Talk:Creatine/Archive 1

Doping?

User:128.172.154.59 added this to the main article:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creatine&action=edit

"Creatine is not considered doping and is currently acceptable to all sports-governing bodies". That is not true everywhere. In the NCAA rules, athletes are not allowed to take creatine. Moreover I would say that it is important to notify that selling creatine in France is not allowed. I would also add that creatine has bad effects of long-term supplementation. Some of the effects are unknown but have already been studied.

What are these effects exactly? You can't make statements like this with no evidence

I'm just moving it here, where it's more appropriate. - jredmond 15:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NCAA has banned distribution of creatine and other supplements by its member institutions, but does not prohibit creatine use. [1] - Karl Stas 09:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Weight gain

User:Weightshead added this to the article:

"The reasoning behind creatine supplementation for bodybuilding, is that the increased performance during weight training provides a greater stimulus to muscle growth and thus leads to hypertrophy of the skeletal muscle." I don't think this is accurate. Creatine just increases water retention in the muscle cells. - Karl Stas 09:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Creatine doesnt just increase water retention in the cells -

Creatine DOES increase water retention INSIDE the cells, which is one of the reasons why creatine supplementation can cause dehydration. Michael Powers of the University of Florida made headlines with his research on this subject. - Karl Stas 22:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lets stick to the point. we BOTH know creatine DOES increase water retention through cellular swelling, neither of us have said anything to the contrary. - Weightshead

Then, why delete any mention of it? - Karl Stas 16:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is covered elsewhere in the article, but your right its only in passing and it does need to be clearer as its the most notable effect of creatine. - Weightshead

even the article states that creatine "marginally increase athletic performance in high-intensity, anaerobic exercise".

I never disputed that, in fact, I probably even wrote it in the first place. Also, muscle hypertrophy just means "an increase of muscle mass". This increase can be caused by an increase in protein, but also by an increase in cellular water. - Karl Stas 22:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont mean to sound hostile but what is your point with regard to the article? is there anything you disagree with still? personally i think its clear from the publications that they talk about an increase in muscle mass, regardless of the water retention. Locally produced muscle growth factors are upregulated during creatine supplementation, method to enhance muscle size and strength _responses_ to resistance training. - Weightshead

My point is that we should be critical of marketing claims that creatine causes "true" muscle hypertrophy (as opposed to volumization through increased water retention). Creatine may allow body builders to do more reps or use heavier weights, which will obviously have an effect on muscle hypertrophy (indirectly). But most of the increase in muscle volume (especially in the short term) is caused by water retention. Creatine as such does not cause actual muscle growth, it only helps muscle protein synthesis. It does not improve muscle strength either. These are important distinctions to make, but which the article fails to make in its current revision. - Karl Stas 16:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your right most of the research on the effects of creatine do suggest that the actual muscle growth (sic) is due to being able to better overload the muscles through increased volume. I also dont want the article to give the impression that creatine is anything more than a training tool. I also agree with you that short term 'gains' are all water retention. However there are many publications suggesting that the cell volumization caused by creatine (and cell volumization in general actually) within the muscle upregulates certain factors of growth. One of these factors is considered to be glycogen supercompensation - also it is possible it affects carbohydrate and protein metabolism.

I also agree with you that the marketing spin on creatine is questionable. however I really think that trying to negate that marketing with an article which plays down creatine supplementation and its potential effect on muscle growth is not optimal. One thing i'd like to see in the article is the fact that some people do not respond to creatine supplementation, but I'm happy for you to go ahead and edit the article and we'll see if we can come up with something that we both feel is factual, accurate and complete. - Weightshead.

I just stumbled across a very interesting article which offers an overview of current theories on this subject.[2] I suggest we use it to rewrite the contentious part of the article. - Karl Stas 19:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed thats the best article on creatine i have ever read. great find! Weightshead 00:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From pubmed:

Scientific basis and practical aspects of creatine supplementation for athletes., Volek JS, Rawson ES.

Increases in muscle fiber hypertrophy and myosin heavy chain expression have been observed with creatine supplementation.

In summary, the predominance of research indicates that creatine supplementation represents a safe, effective, and legal method to enhance muscle size and strength responses to resistance training.

Making muscles "stronger": exercise, nutrition, drugs. Aagaard P.

Institute of Sports Sciences and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark and Sports Medicine Research Unit, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Creatine supplementation amplifies the hypertrophic response to resistance training, although some individuals may not respond positively. Locally produced muscle growth factors are upregulated during creatine supplementation, which contributes to increase the responsiveness of muscle cells to intensive training stimuli.

Creatine supplementation: exploring the role of the creatine kinase/phosphocreatine system in human muscle. Hespel P, Eijnde BO, Derave W, Richter EA.

Thus, muscle hypertrophy and glycogen supercompensation are candidate factors to explain the ergogenic potential of creatine ingestion.

im going to reword and reinstate my last edit. - Weightshead 11 Apr 2005

good rewrite, thanks. Weightshead 23:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know where to add this, but I was hoping to find some info in the article about creatine "stacking" or "loading". I keep hearing that some types of creatine should be stacked and other types don't need to be. Wikipedia is always my first stop so I was hoping maybe there would be a section on how creatine is taken, (before, after or during workouts), what amount is recommended, etc. I found a great Fact vs. Fiction on Creatine at this site: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/animalpak22.htm

Some facts that I found interesting or relevant to a "How it is taken" section are: -5 grams is the recommended amount of creatine for muscle development, stacking or loading more is potentially a waste -A normal diet will provide an average of 1g of creatine daily, much of it can be destroyed during cooking -When it is taken (before, during or after workouts, at night, etc) appears to make no difference, as long as you consume 5g per day -Taking creatine with juice or protien may enhance it's absorbtion due to changes in insulin levels

Thanks

Aerobic exercise

An anonymous user replaced the sentence "It must be noted creatine has no significant effect on aerobic exercise" with the following text:

Creatine has been noted to improve aerobic performance and anaerobic capacity in elite rowers in the course of endurance training. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2003 Jun;13(2):173-83.

Most studies agree that creatine has no effect on endurance (aerobic) exercise. I do not think the findings of one isolated study warrant this edit. At the very least, it should be phrased more cautiously. - Karl Stas 21:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the distinction needs to be made between aerobic endurance and aerobic exercise. Since aerobic exercise will always have anaerobic components (and vice versa, anaerobic exercise usually induces aerobic respiration afterwards), I still think it would benefit from creatine usage, especially for the initial starting and warmup when the aerobic aspect hasn't quiet caught up with the increased activity. Tyciol 16:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Adverse effects

You should note some of the adverse affects of creatine has been found and from the studies I've done there has been no true long term studies on creatine.It should be noted that Creatine is still controversial in many countries including the United States. -Unknown

Long-term studies are generally for new compounds like drugs. Since creatine is naturally created by the body and found within meat, that isn't really required, unless you're taking extreme doses. Like any food (for example, eating a lot of meat, drinking a lot of milk), people start off with little, and can then judge for themself the effects. There's no theory or evidence of creatine having any negative effects as far as I know. Tyciol 16:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Renal (kidney) failure

I just wanted to know if the article should include the affects that prolonged oral consumption of creatine has in kidney failure and renal disease. I know that it is considered dangerous for people already suffering from renal disease to take creatine, but I'm not sure if there were some studies that showed that prolonged use by athletes did show an adverse affect on their kidneys (prolonged meaning never stopping, day after day for years on end. [3] [4]

- I agree this whole article reads like a big Creatine ad. I took creative for 2 years and I started
to notice some problems such as extreme fatigue, constant thirst, and dimished libido. I stopped
taking the Creatine and within 2 months I was fine. Oh yeah, I lost like 15 pounds in just a few weeks, obviously Creatine makes you look and feel bigger then you really are

Look at your symptoms. Constant thirst? That's called dehydration - try drinking more water. Extreme fatigue? Overtraining - get some sleep. Dimished libido? Low testosterone - check out hormone replacement therapy. It's physiologically impossible for creatine to have caused those symptoms - you're acting like it's a steroid - check up the chemical make up of creatine and explain how it could possibly affect your libido. I'm interested in hearing your theory. Yankees76 14:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Whole heartedly agree with Yankees76 here. Creatine has never been shown to induce any of the effects you are describing. It "may" have contributed to dehydration (ever so slightly) due to intracellular retention of water but more likely you were just training harder and thus needed to drink more. Your experience is unique and could be easily attributed to other factors well before concluding creatine had anything to do with it. Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 14:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

24.63.49.70's Edits from January 12

There was some good material in these edits, however I reverted them because 24.63.49.70 practically re-wrote the entire article, destroying hours of work by many individuals, without adding proper links, or citing studies or references etc. Properly added to the existing material, some of this new text could greatly enhance the article. I suggest that we slowly incorporate this text so as not to completely undo the work of others. Yankees76 14:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Cell-tech mania

If cell-tech is mentioned, can someone please make a compelling argument (rather than cite) why the company merits a mention? Why not just mention the better performing formulation, cite why it is better chemically, and mention cell-tech as one retailer? Otherwise move it to a cell-tech article.

Also, the synthesis section is weak. What enzymes catalyze the synthesis? Creatine kinase is mentioned and well linked but the whole synthesis pathway is one line.

---

So if we were creating an article on cars and someone posted that, for example, the Ford Thunderbird was the first car to include power steering and is the top selling car of all time, you would take exception to that as well? After all, we're mentioning product and company names. I don't see how this is still an issue, especially when you consider than another product is also mentioned (Phosphagen), and yet not one change or challenge has been made that particular product's inclusion. This leads me to believe that the deletions are due to biased opinions towards one particular company and/or product. This product mention appears only the 'history of creatine' section and I've even go so far as to include why creatine and alpha lipoic acid is an important discovery, and cited and linked to the study that shows this. Also to the best of my knowledge, the discovery of this combination has been patented and Cell-tech is the only "retailer" legally allowed to combine the two for sale. The fact that one product happens to be the first to include this discovery and also happens to have the most studies published on it, does not make it's inclusion an advertisement.

The article is on creatine - if it's not on creatine supplements or supplementation - then a new entry should be included for them with that information in those entries and the creatine article itself devoted to just talking about C4H9N3O2-H20. Once you include creatine supplementation, its inevitable that supplements (whether they are creatine variations, product names, or manufacturers) are going to come up.

I'm working on updating the creatine synthesis section - though in the meantime you could always take a stab at it. Yankees76 15:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving creatine supplements to their own article is a good idea. Creatine (the molecule) is a very static, well characterized entity with much clean biochemistry around it. Supplementation is still a matter for debate and such debate would better take place within the supplementation article, and matters such as supplement formulas and retailer differences could be explained in better detail -- the bodybuilding supplements page is a top-level overview that could link to the Creatine supplements page. Added some minor adds to the synthesis picture and linked out to KEGG and OMIM for biochemistry and mutation data, respectively.

Safety

Because of the potential for side effects and interactions with medications, dietary supplements should be taken only under the supervision of a knowledgeable healthcare provider.

Side effects of creatine include weight gain, muscle cramps, muscle strains and pulls, stomach upset, diarrhea, dizziness, high blood pressure, liver dysfunction, and kidney damage. The weight gain is thought to be due primarily to water retention. Creatine should not be used by anyone who already has problems kidney function, high blood pressure, or liver disease. Taking creatine supplements may prevent the body from making it's own natural stores. The long-term consequences of this are not known.

A 2001 report by the Food Safety Agency of France (AFSSA) raised questions about creatine supplements possibly putting users at greater risk for cancer, particularly if such supplements are taken for long periods of time. However, the European Commission and the Council for Responsible Nutrition in the United States both determined that AFSSA's claims are unsubstantiated and not based on any scientific evidence of a connection between creatine and cancer. All three organizations do agree, though, that risks of long-term use of creatine are not known at this time.

Creatine supplements containing contaminants from the production process have been reported. Be sure to buy products made by established companies with good reputations, and who distribute their products through trustworthy and knowledgeable establishments.Media:http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsSupplements/Creatinecs.html It seems the general consensus is that not enough research has been conducted.

I'm wondering what your point to posting this (outdated) information is? Consensus amongst whom? The media circa 2001? Actually I might take you seriously, but since you plagiarized your entire post from different sources, I can tell you're not actually knowledgable on the subject. There is absolutely no proof to support your contention that creatine is potentially harmful - only anecdotal reports that don't have a shred of scientific evidence to support them.

Why didn't you talk about the National Strength and Conditioning Association's annual conference report, where post-study questionnaires were filled out by 164 athletes who participated in creatine studies was presented? The data showed no reports of muscle cramping and no reports of muscle strains or pulls in subjects taking creatine-containing supplements. Further, a significantly greater increase of GI distress (stomach discomfort) was reported in subjects ingesting placebos compared to creatine-containing supplements! The cause of muscle cramps and dehydration are both due to inadequate water consumption, not creatine supplementation.

There are no studies that show liver dsyfunction or kidney damage as a result from using creatine. There have however, been studies that show that there are no detrimental effects on athletes' liver and kidney functions from short-, medium-, or long-term use of this supplement.

And as far as long term use goes, if creatine caused long-term side effects, there would be indicators in the shorter studies. There have been several studies conducted on creatine supplementation, which concluded that long term creatine use has no side effects. Yankees76 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the claims are a bit questionable, I'd like to see the scientific trials (and corresponding theories) to back these claims. I do agree with some though. Weight gain does happen due to more water weight in the muscles. I'm not sure why it says 'is thought to', since it's pretty evident. Muscle cramps make no sense at all. Stomach upset possibly, since we may not have adapted to digest raw creatine as well as say, from meat. I doubt diarreah, that just doesn't make much sense. If anything, due to the enhanced water absorption I think your stool would be a bit drier (so you need to compensate by drinking more water). High blood pressure doesn't really make any sense. Liver dysfunction perhaps if the creatine supplements have any toxic content (no evidence of this). Kidney damage for similar reasons, but again, no evidence for it. As for not letting the body make it's natural stores, that's similarly unfounded. This might be so for steroids or dopamine, but there's no evidence of it for stuff like creatine or CoQ10. REcommendations to find a good provider without contaminants make sense too. Tyciol 16:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Creatine Serum?

Creatine serum should be removed as one of the types of creatine forms as dozens of lab tests on the product have shown it to be "dubious" at best with only 10mg-30mg of creatine per serving (product claims 2000mg) and that it is ineffective in enhancing performance in any way[5] Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 00:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a tough call - and numerous lawsuits have been fought in court regarding it. I'm personally for pulling it, however it is available for purchase. Perhaps we can pull it since only one company seems to still sell it? Thoughts? Yankees76 14:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This study was funded by Degussa BioActives (a maker of powdered creatine) which is a direct competitor to the makers of the creatine serum (Muscle Marketing). The section on creatine serum should be left as is since we only have this one extremely biased study claiming its ineffectiveness. Monkeyman 15:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're misinformed. There is more than one study. But first with the Degussa-funded study. Both researchers from Baylor University and the Neurology Unit at McMaster University conducted the study. They gave subjects doses of creatine serum that were eight times the recommended dosage, and it still failed to have any effect on muscle ATP. Degussa merely paid for the study and supplied the researchers with creatine monohydrate to give to the control group - the poor results that the creatine serum gave could not have been directly influenced by Degussa because it was double blinded and placebo controlled.

There was also an independant study peformed by by Harris et al. published in the Journal of Sports Sciences(Volume 22, Number 9/ September 2004) that found that "no increase in plasma or urinary creatine or creatinine was found on ingestion of Creatine Serum or water." They concluded that that "the trace amounts of creatine in the product would be too little to affect the muscle content even with multiple dosing."

It's obvious the product doesn't work, but that's not the issue. It is marketed and sold as a creatine supplement. Do we leave it in the article, even though it's well known not work? Even though the company that makes it lost a court case and is now forbidden to make statements comparing its creatine products, including creatine serum product(s), with any creatine powder products in it's advertising? I suggest we leave it but add a paragraph about the studies above and the court case. Yankees76 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This study is very misleading. The first group is given "four 5g supplements daily of creatine monohydrate powder supplied by Degussa Bioactives for five days. The second group is given "either 5ml of creatine serum daily for five days or a 5ml placebo". They are not even close to comparing the same amounts of creatine. A proper study would have been conducted as such, "The first group is given four 5g supplements daily in powdered form. The second group is given an equivalent amount of creatine in serum form". This study in no way shows that creatine serum is ineffective. Monkeyman 16:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the CM group was the control group. But how do you explain that there were no significant differences in results between the group that took Creatine Serum and the placebo group? Your argument is irrelevant. Creatine serum subjects took 5ml creatine serum eight times a each day, with a blinded group taking the placebo in equal high dosages. Surely if creatine serum actually contained creatine there would be a signficant difference between the placebo group and serum group - but there wasn't. Muscle biopsies on subjects taking creatine serum at a higher dose that directed on the label (8 servings a day purportedly providing 20 grams/day of creatine monohydrate equivalent for 5 days - supplementing more than one complete bottle [1 1/3 bottles]) resulted in no significant effect on muscle creatine or ATP levels. Please do yourself a favor and do some research before posting.Yankees76 17:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly my point. There was negligible creatine in the serum hence the similar results between the group taking the placebo and the serum. All this tells us is that this particular low concentration creatine serum does not work. This does not mean that ALL creatine serums are ineffective. Monkeyman 17:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

They used more than an entire bottle with no significant effect over 5 days - the equivalent of 20 grams a day. Not exactly a low concetration. What this study did was validate the numerous HPLC tests that showed that creatine serum supplements contain little or no creatine and high levels of creatinine. Creatine is not stable in liquid form. It's basic chemistry. There isn't a single peer-reviewed study that shows any brand of liquid creatine or creatine serum increase muscle creatine levels or ATP. Not one.Yankees76 17:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A 5mL dose of ATP Advantage Creatine Serum contains 2500mg of powdered creatine. 2500mg = 2.5g. Where are you getting this 20 grams a day from? User:Yankees76 - "What this study did was validate the numerous HPLC tests that showed that creatine serum supplements contain little or no creatine and high levels of creatinine." That is not what this study showed. The only thing this study showed is that a very low does of creatine will have negligible effect on muscle ATP and/or creatine stores. It did not address the stability of creatine in a liquid medium. Monkeyman 17:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Do the math. Eight 5ml servings a day multiplied by 2.5 equals 20 grams. I think I've presented more than enough evidence to support my case. It's obivous you're having trouble interpreting the study results, and you're twisting what you do understand to meet your own agenda. Yankees76 18:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As for safety you may want to check if the products mentioned by Yankees76 are in fact free of contaminants... Cell Tech was not... Olympian in court battle with supplement maker

BY WAYNE COFFEY New York Daily News October 23, 2005 Fragment

It wasn't even two months before the Salt Lake Olympics when Pavle Jovanovic walked into a GNC store in Park City, Utah on Dec. 21, 2001.

He says he purchased a product called Nitro-Tech, made by a Canadian company called MuscleTech. He says he read the label, talked to the salesperson and did additional research on-line, determining that the supplement - one of 11 he was taking at the time - would safely help him build strength and recover from intensive workouts. In a lawsuit his lawyers have filed against the manufacturer and GNC - it is scheduled to go to trial next April - Jovanovic alleges that it was a tainted tub of Nitro-Tech that caused him to test positive.

His complaint states that after his positive test he sent a sealed container of Nitro-Tech to Integrated Biomolecule Corp., a lab in Tucson, Ariz. and that it "was analyzed and reportedly contained norandrostenedione and androstenediol."

Lawyers for MuscleTech deny all allegations that the product was contaminated, and state in a counter-claim against Jovanovic, "Upon information and belief, Jovanovic knows that his alleged consumption of Nitro-Tech did not and could not have caused Jovanovic to fail his drug test and in particular, Jovanovic knows that the true cause of his positive drug test was a substance other than Nitro-Tech."

In its answer to the complaint, lawyers for GNC also deny the allegations, stating that "Jovanovic's failed test was caused by the actions of Jovanovic himself or the actions of third parties for whom GNC is not responsible."

In a separate and independent study undertaken in 2002 at the behest of the International Olympic Committee, 240 supplements that are sold in the U.S. were analyzed. The study found that almost 19% of the products tested contained substances that would produce a positive test.

Just two days ago, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, addressed this issue in a letter to the acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, asking what the agency is doing to safeguard the public from dietary supplements that may contain steroids and other impurities.

[Link]

What does an article on nitro tech have to do with creatine serum? Isn't nitro-tech a protein powder? And finally, didn't the judge dismiss this lawsuit? Oh, in fact U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball did dismiss the lawsuit. Thanks for the outdated article though. Yankees76 15:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yankees76 You ask me what the relation is between Creatine Serum and NitroTech? It is a matter of two companies with questionable ethics. The one making claims it cannot sustain, the other not caring to much about a career of an athlete or even the personal health of a unaware consumer.

That's a pretty bold statement considering that none of the parties being sued were found guilty of any wrongdoing, nor was any proof shown that the product in question contained any illegal substances. You're jumping to conclusions based on the word of an athlete who failed a drug test. Not really solid evidence if you ask me - or in this case the judge. Yankees76 23:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote for deletion of serum component

Monkeyman I am afraid you are the one GROSSLY mislead on this issue. Yes stud(ies) have been funded by Degussa but as the FDA does not appove dietary supplements the industry must be self regulating. These studies were all done by reputable labs and performance studies all in double blind placebo conditions. There have been dozens of studies showing inder 1% of label claim some of which I will reference below. Aside from all this "creatine serum" is trademarked by MMUSA so at least make it 'liquid creatine' so as to be neutral in brand selection. But I VOTE delete to serum part all together

The following shows the different tests on three different batch numbers[6]

Compound---------Label Claim------Test 1--------Test 2--------Test 3
Creatine-----------500mg/1----------5.5mg/l--------2.1mg/l-----2.7mg/l
Creatinine--------0mg/1-------------12.1mg/l------11.7mg/l----13.9mg/l

and from my own countries local news:

Muscle Marketing USA fined $70000 for false claim Muscle Marketing USA fined $70,000 for false claims about sports performance product

Muscle Marketing USA Limited has been fined $70,000 in the Auckland District Court today for breaching the Fair Trading Act in relation to its sports performance enhancing product ATP Advantage Creatine Serum.

In sentencing, Judge Everitt said that Muscle Marketing's claims about its product were so far from actual reality that it was a very bad case of a misleading statement. "The company was highly culpable. On a scale of 1-10 it was 8."

The Commerce Commission investigated claims that Muscle Marketing USA was making false representations in promotional material and labelling regarding the quantity of creatine in its ATP Advantage Creatine Serum product and the benefits that people would get from using it.

Creatine is a nutrient that is synthesised from food by our bodies. It provides the energy muscles need to move and is often used by athletes to improve their sports performance.

Fair Trading Director Deborah Battell said that in the Commission's view, Muscle Marketing USA falsely represented that 5ml of its serum yielded the equivalent of 2500mg of creatine.

"Tests conducted on the serum showed that 5mls of the product contained only around 11.5mg of creatine. This means that on the basis of Muscle Marketing USA's recommended daily dose of 5mls a day, athletes would not be able to obtain the benefits as represented.

"A 150ml bottle of the serum retails for $119.95. This is a significant outlay, particularly when people are paying this price based on misleading representations" Ms Battell said.

"It's another example of a product where consumers are utterly reliant on claims being made by the company because they have no realistic means of checking the actual composition or effectiveness of the product," said Ms Battell.

In sentencing, Judge Everitt commented that people will always have pride in their appearance and are vulnerable to this kind of marketing. The Act is designed to create fair trading and to protect the public from "snake oil people and the like", he said. ---

I've been in this industry ten years and its certified cr@p. DELETE! Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 18:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote to delete, or leave the creatine serum reference, with an added paragraph explaining the results of tests and studies on the supplement. Yankees76 19:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Attention User: 208.9.198.146

Please note that your IP address is registered under AST Sport Science. Note that Wikipedia guidelines prohibite commercial linking. Please do not add commercial links or advertisements (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Yankees76 00:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

From dnsstuff.com:

IP: 208.9.198.146

Country: United States

City: Golden, Colorado

From AST's site:

AST Sports Science Corporate Headquarters

120 Capital Drive

Golden, Colorado 80401 USA

Hmmm.... coincidence? I think not! My guess? Paul Delia stop editing articles so they promote your company! Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I checked the user page to make sure you did a vandal warning, you did, yay. Advertising is annoying, I agree. I think manufacturers should definately contribute to wikipedia, but only to provide statistics, and only under their own subjects, and without introducing misleading statements, lies, exclusions or biases. Tyciol 16:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Creatine Ban

The article mentions it being banned in France, does anyone know of any other country, state, or organization that it is banned in?

Actually the article should really define what banned means; Is it a scheduled drug? Banned for use by French sporting bodies? Banned actually tells us very little... You wouldn't say cocaine is banned so why say it about creatine? Can anyone elaborate on that definition some more? File:Glenstollery.gif^POW! 04:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I don't think Creatine is banned in France. Example: http://www.toutelanutrition.net/affiche_produit.php?sous_cat=Créatines%20pures&current=0&PHPSESSID=ed363642943c361b30de17aed5efbdf7

History and reorganization.

The part attempting to attribute creatine as an ancient Greek supplement is unsourced, contains weasel words, and is based on logical fallacy. I'm removing it. Also, as creatine is firstly a metabolic intermediate and secondly a supplement, some reorganization is due. The Crow 20:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Attention Anthony Katgert/Pasio Ingredients

Note that Wikipedia guidelines prohibite commercial linking. Please do not add commercial links or advertisements (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. There is undeniable evidence (i have your email address) that you are an employee of Pasio Ingredients, therefore your unverified edits about your company and it's products that were made on June 18, 2006 have been reverted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm or a new medium to advertise your products. Yankees76 22:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Attention Yankees76 (Personal attack removed)

Yankees76

Yes I have ties with pasio ingredients and perhaps that disqualifies me as an honest source for Wikipedia. I am sorry.

But I just stated facts. Facts you were to lazy to verify.

Check the facts and you will see that I stated nothing more than facts. Just like you did with EAS and Phosphagen.

You want facts? Before bashing learn your languages before commenting. English not the only language brother Yankees76.

This labresult will verify fact one that Creatyl is the first and no only batchtested CEE product that passed a drugscreeningtest.

This link to www.antidoping.nl/nzvt will verify the other.

Kind regards

Anthony Katgert

First, stop with the personal attacks (Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks) or I'll have you banned. You're doing a poor job representing your company in a public forum, and I can tell you right now that I'll be sending my friends at Exhale, B&K Sportsmag in Sweden and Tropicana in England a note regarding your poor business ethics.

Secondly I didn't add Phosphagen to the article. That was added by Stollery, and what was added are all facts that can be verfied through reputable sources. Thirdly, Wikipedia is neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view), meaning that there is a policy in place preventing corporations and thier represnetitives from advertising here. Fourthly, Wikipedia is not the place for original research - such as the two Certificates of Analysis you've just posted.

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. You've not done that with any of your claims. Wikipedia only publishes material that is verifiable by referring to reliable, published sources. Again something you haven't done.

Here's the policy in simple, easy to understand terms

The policy

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

See point number three specifically with regards to my "lazy editing".

I would suggest that before you come on here using Wikipedia as a medium to advertise your products you ensure you're familiar with our policies. Yankees76 13:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I do now understand the terms perfectly. I would like to get a chance to talk to you 1:1 by phone. Please give me chance to explaine Yankees76. You can verify everything I have said before. As for your remark: Quote "now that I'll be sending my friends at Exhale, B&K Sportsmag in Sweden and Tropicana in England a note regarding your poor business ethics."

I just stated that WADA does not yet recognizes labtest done by anyone else but a test done by them. Tropicana is, as far as I can tell a reputable brand but I have not seen labresults from them. But that does not mean their product is tainted. I have never said that.

As for your point on number 3... a reputable source: please define? Does a publication of a Dutch authority like the Dutch Olympic Committee not count as a reliable source of inpartial information? The NOC in your opinion is not a reliable, public source of information? The WADA lab in Cologn is selling hogwash? Is that what you are saying? Yankees76 I apologize for my perhaps rude behaviour but I can get so angry with people who state that I am anything but the truth. I have just provided statistics. I hope that in the future we can get along just fine. I sincerely want to make a positive non commercial contribution to Wiki but only if the facts are not ignored. Else Wiki has no value and Encarta may have.

Yours truly

Anthony Katgert

No thanks. I'll pass. I shouldn't have to explain anything. I'm following the policies and guidelines as a Wikipedia editor - something you should be doing yourself as a new editor to this encyclopedia. This wasn't personal until you decided to make it personal by resorting to name calling - something I refuse to take part in and will not tolerate.

You had the option of contributing to this article within the guidelines and chose not to. If I hadn't corrected/removed those edits, another editor would have. A phone conversation changes nothing, and quite frankly I don't believe you're someone that I care to correspond with outside of this medium.

That being said, you're more than welcome to contribute here as I'm sure you have valuable knowledge that could improve this and other articles. I don't want to discourage you from editing, I'm just asking that you follow the guidelines, don't get defensive if other people make changes to or remove your work, and avoid the personal attacks on other editors. Conduct yourself with some level of professionalism. That's all I'm going to say about it. If you want to continue this conversation, do so on your talk page - not here. Yankees76 22:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I will follow the guidelines as they are. But would surely hope that you do some checking in other publications than the English one as well. And be frank. I at least use my own name and not a nickname like yourself. I think that counts for something. At least for getting my butt kicked under my own name.

Anthony Signing off Goodnight and goodluck

Anthony, it's your responsibility to provide the references. The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. The rest of us should not have to perform extensive searches for obscure references and sources of your claims. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources might be able to help you, so might Wikipedia:Verifiability. Posting a certificate of analysis that your company paid for is a dubious attempt at a verfiable source. Are there peer-reviewed journals you can quote? Generally your edits might not have been removed so quickly had they not come from such a non-neutral point of view source. Corporate bias will be removed fairly quickly regardless of the topic. You're not the first 'company rep' to come on here and you won't be the last. Try re-inserting your information from a neutral persprective with references. We'll go from there, I'm sure other editors reading this will want to get involved and help make the information relevant and improve the article. And when time permits, I'm always willing to help. P.S. The fact that you choose to use your real name doesn't make much difference here. All editors, even those only posting with their IP are treated equally. Yankees76 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Celltech

The Celltech study was done on sedentary people and did not measure muscular performance. The study also did not show an increase in weight gain in Cell-Tech users over regular creatine users.

Here's a copy of the study summary:

"Department of Human Kinetics, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada B2G 2W5.

Alpha-lipoic acid has been found to enhance glucose uptake into skeletal muscle in animal models. Studies have also found that the co-ingestion of carbohydrate along with creatine increases muscle creatine uptake by a process related to insulin-stimulated glucose disposal. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of alpha-lipoic acid on human skeletal muscle creatine uptake by directly measuring intramuscular concentrations of creatine, phosphocreatine, and adenosine triphosphate when creatine monohydrate was co-ingested with alpha-lipoic acid. Muscle biopsies were acquired from the vastus lateralis m. of 16 male subjects (18-32 y) before and after the experimental intervention. After the initial biopsy, subjects ingested 20 g x d(-1) of creatine monohydrate, 20 g x d(-1) of creatine monohydrate + 100 g x d(-1) of sucrose, or 20 g x d(-1) of creatine monohydrate + 100 g x d(-1) of sucrose + 1000 mg x d(-1) of alpha-lipoic acid for 5 days. Subjects refrained from exercise and consumed the same balanced diet for 7 days. Body weight increased by 2.1% following the nutritional intervention, with no differences between the groups. There was a significant increase in total creatine concentration following creatine supplementation, with the group ingesting alpha-lipoic acid showing a significantly greater increase (p < .05) in phosphocreatine (87.6 --> 106.2 mmol x kg(-1) dry mass [dm]) and total creatine (137.8 --> 156.8 mmol x kg(-1) dm). These findings indicate that co-ingestion of alpha-lipoic acid with creatine and a small amount of sucrose can enhance muscle total creatine content as compared to the ingestion of creatine and sucrose or creatine alone.

PMID 14669930 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] "

It can be found on Pubmed. As can be seen body weight was measured but no analysis of muscular performance was done. The only listed measurements were body weight and creatine muscle concentrations and body weight was not improved in the Celltech group. It is stated the subjects were sedentary. To access Pubmed Click here [7].

The purpose of citing the study was to show that alpha lipoic acid enhances muscle phosphocreatine levels and total muscle creatine concentrations (and if you see where I bolded above - I believe that was what the study was designed to determine. I don't beleive that putting a study summary about weight gain over regular creatine users fits into the context of why the study was quoted in the first place. And if I'm not mistaken that particular study was not even performed using Cell-tech - just creatine monohydrate and ALA. Even the Muscletech website lists that study as being performed on the ingredients in Cell-tech - not the actual formula. Yankees76 13:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What was the purpose of mentioning the study? The implicit statement is that because it does this it will increase muscular performance and muscular weight gain. If this wasn't the purpose of introducing it what was? I think it's important considering that to note that the study had limits as far as its correlation to bodybuilding and muscular performance.

A law of dimishing returns may set in after a while, (After a certain point consuming more protein does not increase muscular development) or some other factor may affect itself. This study only implies that there will be better performance since it is not actually a study of performance it is anecdotal and I think should either be removed or put in context. I am not stating this to argue or "win". As a matter of fact I'll just ask you plainly-don't you agree?

(sidenote: They did include 100 grams of sucrose if you examine the study. So this formula's layout is similar to Cell-Tech's profile but as far as I'm concerned it's creatine + ALA I'm concerned with not a brand name. )Quadzilla99 16:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Phosphagen HP

The statement was made by Bill Phillips in his Sports Supplement Review 3rd Issue (2000). It is common knowledge to anyone who is familiar with Creatine and it's published studies (See Pubmed [8]). The argument made against this is a common mistake and logically upside down. Let's just say for instance an entirely new animal is discovered in Colombia. The correct statement is made: Animal A only is known to exist in Colombia. This statement is not made false by someone stating that "the entire world has not been searched exhaustively, One could exist somewhere" but made false by someone presenting evidence that it does exist elsewhere. The studies at the University of Memphis and the University of Nebraska do exist and do show the results mentioned. Studies for other products showing the results in question have not been presented. Basically all that is required is to find one study of a creatine product that shows increases in muscular performance and weight gain over regular creatine and either a) does not contain the formula or b) does contains the formula but with additional ingredients and performs better than the original formula. Then it would be worthy of a new distinction. Giving the formula a different name or doubling the dose (10 grams of creatine and 70 grams of carbohydrates for example) does not change the formula. For instance 2 aspirin is not a different formula than 1 aspirin. Quadzilla99 09:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing the text to say, "The combination of creatine and carbohydrates is the only formula that has been proven in studies to improve muscular performance and weight gain over regular creatine." And please - don't quote Bill Phillips again. The Supplement Review is an advertisement. Yankees76 13:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That is an acceptable compromise although I believe the book, while obviously promoting EAS products, nowhere deliberately mistates facts.Quadzilla99 15:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Creatine/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I am pretty sure that under the section 'cognitive...' the vegetarians that took this took 20mg not 20g per day. I can't access the study referenced but 20g would be a massive dose. I feel it would be more sensible to show explicitely in the chemical formula the Methyl-Group of Creatine as CH3, since it is "Methyl-Guanidino-Acetate (many non-chemists will not recognize the straight line on the N-atom as a methyl-moyetie see: http://www.chemspider.com/566 I am afraid there is an error in the reaction scheme for creatine synthesis: the first step is catalysed by GATM, not GAMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.153.230.20 (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Last edited at 10:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 14:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section reference?

The reference to the claim that the performance enhancement of creatine has been questioned is just a commentary purporting that some studies have shown negative physical effects. But to my knowledge, every study I've seen involving oral creatine has shown either postive effects or no effect. Can anyone find the sources this doctor is mentioning?152.3.41.118 (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference is in fact contrary to information provided by the United States' National Institute of Health [9]66.108.143.254 (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference 25, the one about the "NCAA ban" is manipulated in the reference section to contort the meaning of the reference. The reference, which is entitled "NCAA's advertising and promotional standards" had nothing to do with any sort of creatine ban. The full quote: "NCAA-banned substances* (e.g., stimulants, anabolic steroids, marijuana) and impermissible Nutritional Supplements that NCAA member institutions may not provide to student-athletes (e.g., creatine, amino acids, ginseng)]," only lists creatine as a substance that teams can't distribute to athletes. I'm removing that specific reference.Goldste7 (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The following link is a list of supplements banned for distribution by teams, which lists creatine, as well as a number of non-banned supplements. [10]Goldste7 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

References?

There are no references for the 'Function' section. The only part that I'm questioning really is that phosphocreatine functions to transport energy from ATP synthesis sites to use sites (why can't ATP just diffuse across the cell itself?) The experiments that established this should be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medos2 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Zoffoperskof (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi all:

Creatine supplements and supplementation discussions have been moved to the supplements page. Please discuss the biochemical and physiological functions of creatine only on the main creatine page. Thanks! I think this will help separate the two topics -- people interested in supplementation don't really care about GAMT enzymes and biochemists don't care that much about the supplement debate.

Qrater 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

'Addition of creatine to the vegetarian diet has been shown to improve athletic performance'.

Links to an internet source as 'proof'. However the source pretty much boils down to 'more research needed'.

Revision/removal suggested.

Nerusai

competition with glutamine for absorbtion

Is there any truth to the claim that creatine competes with glutamine for absorption? -- Sy / ^(talk) 00:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is a myth.. [11]

Myth: "Don't take your creatine with protein because protein contains glutamine and glutamine competes with creatine for the same transporter!"

The Real Deal: There's not an ounce of truth to this. Creatine and glutamine have completely different receptors. Creatine transport into skeletal muscle is regulated by the Creatine Transporter7 while glutamine transport into skeletal muscle is regulated by a system known as "System Nm." 8 The only thing these transporters have in common is that they are both sodium-dependent transporters, meaning that they use differences in sodium concentrations across the cell membrane to drive creatine into cells. Apparently somewhere along the line, somebody believed that since glutamine and creatine transporters both shared that characteristic, they must be the same transporter and the myth spread from there. Let the confusion end here: they do not share the same transporter, and taking protein/glutamine with creatine won't decrease creatine uptake into muscle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sysy (talk • contribs)

...uhh, I'm relatively sure that by "absorption", they are talking about absorption through the alimentary canal, like after you eat them. Leondegrance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leondegrance (talk • contribs) 02:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Contributors:

Long further reading section

I move this here, I doubt if these references were used to write the article, but they may be useful to expand it.

• Burke DG, Chilibeck PD, Parise G, Tarnopolsky MA, Candow DG. (2003). "Effect of alpha-lipoic acid combined with creatine monohydrate on human skeletal muscle creatine and phosphagen concentration". Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. Sep (13): 294–302. PMID 14669930.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).

• Dangott B, Schultz E, Mozdziak PE. (2000). "Dietary creatine monohydrate supplementation increases satellite cell mitotic activity during compensatory hypertrophy". International Journal of Sports Medicine. 2000 Jan (21(1):): 13–6. PMID 10683092.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).

• Hespel P, Op't Eijnde B, Van Leemputte M, Urso B, Greenhaff PL, Labarque V, Dymarkowski S, Van Hecke P, Richter EA. (2001). "Oral creatine supplementation facilitates the rehabilitation of disuse atrophy and alters the expression of muscle myogenic factors in humans". J Physiol. 2001 Oct 15 (536(Pt 2)): 625–33. PMID 11600695.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).

• Hultman E, Soderlund K, Timmons JA; et al. (1996). "Muscle creatine loading in men". J Appl Physiol (81): 232–237. PMID 8828669. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).

• Juhn MS. (2003). "Popular sports supplements and ergogenic aids". Sports Med. 33 (2): 921–39. PMID 12974658.

• Powers ME; et al. (2003). "Creatine Supplementation Increases Total Body Water Without Altering Fluid Distribution". Journal of Athletic Training. 38 (1): 44–50. PMID 12937471. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help).

• Rae C, Digney AL, McEwan SR, Bates TC. (2003). "Oral creatine monohydrate supplementation improves cognitive performance; a placebo-controlled, double-blind cross-over trial". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - Biological Sciences. 270 (1529): 2147–2150. PMID 14561278.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).

• Robinson TM; et al. (2000). "Dietary creatine supplementation does not affect some haematological indices, or indices of muscle damage and hepatic and renal function". British Journal of Sports Medicine. 34: 284–288. PMID 10953902. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help).

• Schroeder C; et al. (2001). "The effects of creatine dietary supplementation on anterior compartment pressure in the lower leg during rest and following exercise". Clin J Sport Med. 11 (2): 87–95. PMID 11403120. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

• Ellington WR (2001). "Evolution and physiological roles of phosphagen systems". Annu. Rev. Physiol. 63: 289–325. doi:10.1146/annurev.physiol.63.1.289. PMID 11181958.

Wallimann T, Wyss M, Brdiczka D, Nicolay K, Eppenberger HM. Intracellular compartmentation, structure and function of creatine kinase isoenzymes in tissues with high and fluctuating energy demands: the 'phosphocreatine circuit' for cellular energy homeostasis. Biochem J. 1992 Jan 1;281 ( Pt 1):21-40. Review.

Shin JB, Streijger F, Beynon A, Peters T, Gadzala L, McMillen D, Bystrom C, Van der Zee CE, Wallimann T, Gillespie PG. Hair Bundles Are Specialized for ATP Delivery via Creatine Kinase. Neuron. 2007 Feb 1;53(3):371-86.

T. Wallimann, M. Wyss, D. Brdiczka, K. Nicolay, and H.M. Eppenberger. Intracellular compartmentation, structure and function of creatine kinase isoenzymes: the "phospho-creatine circuit" for cellular energy homeostasis. Biochem. J. 281: 21-40 (1992). (Comprehensive review with the PCr-circuit model)

T. Wallimann, and W. Hemmer. Creatine kinase in non-muscle tissues and cells. Mol. Cell Biochem. 133/134: 193-220 (1994)

--Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Creatine

I am confused as to why it says that it may cause kidney damage, and then says that it is secreted in a benign form. Does benign not mean harmless? 24.65.87.238 (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it refers just to the stress on kidneys? If you take 30 grams of creatine, and your body can only store 3 grams, then the other 27 grams are just going to circulate until your liver or kidneys do something about it; and 27 grams is a lot of a material to process. The creatine could be 100% inert, but your livers/kidneys will still have to work hard to excrete it. 'The dose makes the poison', after all. --Gwern (contribs) 19:16 10 June 2009 (GMT)

It doesn't even mention in the article that creatine or creatinine causes kidney damage. Either way in healthy invidiuals, 20+ grams a day does not cause any impaired kidney function. --Yankees76 (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

The use of creatine has been controversial. Whether it should be controversial is another issue. As time goes by with further proof of effectiveness and no indications of problems, these older claims become less and less relevant. At some point it may make sense to reword this section to say something like "initially there were claims that creatine use was not effective and possibly dangerous, but these have not been borne out", or something along those lines. For now, I've restored the deleted statements and their supporting references. --Mmm (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Werty26262626 (if that's really your name ;-), you have not responded to my comments above. You seem to feel that because you disagree with the sources (an MD and a journalist) it is appropriate to remove links to their comments. I respectfully disagree. I added those references because the statements about creatine use being controversial were marked by someone else as needing references, and the references I supplied do indeed show that there are credible sources making those statements. In other words, there has been controversy over creatine use. These references document that fact. Or are you trying to claim that there has not been controversy? If so, can you provide documentation of the lack of controversy? --Mmm (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mmm! As I've said before, my problem is not with the statements themselves, but with the references provided(and just to make myself clear, the previous editing summary, was in response to Edward321's)! I mean, of course I want everyone to know about the facts and controversy surrounding the use of creatine! But to be specific here, my problem with the M.D.'s article, resides in the fact that it doesn't cite any bibliographical references at its end. Also, the fact that he doesn't make any clear distinction between the supplements mentioned below the main article and the forbidden substances he also mentions there(steroids and h.g.h.), seems a bit weird. But in the end, he did make it kind of clear (in the main creatine article) that the point is that «absence of proof, isn't proof of absence»!... So I must admit, that I may have exaggerated a bit, when I removed that article, since it served to prove the main point(controversy), and for that I appologize to everyone! But reference number 3, that one I can't agree with! In this reference, she(Amber Davis) makes statements along the lines of: «its drug like physical addictiveness»; and: «the unfair advantage it gives»(almost every strength and speed athlete uses it anyway, not to mention the fact that creatine doesn't produce such unbelievable results, besides being legal and, for all we know, proven safe). She then goes on by adding: «If an athlete loads on creatine continually, then it is possible and probable that the body will eventually quit making it on its own» (I thought only steroids were known to do that? But then what about glutamine? If we eat it, say, by consuming eggs, does that mean that our body will stop making it on its own? Amber Davis seems to ignore the fact, that after the loading phase, one's only supposed to use 3 to 6 gr. a day...Hardly enough to hinder our body's own creatine production. Besides the fact that cycling, although not proven to be necessary, is recommended!); and that due to the absence of naturally ocurring creatine: «a disastrous effects could occur, even death»(her spelling). She also states that creatine increases the chances of severe injury(logic:an athlete is on creatine and he injures himself severely, ergo creatine did it) and that there is: «an increase of urinary creatine excretion» (geez, could that be creatinine?). She finally states that creatine will, or at least may cause heart, kidney and liver failure/disease! So, to sum it all up, creatine use, according to A.D., will make your body cease endogenous creatine production, may cause death (via the previously mentioned mechanism), causes addiction, increases the risk of severe muscle injury and may also cause heart, liver and kidney(possible on people with pre-existing kidney problems, but not proven) failure. And all I ask is: where's the proof of these(statms.)? Where are the verifiable bibliographical references? Where's the science? I'd say that Amber Davis is pulling these statements straight out of her ass! Furthermore, I doubt that she's even a real journalist, and if she is, then shame on her! Bear in mind, that this article was taken from a site, where there are 13 and 15 y.o. kids talking about their experience with whey and stuff like that, which already tells us that this isn't some sort of scientific journal/site, or anything of that sort! Also, I've never even heard/seen that type of statement made in any published study about creatine, and I've asked this to my Exercise Physiology teacher, and all he told me, was that there probably was more research done on creatine, than on any other supplement before it, and that all of the data has proven it(creat.) to be safe and effective(if used properly)! So you can't just go around saying this and that about creatine or anything else, unless you have viable and reliable studies to support whichever claims you're making. Besides, for all it's worth, just like creatine might end up being SCIENTIFICALLY proven dangerous farther along the road(or 100% safe, we don't know it yet); with time and proper research; that is also valid for t.v., mobile phones, the internet, microwave ovens, hell even many pharmaceutical drugs and the very food we eat(even though most of these are considered fairly safe)! But for now, it is important to keep an open mind, and most of all, a fair judgement, and not to start being alarmist(like Amber Davis has been). And since for the time being, none of A.D.'s statements seem to be scientifically proven, and appear to be based on nothing more than assumptions and poor logic, they should thus, be permanently removed from wikipedia. Because we all have an obligation towards ourselves and each other, of providing nothing more than research proven, unbiased sources of information, something that can only be accomplished through the elimination of all fallacious content from wikipedia! Unless the objective is to manifest a personal view, which should be done elsewhere, and especially, without doing so under the guise of real science/journalism. Truth, is of the utmost importance! And on a final note, I believe that the substances we all should try to eradicate from sports, are steroids and h.g.h.(and such). And this can only be accomplished by promoting safe and effective training, healthy and balanced nutrition and, why not, a sound supplementation regimen... This is something towards which moderate creatine monohydrate(the only independently researched form of creatine) use might as well contribute!! Oh, and always remember, that there are a lot of bad journalists and M.D.'s out there(paid by the drug companies, supplement companies, and such. Some are just stupid!), so we have to be extra careful when choosing an article from the web, for it might not be what it seems at first sight(being from a REAL journalist or M.D., is not enough)! I hope we agree on this, and that all «no. 3 references» remain outside of wikipedia forever, not because they tell you something you don't want to hear/know about, but because they're not based on science and telling the unbiased truth! --Werty26262626 (talk), real wikipedia user name, no sock puppet, 27.04.2008.9

Tagged POV and SYN

"Creatine's effectiveness in the treatment of many muscular, neuromuscular, and neuro-degenerative diseases is well-documented, yet institutions such as the NCAA and Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments have proposed its banning as a performance enhancer." What does a sports authority proposing to ban creatine (as doping) have to do with medical uses of creatine? Anabolic steroids have medical applications yet are banned in most sport competitions. The the argument is constructed from an obvious WP:POV and is an unacceptable synthesis. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it does not make sense to include it as a controversy. One single biased source is not enough to create a controversy though it may deserve getting mentioned briefly because it's so weird. M99 87.59.102.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

rm section

there is too much poorly written bs in here... recommend serious cleanup if re-added--Xris0 (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Creatine's effectiveness in the treatment of many muscular, neuromuscular, and neuro-degenerative diseases is well-documented,. Despite this, in 2001, the Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments (AFSSA) (the French Agency for Medical Security of Food) had proposed its banning as a performance enhancer on the grounds that creatine could possibly cause cancer . A plethora of scientific evidence, however, shows that this warning was based on wrong assumptions, parts of these allegiations made by AFSSA have been discussed in an interview with Dr. Markus Wyss d . By contrast, if anything, Creatine and its analogues have been shown in several in vitro and in vivo animal models of cancer to slow down cancer growth, instead . Concerning this and other allegiations, the educated reader is advised to refer to the published literature that clearly shows that Creatine, if taken at the recommended dosage and in its highest possible chemical purity, is safe and without scientifically proven serious side effects . In the meantime, Creatine has become one of the most popular and indeed most effective nutritional supplements with scientifically proven ergogenic effects, holding approximately a 10% share of the sports supplement market..

References

{Sciencereview} for treatment section

There are now some quality reviews like PMID 18652079 which can be used instead of listing individual studies. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

sex

I was wondering if Creatine could affect longevity in men during sex? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.179.119.18 (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean if fewer old people die during intercourse, when they have been supplementing with creatine? M99 87.59.102.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC).

No, as in this case sex would be considered an endurance based activity, and creatine has not been shown to improve the performance of athletes performing enduranced based activities. It is only good for short bursts of activity ( yes yes, I know for some people sex is quite short, but I'm talking on the basis of a few seconds ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.16.152 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.29.128 (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I kinda agree that comment was hilarious, but to be serious, short bursts of activity such as contracting one's pelvic floor muscles (the ones Kegels target) when the urge to ejaculate is peaking can actually suppress ejaculation, thereby allowing for longer sessions of intercourse. It may be an 'endurance sport' for some, but selectively and intensely firing certain muscle groups can 'keep the game' going for longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.80.9 (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis in "Chronic Compartment Syndrome"

The para that describes this looks like the author took a study that found one patient with increased compartmental pressure after supplementing AND working out, and extended this finding with an entire paragraph talking of the dire consequences of Chronic Compartment Syndrome and postulating that a number of creatine users may suffer lower leg pain.

This is clearly synthesis, and would welcome suggestions on how to make this more scientific and accurate. HelpnWP (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

GATM enzyme confusion

The biosynthesis section says "The enzyme GATM (L-arginine:glycine amidinotransferase (AGAT), EC 2.1.4.1)" and the image caption says "GATM - Glycine amidinotransferase". How are GATM and AGAT related (family vs specific member? synonyms? older vs modern name?). GATM is a totally unrelated page and Arginine:glycine amidinotransferase makes no mention of GATM. DMacks (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

marijuana?

The 'Cognitive ability' section currently reads "supplementation with creatine significantly increased intelligence compared with marijuana." I'm pretty sure this is vandalism as the study it's referencing doesn't mention marijuana or cannabis. I'm guessing it used to read placebo. I Didn't changed it because I'm not 100% on that and personally believe plausible sounding information to be worse than retarted information.

Apologies for poor wiki form. This is my first post 67.180.30.179 (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Expansion tag

Ive added an expansion tag, as the article seems to be missing key information about the function of creatine in the body and its biochemistry. WHile there are some details on synthesis, there are a number of other wiki articles that appear to be related reaction products (phosphocreatine & creatine kinase), that are not really mentioned. The function of this chemical is probably more important to the article than its value as a supplement, so should be focused on accordingly. Unfortunately, I'm not much of a biochemist, and dont feel qualified to make the changes necessary. I'd be greatful if someone is able to tie all the creatine articles together though. Cheers, Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Molecular weight

The molecular weight of creatinin is not 313.13 as stated in the table, but 113.13. Best regards, Lars M Rasmussen, prof, clin. chem. Denmark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.78.129 (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

sorry, I was looking at the wrong molecule - creatinine. The mol weight here is correct! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.78.129 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation?

The text of the article's paragraphs beginning "There is less concern today...", and "In theory...", and "Long-term administration..." under the section "Use as a food supplement" appears to be virtually identical to text found on the mayo clinic site under footnote 8's link.

- Mmoople (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cognitive ability Section

Please revise this youth dosage amount quotation to some typical standard. Quote: "0.03 g/kg/day". What? 68.11.130.51 (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No. It's the number quoted directly from the study.[12]--Yankees76 ^Talk 13:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That looks like "grams in the daily intake per kilogram of the test subject". Thus a 70kg test subject would get 2.1 g/day. I've seen percent body weight used in older studies, but that sounds odd to the layman for roughly the same reason "attoparsec" does. ― Darekun (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

EC number wrong?

200-306-6 is N-amidinosarcosine (as of Jul 17 2011). Substance name creatine didn't return any result.Clocktwibright (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Some sentences seem overly-technical

For example, "Genetic deficiencies in the creatine biosynthetic pathway lead to various severe neurological defects"

I have some genetic background, but I still have no clue what that even means?

Aeonx (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that it means people suffer neurological problems when they have genetic defects which inhibit their ability to synthesize creatine. What's wrong with that? Larryisgood (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced, etc.?

Is 99.233.126.11's [change of 2011-10-29T05:38:25] warranted? It looks like some made up text. --Mortense (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed improvement to sentences

I propose that these sentences under the pharmacokinetics heading:

"The rest is eliminated out of the body as waste. Creatine is consumed by the body fairly quickly, and if one wishes to maintain the high concentration of creatine, Post-loading dose, 2-5 g daily is the standard amount to intake.[25][26][27]"

be replaced with these sentences (to improve the style, clarity and readibility):

"Any excess above this preset amount is eliminated from the body as waste. Creatine is consumed by the body fairly quickly, and if one wishes to maintain a high plasma concentration of creatine (post any aforementioned "loading dose" period), 2-5 g daily is the standard amount to intake.[25][26][27]"

109.149.158.177 (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Supplements

The article seems disingenuous in its positive description of creatine benefiting muscular development and performance in resistance training. The study cited in reference No.8 clearly refutes such benefits, yet it is not cited in the "Supplement" section. This reference No.8 is immediately available in full text, is very clear and informative and plainly concludes there were no measurable benefits of creating supplementation in a controlled, double blind study of creatine supplements and placebo in a a study of 30 participants in resistance training and creatine supplementation. Reference No.8!says it all, yet is left out of this section that plainly states that creatine supplementation does benefit users in resistance training. The references that are cited here, No.'s 20 and 21 are not available in full text, yet the abstract implies that creatine was not found to provide significant benefits in resistance training. It certainly isn't clear, and access to these articles costs between $35 and $64, making it prohibitive to check for interest. I wonder if the author read them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.139.220.75 (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The study in Reference #8 was performed on Creatine ethyl ester, an obsolete gimmick that was at one time touted by supplement manufacturers to be a superior form of creatine, but ultimately disproven and now makes up a very small percentage of the world's creatine production and sales. Using this study as evidence that creatine does not work, would be ignoring the hundreds of studies that show the most researched and popular form of creatine, Creatine monohydrate, has considerable muscle building and performance benefits for athletes and weight trained individuals. See Creatine supplements for a somewhat more thorough overview of the athletic benefits of creatine.Yankees76 ^Talk 20:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-sensical sentence.

The following sentence makes no sense whatsoever. "A survey of long-term use gives the creatine content of several foods."

It appears to be the result of two unrelated half-sentences accidentally strung together. 109.149.158.177 (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree; its poorly worded, and makes no clear meaning. Let's delete and ask whoever interprets it to discuss here. Thanks for posting the notice.--Jbeans (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I have changed the pronunciation transcriptions since they contained a diphthongized /-aɪn/ version which is at best very rare and highly likely non-technical. I believe the same should be done for all WP entries with same biochemistry -ine suffix. The sources I used are two of the best guides available for AmEng and BrEng, the Merriam-Webster (already used by the previous editor) and the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary. Neither of these sources show the /-aɪn/ variant, which is perhaps used by very few people who may be native speakers of English but are unfamiliar with biochemistry (in other words, an incorrect "spelling" pronunciation used by people who never say creatine). Incidentally, both dictionaries concur in listing the two acceptable pronunciations in the same order (as shown here).Viktor Laszlo (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

nutritional sources??

in the article it says: "Given the fact that creatine can be synthesized from the above mentioned amino acids, protein sources rich in these amino acids can be expected to provide adequate capability of native biosynthesis in the human body." which are precisely these "proteine sources"??? please add a list to the article so you know what to eat! thank you! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much every protein source has L-arginine, glycine, and L-methionine. I don't think including a list of proteins that can biosynthesize creatine would be particularly useful, or needed. Yankees76 ^Talk

Creatine supplementation uses a pure form. It would be interesting to know more about the process that produces it. 92.25.5.8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Health Effects

An analytical study published March 31, 2015 in the British Journal of Cancer conducted a population-based case-control study on the relationship between muscle-building supplements, including creatine, and the testicular germ cell cancer risk. Associations with Creatine, and other muscle building substances show a strong relationship between users, and testicular germ cell cancer (doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.26). Significantly stronger in early users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sooleymon (talk • contribs) 15:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The following statement seems to be incorrect:

"Extensive research has shown that oral creatine supplementation at a rate of 5 to 20 grams per day appears to be very safe and largely devoid of adverse side-effects,[23] while at the same time effectively improving the physiological response to resistance exercise, increasing the maximal force production of muscles in both men and women.[24][25]"

Source [23] indicates that during a research with several individuals no evidence was found to substantiate a deleterious effect in the use of creatin for a short period of time. Also source [23] indicates that no research was conducted so far to evaluate the long term effects on the prolonged usage of Creatin in healthy subjects, thus, it is incorrect to say that:

"Extensive research has shown that oral creatine supplementation at a rate of a rate of 5 to 20 grams per day appears to be very safe and largely devoid of adverse side-effects..."

Moreover the "Extensive research misleads he reader to believe that several studies reached that conclusion, which in fact the author of the sentence is pointing to only one source.

The sentence should be modified to:

"One research has shown that oral creatine supplementation at a rate of a rate of 5 to 20 grams per day appears to be very safe and largely devoid of adverse side-effects for short periods of time..."

The scientific source [23] says the following:

"There appears to be no strong scientific evidence to support any adverse effects but it should be noted that there have been no studies to date that address the issue of long-term Cr usage."

Another possibility is to copy and paste the paragraph from the scientific article [23] and put it also in italic providing credit to the original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphael Calvo (talk • contribs) 14:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional sentence improvement proposal

I propose that this sentence under the Supplements heading:

"Both two studies reviewed in 2007 found no impurities."

be replaced with one of these two sentences (to improve readibility):

"Both of the two studies reviewed in 2007 found no impurities."

or

"Both studies reviewed in 2007 found no impurities."

Mattpengelly (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

ISSN journal

@ScienceandFitness: you noted that the International Society of Sports Nutrition is known to have engaged in p-hacking in your recent edit summary when you removed an external link to one of their systematic reviews (or "position stands" as they call them); can you provide a link to a reliable source that supports this assertion? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Seppi333: All via FB, even in their group. Most telling was a study a year or two ago which claimed creatine-timing mattered, but looking at the dataset itself made it quite obvious that they were wringing the statistics to make it work. Subsequent studies all showed that timing of creatine did not matter.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2017

Creatine (/ˈkriːətiːn/ or /ˈkriːətɪn/[1][2]) is a nitrogenous organic acid that occurs naturally in vertebrates. It's role is to recycle ATP, the energy currency of the cell, primarily in muscle but also to a lesser extent in the brain, and several other organs. This is achieved by donating phosphate groups to ADP to regenerate ATP.

Creatine is produced endogenously at an amount of about 1 g/d. Synthesis predominately occurs in the liver, kidneys, and to a lesser extent in the pancreas. The remainder of the creatine available to the body is obtained through the diet at about 1 g/d for an omnivorous diet. 95% of the bodies creatine stores are found in the skeletal muscle and the remaining 5% is distributed in the brain, liver, kidney, and testes

With this as the reference for the second paragraph https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3407788/ Meel11223 (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

See the above thread. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

horribly written

The first part is written in a confusing, and non direct way not to mention being wrong in some places

Creatine (/ˈkriːətiːn/ or /ˈkriːətɪn/[1][2]) is a nitrogenous organic acid that occurs naturally in vertebrates and helps to supply energy to all cells (well not all cells mainly muscle, and to a lesser extent brain, and some other organs) in the body, primarily muscle. This is achieved by increasing the formation of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Early analysis showed that human blood is approximately 1% creatine, and the highest concentrations are found in animal blood (LOL first it says human blood, and then changes to animal blood???), brain (0.14%) (listing a lower source of it first?), muscle (0.50%) (the major location of creatine, and should be listed first and it is actually 95%), and testes (0.18%). The liver and kidney contain approximately 0.01% creatine.

How about

Creatine (/ˈkriːətiːn/ or /ˈkriːətɪn/[1][2]) is a nitrogenous organic acid that occurs naturally in vertebrates. It's role is to recycle ATP, the energy currency of the cell, primarily in muscle but also in the brain. This is achieved by recycling ADP to ATP via donation of phosphate groups.

Creatine is produced endogenously at an amount of about 1 g/d. Synthesis predominately occurs in the liver, kidneys, and to a lesser extent in the pancreas. The remainder of the creatine available to the body is obtained through the diet at about 1 g/d for an omnivorous diet. 95% of the bodies creatine stores are found in the skeletal muscle and the remaining 5% is distributed in the brain, liver, kidney, and testes

I can see you have that down further in the article but it is more appropriate in the introduction.

I recommend a change immediately. The introduction is an abomination. Meel11223 (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I've edited the lead based upon your proposed edits, but modified it for consistency with a couple reviews that I've cited. The 95% figure wasn't mentioned in the cited source in the body, so I've removed it. The endogenous production rate also wasn't supported by a source, so I used a recent review one to cite an amount of 8.3 mmol/day in young adults. Let me know if you think there are still any unresolved issues. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit: I just noticed the review you cited below supports the 95% figure, but the proposed addition here is the exact wording used in the source. I've added the review, but had to change the wording to avoid issues with WP:COPYVIO. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks good seppi333. A lot of questions about creatine are answered in the opening paragraph now. Kudos Meel11223 (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Testicular Cancer

Testicular Cancer

"In March 2015, a study published by the British Journal of Cancer found that men using supplements containing creatine may have a higher risk of getting testicular cancer [40][41]"

The link to the literature doesn't even mention creatine, all it says is they were on muscle building supplements and the link to webMD says "It’s also unknown what ingredients in muscle-building supplements might be responsible". I want permission to delete the above claim from the page.

And what is the half life of creatine in muscle and brain?

Meel11223 (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done This information was not well-sourced, and so I have removed it. I will see if there is any better sourcing for this aspect of the topic. (Add: there doesn't appear to be anything that passes WP:MEDRS; one study suggested a link, but this has not been validated/covered by good secondary sources.) Alexbrn (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely no issues with the information reported. Editors should not decide whether the content of a study is validated or not but rather to add information if the topic has been extensively covered by reliable sources which this topic has. If you feel that the content has not been covered by reliable sources then we can follow the steps as listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution but please do not simply delete my addition without going through the process. If you feel the addition is not neutral we can change the wording so that it sounds more neutral. Addition mentions a study that has been covered extensively. if you want more sources I am also happy to add more sources Totocol (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What you say is not in line with our WP:PAGs. Please see WP:MEDRS. Biomedical information should only be included if there are strong secondary sources for it, particularly for a major claim such as this. I looked for secondary sources on this topic but so far as I can see there are none. Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I recommend you to review your understanding of secondary sources - there are absolutely no issues with the sources cited. They are reviews of what has been said in a reputable journal. If you have an issue with what has been said you can always add a counter view based on reputable secondary sources. I'm happy to include a third party opinion but please do not just start and edit war without having an actual reason. Totocol (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. The journal articles you use are primary sources, news pieces, and WebMD is not a great source. I shall raise a query at Wt:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn is correct, MEDRS[13] should always be followed, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

one of the references is a primary source, al of the others are reliable secondary sources. Why has the whole cancer section been removed? Totocol (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No, none of them was a peer-reviewed secondary source that complies with our relevant guideline. — soupvector (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think this study belongs on this page. The cited reference mentions "creatine" exactly twice:

1. (in "Data Collection") The interview included an assessment of 30 different types of MBS powders or pills. The major ingredients, including creatine, protein, and androstenedione or its booster, were abstracted according to the product ingredients.
2. (the last sentence of the Results) We further conducted exploratory stratified analyses examining associations with TGCC for the major types of MBS use reported by the study population and found that the use of MBS containing ingredients of both creatine and proteins increased the risk of TGCC significantly...

Since creatine was not singled out as a risk factor, and was not mentioned in the title or abstract of the paper, this seems WP:UNDUE and perhaps WP:SYNTH. — soupvector (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Eventually there will be a review. The text was "A 2015 British Journal of Cancer study found that men using supplements containing creatine or androstenedione may have a higher risk of getting testicular cancer."[14] Li, N; Hauser, R; Holford, T; Zhu, Y; Zhang, Y; Bassig, B A; Honig, S; Chen, C; Boyle, P; Dai, M; Schwartz, S M; Morey, P; Sayward, H; Hu, Z; Shen, H; Gomery, P; Zheng, T (2015). "Muscle-building supplement use and increased risk of testicular germ cell cancer in men from Connecticut and Massachusetts". British Journal of Cancer. 112 (7): 1247–1250. doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.26. ISSN 0007-0920. PMID 25826226. QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Or, eventually this will be refuted. Let's wait and see. — soupvector (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the work of Wikipedia to summarise what's on reliable secondary sources rather than deciding whether you agree or not with the content? There are numerous reliable secondary sources that cite a study including Harvard School of Public Health and Brown University. 123.51.53.220 (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Such as? Please indicate the best secondary source you found (I found none suitable so am curious). Alexbrn (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Such as and and the list goes on. I am just curious why do you think they are not reliable secondary sources. Totocol (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

References

These press-release-based news pieces are not WP:MEDRS for stating or implying biomedical knowledge. They are also not secondary sources for the cancer statement as they provide no interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the research (just said it happened). We need review articles etc. Please read WP:MEDRS (and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background). For all we know this research is rubbish. Alexbrn (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. In particular, the cited pieces are not peer-reviewed. — soupvector (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The British Journal of Cancer is a reputable peer reviewed journal. Rather than deleting the content shouldn't you be trying to enrich the content by adding more information that you feel would show varied angles as described at WP:MEDRS 49.195.129.118 (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No, because there is no reliable information on this. Alexbrn (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• A reliable source for such a claim would be a peer-reviewed, secondary source - but none has been brought forward. The Br J Cancer paper is the primary source (that paper presented the analysis); the commentaries are secondary but not peer reviewed. — soupvector (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Only because no one else brought it up, a Letter to Editor, a few months later, same journal [Cazorla-Saravia P, Pereyra-Elías R. Is it the creatine or the anabolic androgenic steroids? Need for assessing the steroids role in testicular cancer. Br J Cancer. 2015 Dec 1;113(11):1638. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.294. PMID 26263480.] raised two valid theories for the connection - men using muscle building supplements (creatine, etc.) are often also users of anabolic steroids, and muscle building supplements may be 'spiked' with undisclosed anabolic steroids.David notMD (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

lack of research = it's bad?

"Pregnancy and breastfeeding

Creatine cannot be recommended during pregnancy or breastfeeding due to a lack of scientific information. Pasteurized cow's milk contains higher levels of creatine than human milk.[24][25]"

The sentence essentially says that since there is a lack of research done, it must be bad. Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.136.206 (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Dietary supplement labels often contain a statement that the product is not intended for use by pregnant/lactating women, or children. This is not to imply causes harm. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that clinical trials reported a safety evaluation have not been conducted in those populations.David notMD (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Questions About the Heterocyclic Amines Section

"Heterocyclic amines

When creatine is mixed with protein and sugar at high temperatures (above 148 °C), the resulting reaction produces heterocyclic amines (HCAs). Such a reaction happens when grilling or pan frying meat.[42] Creatine content (as a percentage of crude protein) can be used as an indicator of meat quality.[43]

A Meta-analysis from 2011 concluded that "search for the excretion of heterocyclic amines remains a future task to definitively exclude the unproved allegation made by some national agencies".[31]"

1) What are 'heterocyclic amines?

2) Are they good, bad, indifferent, and why? (I vaguely remember reading that 'amines' -- bad -- are produced when cooking out using charcoal, but that isn't what this section says.)

3) The first paragraph starts off explaining how heterocyclic amines are produced, then the third sentence of that paragraph is about something else, namely that the creatine content of meat can indicate the quality of that meat. Why is that useful information?

4) Second paragraph:

a) 'search for the excretion of'. . . meaning 'how heterocyclic amines are excreted from the body'

b) what 'unproved allegation'?

c) how will understanding the pathway of heterocyclic amine excretion definitively exclude that unproved allegation?

Langing (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Creatine Synthesis incorrect pathway

Creatine is synthesized via a two step reaction with two different enzymes: 1. Arginine:Glycine Amindinotrasferase (AGAT - sometimes called GATM in older papers). 2. Guanidinoacetate methyltransferase (GAMT).

The current image incorrectly has GAMT catalyzing both steps. Step 1 should be labeled as AGAT.

Thanks for your great work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.233.102 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The current image clearly shows GATM then GAMT - as you suggest it should. You suggest that AGAT is the new name for GATM, but it appears that GATM remains current. It's true that the article is inconsistent in use of AGAT and GATM - is that what you're concerned about, or am I missing something else that you're seeing? — soupvector (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Contraindications

The "supplement" section currently begins with: "The Mayo Clinic states that creatine has been associated with asthmatic symptoms and warns against consumption by persons with known allergies to creatine.[17]". The citation is a 404, and the statement that "[literally anybody] warns against consumption by persons with known allergies to creatine" is too obvious to mention, so I will edit this portion out whilst leaving the start of the sentence with a "citation needed" tag. I (and many other weightlifters, I'm sure) would welcome somebody more knowledgeable to advise us of any properly sourced contraindications.2A00:23C4:4F07:1000:51ED:B111:9877:ABB1 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Mayo is not MEDRS; that is gone. Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Note - merging back

I merged Creatine supplement back to here. It had been split out way back in 2007. In the ensuing 11 years this article blew up to recreate the supplement content here, and the articles developed independently, saying different, partial, and inconsistent things. They also each became shot through with bad content including blatant spam.

I left a similar message on the supplement talk page.

If folks want to discuss a resplit now that we have a unified chunk of content (which still needs a bunch of work) that is fine, but we would have to be careful not to let that happen again. Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Additions to Supplement health effects

Hello Jytdog, I have been reviewing the literature on the health effects of creatine supplements and would like to add some additions. Some references are meta-analyses, and others are individual studies. I apologize if I added to the clutter already present - I see you removed a lot of content that was previously added and also some content I added recently. See my sandbox for the types of additions I would like to make. I would love to hear your feedback. I am a new Wikipedia user, so please be patient with me!

BetaEdits (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Content based on individual studies will not be OK. Please use sources that are OK per WP:MEDRS. Please be sure you have read WP:MEDMOS too (no references to "patient", etc). Let me know when it is ready! Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Educational video on creatine deficiencies

I added an educational video in the section about the Genetic Deficiencies. Can someone please help me understand why this is not appropriate? Thanks! Auract (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"Hazards" table

Hello, I attach a file that should be a sufficient argument to delete the red exclamation mark in the "Hazards" table in the right column. Thank you for the change.

4prostor (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Original creatine label-2 1993.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

UCF WikiMedicine Project Spring 2020

Hi everyone! I'm excited to contribute to the community and update this page with information from systematic reviews on pubmed. Overall I think the section on supplemental health effects can use an expansion. Here are things I think we can add information to:

1) Expand on supplemental use in athletic populations. Currently the article delineates two main populations, anaerobic and aerobic exercise groups, but does not list specific sports (ex: Soccer, weightlifting, power lifting, runners, American football players) nor does it delineate muscle groups that were improved via creatine supplementation. A number of systematic review articles can be found that discuss impacts on different muscle groups. Additionally, there has been some delineation between usage in professional vs amateur athletics similar to resistance trained vs non resistance trained athletes response to certain training protocols.

2) Parkingson's: The last reference is to usage for Parkinson's disease treatment is from 2014, but some new meta analysis from 2017 has been released to discuss this further

3) Diabetes: The page does not discuss the benefits of glycemic control in the diabetic populations with the most recent studies from 2016

4) Elderly population: Supplementation has also been done in the elderly to measure parameters that increase exercise performance and mitigate medical issues such as osteopenia, obesity, muscular atrophy, etc.

5) Adverse health effects: There is a specific concern in research over renal function from exogenous creatine supplementation. The most recent literature from 2019 is not addressed and the single reference to an article from 2012 on renal function can be expanded upon. Additionally, concerns for creatine supplement-ion in the pediatric population uses a reference from a pediatrician from 2010 are not accurately stated currently. The current argument from the single physicians powerpoint is "Why bother" in a population that is likely already maximally loaded with creatine from their diet even though he does address possible ergogenic benefits with supplementation should a patients creatine stores not adequate and he only states concerns for special populations within the pediatric group such as those with kidney disease. This section should be expanded, clarified and corrected to pull from resources like a systematic review, not a powerpoint slide.

6) Clinical pharmacology: Much to be expanded upon here such as synthesis, transport, MOA for energy metabolism, protein synthesis, membrane stabilization. Pharmacokinetics such as dosing, absorption, clearance. Lastly there are a studies on gyrate atrophy, mitochondrial diseases, muscular diseases and heart disease with both animals and humans studies in each category but I will have to look into systematic reviews for each category to see if there is a summative statement to share with the wikicommunity.

Open for suggestions and welcome feedback. Thanks, Akennedy 4 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review for UCF WikiMedicine Spring 2020

I think the subsection of Renal Function was an important addition. The part of the article that I thought could use the most improvement is the body's capacity to excrete creatine and if these is a toxic ingestion dose. Following are some suggested edits by section. Thank you for all the hard work!

History
Figure ‘The cyclic derivative creatinine exists in equilibrium with its tautomer and with creatine’ should be moved somewhere under Pharmacokinetics

Metabolic Role
Add link for amino acid Wikipedia page
Suggested structure for 1st sentence: Creatine is a naturally occurring non-protein amino acid which has a primary metabolic role of combining creatine with a phosphoryl group to generate phosphocreatine. Phosphocreatine is then used to regenerate ATP by donating its phosphoryl group to ADP.

Metabolic Role: Phosphocreatine System
Add relevant Wikipedia link for mM units
Add Wikipedia myosatellite cells page link to 'satellite cells'

Pharmacokinetics
Add Wikipedia Pharmacokinetics page link to pharmacokinetics
Add links for volume of distribution, clearance, bioavailability, mean residence time, absorption rate, and half life
Could possibly replace the term ‘pharmacokinetics of creatine’ with ‘how they body processes creatine’

Pharmacokinetics: Loading Phase
Move (total of 20g/day) to right after ‘5g creatine taken four times a day’
Change ‘equal’ to ‘equally’ in second sentence
Change ‘ergogenic benefits’ in last sentence of first paragraph to ‘ergogenic benefits (discussed in the Therapeutic Uses section)’
Change ‘mitigating diseases’ to ‘mitigate diseases that cause creatine deficiencies’.
Add a link for ‘loading dose’ Wikipedia page to 'loading phase'

Pharmacokinetics: Maintenance Phase
Add a wikipedia link for 'maintenance dose'

Pharmacokinetics: Clearance
What happens if one continues to take large doses of creatine after maximal body stores are achieved? Is there a toxic dose? Or is all the extra creatine excreted in healthy individuals?
Is creatine cleared by the kidney and/or other organs? What is it broken down to?
Perhaps add the following equation to help explain role of renal function in creatine metabolism and therefore provide a basis for concerns about renal function with creatine supplementation
Creatine -> Creatinine -> Creatinine excreted in urine

Therapeutic uses: Muscular disease
Add link for muscular dystrophies Wikipedia page

Therapeutic uses: Huntington’s Disease
Do these studies agree on effects or mostly disagree?
Add link for primary studies, systematic reviews i.e. links that explain what these terms mean

Adverse effects: Renal function
Was renal function studied with creatine supplementation at the same level as mentioned in the loading and maintenance phase sections or at any consumption rate? Change ‘health’ to ‘healthy’ in last paragraph
Is renal disease a contraindication to creatine supplementation? Are there other common diseases which are contraindications for creatine supplementation?
Add a line saying that kidney damage can occur when creatine is taken with certain medications discussed in the Interactions section

Anwer2007 (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Mention of claimed nootropic effects seems too brief, no mention of IQ points at all ("Raise IQ by 10-12 Points?")

The current mention of claimed nootropic effects in the text seems a little brief, and there's no direct mention of IQ points at all.

I just now came across a claim on some pop-sci/nutrition site that creatine supplementation may be able to raise IQ by 10-12 points. (https://www.supernutritionlife.com/creatine-benefits-raise-iq-how-to-use/)

I haven't yet looked into whatever evidence they supposedly have for that at all, and I have no idea if it's credible, but regardless of whether the claim has good evidence, or is controversial, or is thoroughly debunked, or just unsubstantiated, since the claim is definitely already being *made* "in the wild", the wikipedia article should definitely directly *address* something that important, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayseychow (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I think not. Wikipedia should be based on hiqh-quality secondary sources (a review published in a highly-cited journal that covers a lot of studies; a meta-analysis of studies, also in a respectable journal). All sorts of claims are made in low-quality sources but that does not mean that they can be included in a Wikipedia article. --13:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BetaEdits.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 April 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Akennedy 4. Peer reviewers: Anwer2007.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hair loss not mentioned anywhere

I think the possible effect of hair loss due to increased dihydrotestosterone should be included. Source: https://www.healthline.com/health/creatine-hair-loss Hyuhanon (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Writing Science

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TacoTuesday247, Skol1214 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by TacoTuesday247 (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)