and drowns out any more valuable discussion.
It'll be people arguing about exact language not being someone's preferred level, or overloading the importance and exact definition of a technical term that experts don't really care about, or blowing up some edge case or another.
It'll be people arguing about exact language not being someone's preferred level, or overloading the importance and exact definition of a technical term that experts don't really care about, or blowing up some edge case or another.
It wasn't a point about exact language in and of itself. It was a point about the conclusion, and how it doesn't account for highly relevant aspects of the publication record and industry. This was not "a better word would be" or similar. This was "the meaning was wrong, the thinking was wrong, and here's why".
Exactly my point. You are making an essentially meaningless distinction in attempts to "correct" what I said to be more precise in a way that does not matter at all with regards to what I was trying to say.
My understanding from this exchange is that for you, large distinctions of meaning and reason are reducible and accurately described as meaningless language nitpicks, but regardless, you dress up the last post as if it's the opposite, so I will not respond further.
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.
If you're being academically rigorous about it, sure, but I think it's fine as an informal conclusion.
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."
Personally I take creatine for entirely non-cognitive reasons, so it's reassuring to know it's probably not making me any dumber.
Though you also have to consider potentially adulterated powder (accidental or not) in the unregulated supplement industry.
That's why I dropped creatine since I didn't notice any benefits when I tried it for a year.
That's why I dropped creatine since I didn't notice any benefits when I tried it for a year.
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.'
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.
[1] https://fitchef.com/shorts/creatine-non-responder/
> 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/
For me it has an insanely large effect. Roughly 30% more reps and endurance.
When I stopped taking it, I went from 12 reps to 10, and slower recovery.
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
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
It's not unregulated.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B...
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B...
it might even be counteracting the negative effects of your frequent contact with airborne nitrogen
what negative effects? N2 is inert under physiological conditions.
nothing it's fine if you buy enough creatine. It's much easier with my proprietary blend though
You still haven't specified what negative side effects you're referring to. Nitrogen tends to be inert, so I'm questioning your claim that N2 causes some negative side effect, not your claim that creatine hinders this yet-unnamed side effect
the price just went up, better act fast!
You do realise that you cannot prove a negative? So the right conclusion even informally cannot be “ probably not making me any dumber”.
Yes you can. E.g. Euler's proof that there is no largest prime number.
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.
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.
Taking creatine does not bar you from doing other things. Being "low energy" is too general a thing, and to approach you probably need to start eliminating factors anyway until you find the issue, by getting better sleep, doing blood tests etc. Taking creatine can be part of this.
Creatine supplementation not having significant effect in X domain in population level does not mean that it will not have effect on YOU if for example you are vegan and don't get enough creatine from diet. If you have low energy, probably you have something that may not show in a population level. Similarly you may be low in B12 and then B12 can help you, but it may not show effects in population level if most of the population is not low in B12 (and your study is not powered enough to catch nuances).
It is not like when you have to choose between two medicines and excluding one can be harmful even if the other is not harmful to take per se. You can supplement creatine and try whatever else at the same time.
Creatine supplementation not having significant effect in X domain in population level does not mean that it will not have effect on YOU if for example you are vegan and don't get enough creatine from diet. If you have low energy, probably you have something that may not show in a population level. Similarly you may be low in B12 and then B12 can help you, but it may not show effects in population level if most of the population is not low in B12 (and your study is not powered enough to catch nuances).
It is not like when you have to choose between two medicines and excluding one can be harmful even if the other is not harmful to take per se. You can supplement creatine and try whatever else at the same time.
What are the "downsides"? It is one of the most studied substances and except in special cases like kidney issues it is totally safe.
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.
The fact that there's a biologically plausible mechanism plus mixed statistical evidence makes "maybe" a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
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/
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/
You are essentially trying to say that most studies regarding supplements are not valid
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.
“There's a sucker born every minute.”
“There's a sucker born every minute.”
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.
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.
mandatory XKCD https://xkcd.com/882/ "Jellybeans cause acne"
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.
I think you are on to it. The magic would die. It's a recipe for dystopia same as the Agile Manifesto was such a recipe.
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.
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.
> If they found a link, they found a link
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 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.
This is exactly my point. They are not repeating experiments. Each one is a different one, and independent of the other, because the chemicals in each color are different. The cartoon don't show any data that proves that this is a random correlation, because they are not testing what you think that they are testing. Jellybeans here are irrelevant (They are present in both groups, the control and the experiment). It may be, or not be, a random correlation, we can't know at this point. And this leads us directly to the next line:
> A positive result is no more deserving of further investigation than a negative result.
This is not how science works.
Your null hypothesis is rejected, you publish and continue trying to explain why. Otherwise you stop and try something different.
Films have sold us the idea that science can be done in the countdown of a bomb, experiments take 30 seconds; and if it does not work in the first try, it means that you are not a real genius. The weird guys build a time machine in a weekend with empty cans of soda, and the hackers broke into high security buildings with a paperclip and then remove their glasses and nobody recognizes then anymore. Yeah. Master of disguise. This Big Bird costume pays for itself every time we break into the Pentagon. G'morning Mr Hegseth
But this is a fantasy, not the real life. Scientists stumble and limp all the way. Even the geniuses. Specially the geniuses. And they faint at the price of the required spare part that must be ordered and imported from one, and only one, company in Finland, and will be here in five months. Meanwhile, researchers throw things to the wall to see what sticks, and laser focus on the unexpected strange result that is different in a subtle way, because their grants depend on it.
> A positive result is no more deserving of further investigation than a negative result.
This is not how science works.
Your null hypothesis is rejected, you publish and continue trying to explain why. Otherwise you stop and try something different.
Films have sold us the idea that science can be done in the countdown of a bomb, experiments take 30 seconds; and if it does not work in the first try, it means that you are not a real genius. The weird guys build a time machine in a weekend with empty cans of soda, and the hackers broke into high security buildings with a paperclip and then remove their glasses and nobody recognizes then anymore. Yeah. Master of disguise. This Big Bird costume pays for itself every time we break into the Pentagon. G'morning Mr Hegseth
But this is a fantasy, not the real life. Scientists stumble and limp all the way. Even the geniuses. Specially the geniuses. And they faint at the price of the required spare part that must be ordered and imported from one, and only one, company in Finland, and will be here in five months. Meanwhile, researchers throw things to the wall to see what sticks, and laser focus on the unexpected strange result that is different in a subtle way, because their grants depend on it.
> This is exactly my point. They are not repeating experiments. Each one is a different one, and independent of the other, because the chemicals in each color are different. They are not testing what you think that they are testing.
They ran the same experiment 20 times with a meaningless variable changed until they got a positive result with a confidence of 95%. (i.e. 1/20 chance of a random positive result.)
The point of the comic is that this is bad science. Or at least it is ver bad science reporting. This kind of nonsense is why there is a multibillion dollar market for supplements that do not hold up to further testing.
> This is not how science works in the real life.
True. There is a lot of bad science in real life.
They ran the same experiment 20 times with a meaningless variable changed until they got a positive result with a confidence of 95%. (i.e. 1/20 chance of a random positive result.)
The point of the comic is that this is bad science. Or at least it is ver bad science reporting. This kind of nonsense is why there is a multibillion dollar market for supplements that do not hold up to further testing.
> This is not how science works in the real life.
True. There is a lot of bad science in real life.
"Scientists bad because I don't understand statistics" is boring. Just because you decided that is a meaningless variable does not mean that it is.
P-hacking doesn't mean doing a lot of experiments. This is called working hard or going the extra mile. Working hard is not cheating. That the real scientists would do is frown upon the green jellybean result, think "hum, this is strange" and test further for effects of the green dye in other products. Science knowledge is in-cre-men-tal.
P-hacking is: changing the statistical model that you use to analyze the data, until you find one that gives you the desired (publishable) p-value.
P-hacking is manipulating the methodology in your favor and sometimes grooming the data also. All of that while ignoring other models available known to be more robust, precise and better for your particular case. This is why p-hacking is cheating.
-------------------------
Second. There are a market for fake supplements because, to express it crudely: people is idiot and the government does not care about them.
1) Some people didn't cared to learn even basic biology at the school, and will believe that the moon is made of cheese if it comes from somebody in their tribal team. Scientists take a lot of pain to assure that their knowledge is available to the public.
There are thousands of scientific articles about creatine. Never has been so easy in the history to find them. And with AI, you don't even need to read the whole horror anymore, to have a general idea of cons and pros before to jump in the water. Do your f*k homework before to gulp a mysterious pill. If not. Don't blame scientists later.
2) The government make laws. Is not scientists fault, if it allows to sell legally dubious supplements, or even more if politicians profit of it, (ehum, mandated testosterone tests for every soldier, ka-ching!).
Their job is to protect citizens from scammers. Most countries ban anything that is remotely medical and not proven effective, or at least advice strongly against taking it.
P-hacking doesn't mean doing a lot of experiments. This is called working hard or going the extra mile. Working hard is not cheating. That the real scientists would do is frown upon the green jellybean result, think "hum, this is strange" and test further for effects of the green dye in other products. Science knowledge is in-cre-men-tal.
P-hacking is: changing the statistical model that you use to analyze the data, until you find one that gives you the desired (publishable) p-value.
P-hacking is manipulating the methodology in your favor and sometimes grooming the data also. All of that while ignoring other models available known to be more robust, precise and better for your particular case. This is why p-hacking is cheating.
-------------------------
Second. There are a market for fake supplements because, to express it crudely: people is idiot and the government does not care about them.
1) Some people didn't cared to learn even basic biology at the school, and will believe that the moon is made of cheese if it comes from somebody in their tribal team. Scientists take a lot of pain to assure that their knowledge is available to the public.
There are thousands of scientific articles about creatine. Never has been so easy in the history to find them. And with AI, you don't even need to read the whole horror anymore, to have a general idea of cons and pros before to jump in the water. Do your f*k homework before to gulp a mysterious pill. If not. Don't blame scientists later.
2) The government make laws. Is not scientists fault, if it allows to sell legally dubious supplements, or even more if politicians profit of it, (ehum, mandated testosterone tests for every soldier, ka-ching!).
Their job is to protect citizens from scammers. Most countries ban anything that is remotely medical and not proven effective, or at least advice strongly against taking it.
> "Scientists bad because I don't understand statistics" is boring. Just because you decided that is a meaningless variable does not mean that it is.
It’s literally a comic about how spurious results arise.
I understand what you are trying to get at with your insistence on pedantically misreading the comic, but you’re missing the forest for the trees.
> Your null hypothesis is rejected, you publish and continue trying to explain why.
In this case the “why” is “we ran so many experiments that a false positive was inevitable”.
> Otherwise you stop and try something different.
“Only publish the positive results” is exactly the problem. This is terrible science because it magnifies false positives and hides the negatives (false or not). Do enough experiments and eventually you get a positive result for basically anything.
It’s literally a comic about how spurious results arise.
I understand what you are trying to get at with your insistence on pedantically misreading the comic, but you’re missing the forest for the trees.
> Your null hypothesis is rejected, you publish and continue trying to explain why.
In this case the “why” is “we ran so many experiments that a false positive was inevitable”.
> Otherwise you stop and try something different.
“Only publish the positive results” is exactly the problem. This is terrible science because it magnifies false positives and hides the negatives (false or not). Do enough experiments and eventually you get a positive result for basically anything.
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.
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.
One person is not a nation.
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.
There was actually a VERY recent study on mega-dose creatine for sleep deprivation:
You need a dose high enough to penetrate the blood-brain barrier, around 0.3g/kg (so ~30g for a 100kg person).
> "Single dose creatine improves cognitive performance and induces changes in cerebral high energy phosphates during sleep deprivation"
You need a dose high enough to penetrate the blood-brain barrier, around 0.3g/kg (so ~30g for a 100kg person).
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).
The mouth-tapers aren’t always wrong (though we do always look silly).
https://youtu.be/g8JzXEoT9LI
Kinesio tape seems to be the solution
Kinesio tape seems to be the solution
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.
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.
Isn’t a didge just a big straw anyway?
"What is this, a didgeridoo for ants?
But seriously, yeah pretty much, usually with some beeswax on one end.
But seriously, yeah pretty much, usually with some beeswax on one end.
this is trolling, right?
I read about it here originally:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48243666
I haven't read into it much but I believe the circular breathing excercises strengthen some of the muscles that tend to relax during sleep so they keep your airway open.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48243666
I haven't read into it much but I believe the circular breathing excercises strengthen some of the muscles that tend to relax during sleep so they keep your airway open.
No. Controlled breathwork has real effects and is not pseudoscience. You should read up on it.
Thanks for sharing, that is very interesting. The article quoted several of the studies as saying that the benefits of creatine are mostly on "stressed" population. Maybe that's what's going on here?
It might have some kind of neuroprotective effect. For people who are already very healthy, there may be no measurable difference. But for the rest of us, it may be more helpful.
I'm reminded of something I read about dual n-back. (I forget where, it might have been Gwern page on it.) Someone said that when they are sleep deprived, they feel totally fine, but their n-back score absolutely tanks.
It might be interesting to test that, the intersection of sleep deprivation, creatine and objective measures of executive function. That could give us more data on the "helps most in stressed cases" theory.
It might have some kind of neuroprotective effect. For people who are already very healthy, there may be no measurable difference. But for the rest of us, it may be more helpful.
I'm reminded of something I read about dual n-back. (I forget where, it might have been Gwern page on it.) Someone said that when they are sleep deprived, they feel totally fine, but their n-back score absolutely tanks.
It might be interesting to test that, the intersection of sleep deprivation, creatine and objective measures of executive function. That could give us more data on the "helps most in stressed cases" theory.
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.
So my choice is between brain farts and regular ones... fortunately I work remote!
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.
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.
Not to suggest diagnosis on the internet to people I haven't met, but for me chronic insomnia was actually narcolepsy. Ironic given that it's disease known for excess sleep, but the actual core issue is broken sleep structure. I had actually been supplementing with creatine for the past 6 months or so and recently gave it up. If it was having any effect it was marginal at best. The only thing that works is pharmaceuticals.
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).
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.
Feeling like you can confidently take one more rep does feel like being stronger. Sure you're not stronger in the sense that you can lift more weight per rep, but being able to do more heavy reps is also a valid way to define feeling stronger.
Creatine also causes your muscles to retain a little bit more water making them appear larger.
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?
I personally use coffee as a way to manage excessive appetite, so I see I will continue using it forever.
And protein is just convenient way to hit daily protein intake goals for someone doing lots of sports.
And protein is just convenient way to hit daily protein intake goals for someone doing lots of sports.
> Because the moment you stop taking, wouldn’t you notice a big drop?
No. They're not steroids.
No. They're not steroids.
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.
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)
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 you added back the creatine along with the herring, you could become a superhero.
Not likely. There's a saturation point where excess just gets filtered out by your kidneys.
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.
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.
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.
> If I know I'm only going to get a few hours of sleep, I'll ... drink plenty of water
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/21517-dehydra...
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/21517-dehydra...
from your link
>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.
>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.
"often" and "always" are two different words that mean two different things
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.
I do the same thing with pickle juice. Works for me.
Do you take monohydrate or HCL?
most common one, monohydrate.
Monihydrate causes me terrible GI issues and insomnia. I’ve found HCL to me much easier on my body.
It's just so annoyingly sour but it dissolves very well so you can drink it like shot of vodka. And the body absorbs it so much faster
Hmm, I guess I haven’t notice the sour flavor. Con-Crete is the brand I use and the flavors are naturally sour.
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).
[0] https://gwern.net/creatine
[0] https://gwern.net/creatine
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 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.
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.
I get severe muscle cramping, even after pounding water and electrolytes. Like I can’t handle my kid something in the car without risking a spasm.
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.
spasms are commonly a potassium deficiency, you could take a multivitamin.
Multivitamins don't contain a lot of potassium because of the risk over overdosing in that form. Eat a banana instead (or 3).
I do function health and have completely normal nutrient blood levels.
Do you lift weights?
Yes I’m fit, easily passed military and LEO fitness tests this year.
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.
> 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.
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.
I noticed hair thinning too. To be clear I don’t know that creatine caused it. But what feels like a longer period of thinning (I’m 43) coincides with creatine use. It’s not a well-documented side effect if is indeed real.
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
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.
BTW, it tends to trash the eGFR test which relies on an unbiased creatinine reading.
The people who deny that Epsom salt has any effect say the same thing. They say it’s only the hot water relaxing your muscles not the Epsom salt.
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.
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.
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.
A pity that water isn’t being sold as an expensive supplement. Or is it?
You're looking in the wrong place. There is a moderately large industry around water bottles.
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.
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.
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.
> Water that's coming out of your tap is generally aiming for neutral (~7 ph).
Not really. In the US at least, there’s the “Lead And Copper Rule”, which effectively requires utilities to adjust water composition to make the water minimally corrosive to copper and to lead. This often involves delivering water at a pH higher than 7. (San Francisco, for example, has water pH near 9, although it seems to be on the high end compared to other systems.)
Not really. In the US at least, there’s the “Lead And Copper Rule”, which effectively requires utilities to adjust water composition to make the water minimally corrosive to copper and to lead. This often involves delivering water at a pH higher than 7. (San Francisco, for example, has water pH near 9, although it seems to be on the high end compared to other systems.)
I do really love LMNT, it's basically the only one I've tried that actually has a sizable dose of sodium, has no sugar, and tastes good.
Sure, except it has an insane markup for what are some of the cheapest ingredients one could source.
$50 for flavoured salt is pure insanity.
$50 for flavoured salt is pure insanity.
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.
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.
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.
"Creatine found to improve cognitive performance during sleep deprivation" (2024, 56 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40170474
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40170474
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40184046
"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.
"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
If you actually drank enough water daily, sans creatine, I'm sure you'd feel better.
Hydration is important so I'm with you on the first half, but what is the proposed link between reduced creatine intake and emotional wellbeing?
Placebo.
I wasn't expecting creatine to have any bearing on my emotional state in the first place, so I'm not sure how that would work.
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.
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.
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.
This is nonsense.
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.
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.
This is not true. Did you read the article?
People love to float this myth that everyone's just walking around dehydrated all the time and they do so based on absolutely no data.
This. People forget most food we eat is at least 50% water.
Yes. None of the supposed action of creatine was backed by any statistically significant study. Just drink water. Or don't. It's up to you.
Does creatine make you stronger?
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
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
just reminded me to buy a decent waterbottle - thank you
[deleted]
[deleted]
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
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.
>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.)
this is wrong [0] , it's just hard to measure.
[0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32314956/
this is wrong [0] , it's just hard to measure.
[0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32314956/
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.
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.
The increase due to thinking hard is small, but still, the amount of energy burned by your brain is very significant. It consumes around 20% of the total calories your body burns. It just doesn't spike due to intense concentration or mental activity.
Interesting. I had heard that chess players burn a crazy amount of calories during tournament matches, but when I looked it up just now it seems like that isn't true: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2025/06/30/its-sapols...
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 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!
Also search for 'sleep' in this comment section, seems many see similar improvements!
I was missing both the effects for the sleep deprived and the elderly in the article. Particularly those with dementia.
In my experience, it wont make you smarter but my brain just feels more energized to think.
It clears my brainfog. But I'm burned out because of 3 years in crunch mode doing a one man startup and chronically sleep deprived because of small children. So I'm definitely in the stressed category.
I think its supposed to make you able to concentrate better when you are tired. For most people this can make them feel smarter.
I'm an endurance cyclist, and I take 5g on ride days (4/week). I started based on this study (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15502783.2023.2...). In short, it does have some benefits for endurance sports by enhancing surges in intensity such as climbing or the finishing kick. I've noticed some muscle mass increase, including my upper body, but nothing I would consider dramatic. I can't say I've experienced any mental effects, though I haven't taken an IQ test in decades, so who am I to say?
> 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?
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
I’ve always wanted to use creatine regularly but every time I’ve started taking it, I get a considerable rise in blood pressure. Would be curious to hear if anyone else experiences this or has found a good workaround.
I’ve researched it quite a bit and found that others do experience it as well, but the usual advice of “just drink more water” (which yes, I have tried) is about the extent of info I find on it. Then, the “it causes your body to retain more water” idea which doesn’t seem to be accurate as what I’ve understood is that it causes your muscles to store more water…
I’ve researched it quite a bit and found that others do experience it as well, but the usual advice of “just drink more water” (which yes, I have tried) is about the extent of info I find on it. Then, the “it causes your body to retain more water” idea which doesn’t seem to be accurate as what I’ve understood is that it causes your muscles to store more water…
Do you regularly measure your own blood pressure on a daily basis? I’d imagine if this were common most people wouldn’t know.
I’d say periodically now that I have it controlled. One of those instances was a dentists visit that I thought was solely due to improper measurement (wrist based, and they had me cross arms over my chest). But it was still high at home when I checked the next day.
The other was a periodic check. Both times, BP returned to normal over the course of about a week when I stopped creatine supplementation with no other changes.
The other was a periodic check. Both times, BP returned to normal over the course of about a week when I stopped creatine supplementation with no other changes.
Don’t know about cognitive effects, but it gives me around 10% more strength and a fuller, more muscular look.
If the cognitive effects are real, they aren’t noticeable to me without placebo effect. Meaning, I hadn’t heard any notion of creatine impacting cognitive function and I’ve been taking it on and off for years, and never noticed anything.
Thinking back, maybe an uptick in mood and a mental performance while tired? Purely unscientific, though.
If the cognitive effects are real, they aren’t noticeable to me without placebo effect. Meaning, I hadn’t heard any notion of creatine impacting cognitive function and I’ve been taking it on and off for years, and never noticed anything.
Thinking back, maybe an uptick in mood and a mental performance while tired? Purely unscientific, though.
Studies I read seems to show a marginal boost in cognitionl and memory, but only if you were otherwise overtaxed for some reason.
Like being tired, stressed, etc...
Like being tired, stressed, etc...
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.
Here are the sleep deprivation studies
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54249-9
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16416332/
Here are the sleep deprivation studies
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54249-9
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16416332/
> 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.
They missed a zero behind the comma, didn't they?
They missed a zero behind the comma, didn't they?
Likely. I did one time a creatine loading week of 30gr a day at 100kg body weight and I had to drink 7L of water to not feel like I have a hangover.
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.
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.
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.
Do you do anything else for hair? Like Minoxidil, Finasteride, or other serums/etc.
Just curious for other folks experiences as they are on or off creatine in parallel with other hair interventions.
Just curious for other folks experiences as they are on or off creatine in parallel with other hair interventions.
I have normal hair, and probably less hair loss than is average for someone my age. I don't use products on it. Aside from this issue, it's been clear sailing the whole time.
> 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.
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.
> poses no danger to your hair,
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
> 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.
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.
Take this as anecdotal, but I started taking 1500 mg of creatine HCl daily about a year ago. Since then, I’ve felt sharper and able to perform mentally at a higher level for longer throughout the day.
A different discussion on the same general topic 51 days ago (and now flagged)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48346947
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48346947
For me, whenever I took creatine I got headaches. (I drank enough water, and I could reproduce the issue everytime I tried it, so stopped it as it felt wrong)
I feel extremely lethargic whenever I take even 5g of it. I also drink 2 - 3 liters plain water a day, so I don't think it's dehydration.
> Maybe for some reason, Rae et al.’s cohort had lower baseline creatine levels?
Well, yes. It is well known that you must eat fish, beef, i.e., animal protein, to get close to optimal levels of creatine.
Well, yes. It is well known that you must eat fish, beef, i.e., animal protein, to get close to optimal levels of creatine.
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.
I remember learning about Creatine as a weightlifting teen
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?
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 don't have to cycle it. You also don't need to load it (a marketing ploy to get you to buy more).
You can just take 3-5g daily.
You can just take 3-5g daily.
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.
Cycling creatine was the guidance from the 90s. 5g/day and drink plenty of water is all you need to do.
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'.
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?
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?
On some drug abuse forums I visit people also claim creatine has antidepressant effects. I honestly can't tell but I take 3g daily.
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.
Why is creatine so popular lately? what changed?
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.
another upside is its also hella cheap so its a very easy addin
and that scientific evidence is new? like a new study boosted this or just resurfacing?
[deleted]
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.
It’s just resurfacing as a general health fad/marketing campaign.
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.
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.
Health fads come and go
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!
I cant talk about scientific reasons, but from my experience, creatine has caused increase in hairfall for me.
Perhaps the desire to start creatine and hairfall are correlated to a third thing? Or causation is reversed?
You would have to start and stop several times before you could even start making anything out of that. Any one time correlation can very well just be chance.
If you're eating enough to build muscle, you're getting enough creatine already.
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.
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.
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.
Dang, missed opportunity to explain the actin-myosine sliding filament theory.
if you are using to slim down it will hold on to water unless you are bulking i dont see creatine to be consumed regularly
if you truly want fuel for the brain nothing beats keto
if you truly want fuel for the brain nothing beats keto
Okay, I skimmed the article.
Is creatine safe to supplement for children?
Is creatine safe to supplement for children?
If you're standing in GNC staring at a tub of creatine wondering if it will make you smarter, you better hope it does...
exits stage left
I'll be here all week folks!
exits stage left
I'll be here all week folks!
Scam through and through for omnivores
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) ?
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) ?
> if you include fish in the vegetarian diet, which is odd but some people do that.
Meat Is Murder but Fish Is Justifiable Homicide.
Meat Is Murder but Fish Is Justifiable Homicide.
It's OK to eat fish
cause they don't have any feelings
- Something in the way, Nirvana
- Something in the way, Nirvana
Its something you might aswell just take, no proven side negative side effects, unless you are gulping it, it will benefit you
But is it even bad to kidney?
Saved you a click:
> Does creatine make you smarter?
> I don’t know. Maybe a little.
> Does creatine make you smarter?
> I don’t know. Maybe a little.
in other words, it doesn't do much of anything, similar to most powders, supplements, and minerals/vitamins
People are throwing away their money
People are throwing away their money
scam through and through for omnivores
Article's answer to its own question:
It safely builds muscle and boosts cognition.
It safely builds muscle and boosts cognition.
No, it does not.
More like "probably", "yes", and "probably not."
More like "probably", "yes", and "probably not."
Given LLM's is being smarter still a worthwhile to optimize with supplements?
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)
LoL.maybe the question is not phrased in the best way, English as a second language and laziness, but it's a pretty decent question.
Present company excluded, of course.
I still seek the fount of infinite wisdom.
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.
that was hard to parse, but yes, because then you can ask smarter questions to the LLM which saves you money, so you can afford supplements
Yeah, mix some creatine in with the thermal paste. It should help!
> 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