Does creatine make you smarter? • Hacker News Board

Re: Does creatine make you smarter?

#271

Post by switchbak » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 6:50 PM UTC

dundarious wrote: post #161

switchbak wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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?…

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".

Re: Does creatine make you smarter?

#272

Post by asdfman123 » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 7:41 PM UTC

red-iron-pine wrote: post #269

asdfman123 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

It's me. I'm funded by a network of stodgy older devs to be a shill for clean code.

Re: Does creatine make you smarter?

#273

Post by andriy_koval » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 7:41 PM UTC

sdevonoes wrote: post #160

grvdrm wrote: post #158

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, pl…

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.

Re: Does creatine make you smarter?

#274

Post by stevenhuang » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 10:36 PM UTC

red-iron-pine wrote: post #270

helterskelter wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 effe…

this is trolling, right?

No. Controlled breathwork has real effects and is not pseudoscience. You should read up on it.

Re: Does creatine make you smarter?

#275

Post by kbelder » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 11:20 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #80

serf wrote: post #57

>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/

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.

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.

Re: Does creatine make you smarter?

#276

Post by 99954bb63ccc » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 11:33 PM UTC

semiquaver wrote: post #233

99954bb63ccc wrote: post #224

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, t…

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.

Re: Does creatine make you smarter?

#277

Post by rubyfruit » Fri, Jul 24, 2026, 12:30 AM UTC

coke12 wrote: post #208

rubyfruit wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 evi…

The Epsom salt meme predates your “Web 3.0” thesis by many decades. I have no idea if it’s true but it’s not indicative of any new trend.

It doesn't predate advertising. Web 3.0 just means advertising found a new home

Re: Does creatine make you smarter?

#278

Post by rubyfruit » Fri, Jul 24, 2026, 12:32 AM UTC

asdfman123 wrote: post #272

red-iron-pine wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

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)

Re: Does creatine make you smarter?

#279

Post by pvaldes » Fri, Jul 24, 2026, 8:20 AM UTC

dpark wrote: post #247

pvaldes wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 po…

"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.

Re: Does creatine make you smarter?

#280

Post by dpark » Fri, Jul 24, 2026, 2:16 PM UTC

pvaldes wrote: post #279

dpark wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 po…

"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 t…

> "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.