Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sports supplement creatine makes no difference to muscle gains, trial finds

unsw.edu.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 177 posts

Re: Sports supplement creatine makes no difference to muscle gains, trial finds

#91

Post by benmmurphy »

the__alchemist wrote: post #3

This sort of study is important, given how highly taken creatine is. I will highlight a part that I think may be especially relevant: > “The people taking the creatine supplement saw changes before they even started exercising, which leads us to believe that it wasn’t actual real muscle growth, but potentially fluid retention,” Dr Hagstrom said. I think this is well-known, right? People take creatine specifically bec…

I thought runners were also using creatine but I can only find discussion around this for amateurs online. I'm not sure if professional runners are using it. It would be interesting to know if professionals are using it because as far as I'm aware it is not a banned substance and presumably if it had a benefit they would be using it. But maybe I'm just bad at googling because I found this article that claimed 80% of athletes at the Atlanta Olympics were using creatine (https://runmrrun.com/creatine-for-running/). Though, this page seems to be trying to sell creatine supplements so maybe should be taken with a bit of skepticism.

Re: Sports supplement creatine makes no difference to muscle gains, trial finds

#92

Post by SuperNinKenDo »

deadbabe wrote: post #83

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

Or if you're vegetarian.

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

Re: Sports supplement creatine makes no difference to muscle gains, trial finds

#93

Post by dgfitz »

ahoy wrote: post #51
dgfitz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is value in studying things that are "settled" science. You can reinforce or deepen the existing understanding, or uncover nuance that wasn't widely understood before. Note that this link is not the study! The published paper makes much more specific claims. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/6/1081

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

Re: Sports supplement creatine makes no difference to muscle gains, trial finds

#94

Post by wqweto »

cratermoon wrote: post #16
laszlojamf wrote: post #4

The way I understood it creatine by itself doesn't promote muscle gain all that much. It's the fact that you can potentially do one to three more reps which does. But that still means you have to do the reps. https://leangains.com/supplements-you-might-actually-find-us...

This is correct. There are two main biological activities involving creatine, a combination of amino acids: 1. it facilitates recycling of ADP back to ATP, obviously more ATP means more energy, meaning ability to do more reps 2. it acts as a pH buffer, countering the fatigue effects of lactic acid buildup. So no, taking creatine without doing the work probably won't make a difference (except to your wallet), but use…

> taking creatine without doing the work probably won't make a difference (except to your wallet)

Creatine is dirt cheap. Anything expensive is probably a scam.

Re: Sports supplement creatine makes no difference to muscle gains, trial finds

#96

Post by Kirby64 »

globular-toast wrote: post #49
LostMyLogin wrote: post #5

I've been lifting five to six days a week since 2012, with some de-loading periods between, and have had my nutrition and sleep locked in for the majority of that time. Anecdotal of course, but I will still sit here and say that creatine is the only supplement that has actually worked over all those years - in fact, it's the only one I currently take. I recover so much better when on roughly 5mg of Creatine for an ex…

I've never really understood what people mean when they talk about recovery. Is this something you can feel? Or does it mean you couldn't lift the same weights the very next day or something? I lifted consistently for years, no supplements, 1RM around 65kg OHP, 115kg BP, 140kg squat, 200kg DL and apart from immediately after the gym I never felt like I needed to recover. Maybe my volume wasn't high enough? I was very…

> I've never really understood what people mean when they talk about recovery. Is this something you can feel? Or does it mean you couldn't lift the same weights the very next day or something?

If you've never felt like your body was beat up for 1-2 days afterwards, then I'd suggest you've never pushed your exertion level high enough. You can certainly make good progress relatively far away from failure up to a certain point, but eventually that won't be good enough. I'd suggest your overall volume on the muscle you're hitting probably wasn't high enough. If you're just sticking to 3x5 with a simple progression, then that's pretty limiting.

Re: Sports supplement creatine makes no difference to muscle gains, trial finds

#97

Post by maerF0x0 »

gavinray wrote: post #86
maerF0x0 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Steroids don't magically give you the gains, you still have to put the work in. That's not an entirely fair description of the situation actually. Imagine the 4 groups from the cross product of WorksOut?(Yes/No) cross Steroids?(Y/N). It's intuitive, obvious, and supported by the data that The WorksOut(Y) + Steroids(Y) Group reliably gains more muscle over time than other groups. And similarly that the WorksOut(N) +…

I think this takeaway is deeply flawed: > "The sad truth is those on steroids, though sedentary, gain more muscle than those who workout without steroids." The proper takeaway is something like: "Untrained males without prior AAS use gained more muscle over a 10 week non-exercise period than similar males who performed exercise." These sorts of adapations are not linear and consistent, similar to the "noob gains" exp…

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

Do you have a longitudinal study source?

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

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

Re: Sports supplement creatine makes no difference to muscle gains, trial finds

#98

Post by Johanx64 »

arresin wrote: post #79
Johanx64 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unironically, I trust anecdotes more than any random nutrition study. The more I personally know the person, or the more connectedness I have, the more his anecdote is worth listening to. This study is a collection of mere 54 random anecdotes (!), random people of the street. Anecdote of a random min-maxing turbo nerd on hackernews >= 54 random people from the street.

.

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

Amazing, great job buddy, very proud of you

Re: Sports supplement creatine makes no difference to muscle gains, trial finds

#99

Post by glaugh »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #61
parthdesai wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's also the case when people scoff at pro bodybuilders due to steroids. Steroids don't magically give you the gains, you still have to put the work in. You just get rewarded more, and quicker at cost of other side effects.

> Steroids don't magically give you the gains, you still have to put the work in. That's not an entirely fair description of the situation actually. Imagine the 4 groups from the cross product of WorksOut?(Yes/No) cross Steroids?(Y/N). It's intuitive, obvious, and supported by the data that The WorksOut(Y) + Steroids(Y) Group reliably gains more muscle over time than other groups. And similarly that the WorksOut(N) +…

My personal experience, having had low testosterone for much of my life and then now being on testosterone replacement therapy:

- It’s obvious to me that I (n=1) gained a ton of muscle and lost a ton of fat very quickly without having done dramatic changes in workouts at first

- It also made it waaaay easier to work out. I used to hate it bc I was exhausted all the time, and now I don’t really mind, and sometimes even enjoy it. In actual practice pulling these variables apart is hard

PSA: T levels have declined markedly over the past generation or two. But when one tests for low T, the goalposts move bc every time a new population is studied for setting benchmarks (generally every decade or two), the definition of clinically “low” is moved to the new 2.5%ile of that study, such that someone in the current 3rd %ile (considered A-okay by most doctors) would have been in maybe 2.4th %ile (considered red alert by most doctors) using the previous benchmarks (made up numbers but roughly right).

(This is a dumb approach, the binary magic of the 2.5%ile (2 standard deviations), and it frustrates me greatly bc i was denied care bc my first test was 2.4%ile and 2nd was 2.6%ile and thus i was told i was fine bc of the 2nd result and offered anti-depressants instead).

Fixing this is not about muscles, it’s about having energy to live life fully and not be cranky.

So if you’re constantly tired, consider testing for this. And use a functional doc, as in my experience from shepherding 5-10 other folks through this process, the standard doc knows little about this stuff and thinks that having a condition like this is binary

Sorry, a bit off-topic, but no change in my life has been more important besides kids, so I try to spread the word where even somewhat appropriate

Re: Sports supplement creatine makes no difference to muscle gains, trial finds

#100

Post by jonwachob91 »

lawlessone wrote: post #84
reedf1 wrote: post #20

Participants were instructed to maintain their current dietary habits and physical activity levels for the duration of the study. My understanding is that creatine increases the amount of available energy for muscles to use (hence increases sports performance, training performance, and recovery) - not increase muscle growth alone. That said - it is an interesting study which helps decompose the effect, this shows tha…

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

>>> more mental energy too

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

Post reply on HN