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

151–160 of 177 posts

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

#151

Post by iamacyborg »

chank wrote: post #125
iamacyborg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The meaningfull context here was "good diet". If middle distance runners ate for middle distance running would they need to take beta alanine? E.g. ate more organ meat which contains high levels of beta alanine.

How much organ meat do you think would be needed daily to have an optimal dosage of beta alanine? What side effects are associated with eating large quantities of organs meats regularly?

Sometimes supplements are just the better option.

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

#152

Post by seadan83 »

Junk science. Some people get enough creatine already in their diets. Some people respond to creatine, others do not. Creatine response is also a function of age. The cohorts should have had their creatine levels measured, broken up by age, and perhaps be done on non-beginners.

Compare this study vs this: https://www.cptips.com/creatine.htm, cites multiple studies and later concluded that most likely older vegetarians are likely to see a benefit, everyone else maybe will see a benefit or nothing at all. Given that, without knowing creatine levels of the participants, I find it no surprise the study found no significant results. I do not think this study actually even measured creatine impact.

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

#153

Post by TomHenderson3 »

aoeusnth1 wrote: post #65

One more N=54 trial makes absolutely no difference to the mountain of evidence in favor of creatine. The news article should reference meta studies, not chasing headlines from the drip drip drip of meaningless small studies

It actually does if the other studies failed to control for the gains just during the loading period, which is what the study is claiming may be happening.

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

#154

Post by gavinray »

notesinthefield wrote: post #139
gavinray wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really need Anastrazole at that dose? General marker is x4-6 weekly dose for free test, so I'd wager you're taking somewhere between 150-200mg? I found that contrary to popular advice, I felt much better without taking an aromatase inhibitor and letting my estradiol float at the higher end of the reference range. There's some science backing the idea that Test/E2 are meant to exist in terms of a relative ratio…

I only take the guidance of my doc as recommendations for AI's have always been all over the place and ive been with him forever - I started at 2x/2weeks and now its once every other week. On top of that my estrogen numbers have always been high so it makes sense. Its been an experiment - I did tank it once and uhh, the side effects were interesting

Fair enough. You likely know this, but my E2 levels are highly sensitive to my bodyfat as well, what with adipose tissue contributing to aromatization.

Could be that at some bodyfat percentages you don't need an AI at all, while at higher levels you do.

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

#155

Post by TomHenderson3 »

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

"There were no group differences in lean body mass growth following resistance training in females (p = 0.10) or males (p = 0.35)"

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

#156

Post by TomHenderson3 »

julianeon wrote: post #118
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.

So you know, they are misunderstanding the paper.

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

#157

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

TomHenderson3 wrote: post #143
laszlojamf wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they were asking beginner lifters to rate how many they would have left in the tank? I've been lifting for maybe half a year and I still find it pretty hard to estimate >. It's good that it's studied, but it does sound that they've "conclusively" proven something, and I'm not so sure. Small sample size too, like you said.

They are asking beginners in both the control and test arm, so it sounds like they have "proven" something (or at least given good evidence).

This is something that can be heavily skewed by the small N. If the people in both groups happen to closely match in their distributions of accuracy for this self-assessment then this would be correct. Larger N would make both groups much more likely to match the real distribution, which would in turn make them more likely to match each other.

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

#159

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

TomHenderson3 wrote: post #149
lowqualityworld wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, I read that too quickly.

You may want to delete your comment as it is spreading misinformation about this study.

They can't delete the comment because 1) it is past the 2-hour deletion window and 2) it has replies.

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

#160

Post by iamacyborg »

econ wrote: post #45
iamacyborg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

36 raw eggs per day seems the funny example here

Can’t say I’m familiar with that one
Post reply on HN