Peter Attia· MD
So gummies um are yeah unless you can find a third party tested gummy that actually has the amount of creatine monohydrate in it that's labeled that says on the nutrition facts label I would avoid a gummy.
Loading…
We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
So gummies um are yeah unless you can find a third party tested gummy that actually has the amount of creatine monohydrate in it that's labeled that says on the nutrition facts label I would avoid a gummy.
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.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
Yeah, I mean it was essentially there was third party testing looking at actually quantifying the levels of creatine monohydrate in these gummies and there was essentially none in 95% of them.
And also the thing about this whole gummy craze that drives me bananas is you you have to ask the question how many gummies do I need to eat? So look at the chalky white creatine powder. Look at what 5 g looks like and ask yourself how many gummies would I need to put this into such that they would be palatable? And then the question is do I really want that many gummy bears? Like what am I doing to my teeth? How much sugar do I need to eat that's totally unnecessary?