The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
there have been some studies in in high school football athletes that have looked at that same measure over a football season and seen that related to the number of impacts that the the kid gets there's a decrease in brain creatine in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the primary motor cortex so suggesting that creatine is being used up by impacts
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
I've been recommending this to patients for 6 months now. The big shift is patients actually do it because the explanation is concrete.
Same in nutrition counseling. The before/after framing helps.
Tracking with a CGM on top of this for 3 months. Variability dropped quickly and stayed dropped.
Worth noting the 0.71 SMD in the Kreider meta is in trained athletes. Effect in untrained adults runs closer to 0.3 — still meaningful, but the panel should reflect that gradient.
Good catch. Could the brief surface the training-status interaction inline?
one is that's just looking at innate or endogenous yeah so they're not supplementing it's just looking at endogenous levels of creatine that decrease throughout the season that's related to impacts
5 g of creatine monohydrate daily improves muscle strength and lean mass in healthy adults at standard training loads.
Creatine improves cognitive performance, especially under sleep deprivation and high cognitive load.
Creatine improves cardiovascular health markers and reduces all-cause mortality risk.
Creatine supports bone-mineral density in post-menopausal women when paired with resistance training.
Women need higher creatine doses (8–10 g/day) than men to reach the same intramuscular saturation.