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

111–120 of 177 posts

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

#111

Post by svnt »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #97
gavinray wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

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

#112

Post by reverendsteveii »

I'm just here to remind everyone that the results of a single trial can fall anywhere on the bell curve. Below I've linked a meta-analysis of 10 studies that shows evidence for "a very small effect favoring creatine supplementation when combined with RT[resistance training] compared to RT and a placebo".

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

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

#113

Post by the__alchemist »

jonwachob91 wrote: post #100
lawlessone wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>>> more mental energy too Is that the creatine, or the caffeine added to virtually ALL creatine supplements?

I will context virtually all. I have never had this come up. I suppose it depends on what products you're looking at, but buying pure creatine is easy.

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

#114

Post by leereeves »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #104
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...

From the actual study: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/6/10812.3.4 . Resistance Training Program After the 7-day wash-in, both groups followed the same RT program that comprising 3 full-body sessions a week for 12 weeks (Supplementary Materials, Table S1). All sessions were supervised by tertiary qualified exercise physiologists and commenced with a standardised warm-up of dynamic flexibility exercises. Each sessio…

> When a RPE of 8 or lower was recorded, the external load (kg) was adjusted on successive sets to ensure that subjects achieved the target RM.

The wording is a little technical. They're saying that, if the subject thought they could do at least 2 more reps at the end of this set, they increased the weight on the next set. So if creatine does allow people to do more reps at a given weight, subjects on creatine should have lifted heavier weights. (To me, that doesn't seem like the right way to adjust for creatine, which is thought to provide extra energy, not the ability to lift heavier.)

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

#115

Post by cj »

glaugh wrote: post #99
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) +…

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 eve…

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

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

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

#116

Post by beezle »

aNapierkowski wrote: post #81
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...

yeah I took a look at the methodology here, it seemed like this should have been accounted for in the plan though maybe I'm missing something. That said this is just one study and will play into meta-analyses at some point which are more interesting After the 7-day wash-in, both groups followed the same RT program that comprising 3 full-body sessions a week for 12 weeks (Supplementary Materials, Table S1). All sessio…

A few things -

1/ on this RPE stuff, it sounds like they are trying to keep two reps in the tank which is fine but..when? the first set? The last set?

2/ perhaps I'm misreading the supplemental data but the error bars are pretty huge when it comes to changes in LBM, not sure how any conclusions can be drawn

3/ 12 weeks is a short program and it sounds like they chose people who were generally not in shape/beginners. Anyone who has lifted in their life can tell you initial gains are almost always mostly in strength, not mass.

4/ Their choice of lifts for this population also looks unusual.

I'm sure they have the data but I could not find any evaluation of relative strength gains between the two groups. Even if their hypothesis that the LBM gain is identical, strength gains may not be.

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

#117

Post by cjbenedikt »

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

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

#118

Post by julianeon »

yza wrote: post #29

Title is slightly misleading. Turns out, sex-disaggregated analysis showed that the supplement group, only in females, gained 0.59 ± 1.61 kg more lean body mass than the controls (p = 0.04) Direct link to this study: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/6/1081

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

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

#119

Post by daveguy »

svnt wrote: post #101
aNapierkowski wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah I took a look at the methodology here, it seemed like this should have been accounted for in the plan though maybe I'm missing something. That said this is just one study and will play into meta-analyses at some point which are more interesting After the 7-day wash-in, both groups followed the same RT program that comprising 3 full-body sessions a week for 12 weeks (Supplementary Materials, Table S1). All sessio…

Their methodology does seem to potentially capture what is at question here, by use of perceived exertion to adjust weight for repetition maximums. It is possible it doesn’t capture everything, because they don’t say anything here about setting the initial load, or adjusting the load up for low perceived exertion, only down for high perceived exertion.

It seems like the protocol would detect either benefit, if present.

It makes sense that the body's adenosine re-phosphorylation is not rate limited by creatine at all (which the body produces naturally). In that case, having extra creatine lying around would just make your pee more expensive and give you a nice placebo effect from believing you can lift more. (And placebo effects are real effects, particularly for effort related tasks. Just not due to chemistry of the treatment.)

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

#120

Post by pessimizer »

dgfitz wrote: post #93
ahoy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

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

Is the scientific community "focused" on creatine?

Post reply on HN