Live data from Hacker News

Does creatine make you smarter?

dynomight.net

241–250 of 289 posts

Re: Does creatine make you smarter?

#242
post #11

Good discussion, but this conclusion: > 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…

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…

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.

Re: Does creatine make you smarter?

#243

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 wate…

if you added back the creatine along with the herring, you could become a superhero.

Re: Does creatine make you smarter?

#246
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> 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 r…

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.

Re: Does creatine make you smarter?

#247
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 r…

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 m…

> 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.

Re: Does creatine make you smarter?

#249
post #248

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.
Post reply on HN