▲ 341 points
back
275 comments
Good discussion, but this conclusion:
> I don’t know. Maybe a little.
is not the right way to interpret the null result (insufficient evidence to reject null hypothesis that it has no effect) because the prior for supplements that people are trying to sell you is so low. In the absence of clear, strong evidence, you should assume the the whole thing is just an example of motivated reasoning. People want nootropics to be real, and other people really want to sell you readily available powders by claiming they have nootropic properties. In that environment, they were always going to trying to concoct a similar narrative about some supplement, and it just happened to be creatine. Those efforts were always going to result in a handful of "positive" studies that turn out to be non-reproducible, maybe because of p-hacking, maybe because of publication bias, maybe because of outright fraud. This is what the literature always looks like for stuff that just doesn't work. If it did work - if the effect size was large enough that you could personally detect it in your own life - then the papers would be trying to put error bars around the effect size, not trying (and failing) to barely distinguish it from a placebo.
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” - Ernest Rutherford
I think this is quite different because (1) creatine has been proven to be completely harmless for people of all ages absent some rare thing like a kidney disorder and (2) it has a bunch of clearly measurable positive effects.
So this is more like trying to determine whether ginseng is good at keeping away colds or whatever. Maybe it does (actually quickly searching this, it definitely does but let's pretend it's as folksy as it sounds for a minute) but even if it doesn't then it's harmless and has a bunch of other effects, so when one takes it - the whole possible cold prophylaxis can just be seen as an added perk.
What I'm getting from all this is that we have an armchair expert explaining details about something they're not an expert in, and we have you reviewing the way they present this information, saying their very weak hedge wasn't strongly negative enough. Based on priors about the industry.
Basically, HN doing HN things - having a good deep think about topics outside their realm of expertise, then debating the minutiae. I'd just rather trust someone who has spent their career researching this stuff, thanks (unless that's what you do - in which case please tell us more).
If you're being academically rigorous about it, sure, but I think it's fine as an informal conclusion.
The null is surely different in this case because we know that supplemented creatine goes to the brain and the brain uses it, which is definitely not a claim all supplements can make.
The fact that there's a biologically plausible mechanism plus mixed statistical evidence makes "maybe" a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
I think the way you interpret the null result is downstream of considering creatine as "a supplement". You can make the null result say anything by changing your prior about creatine or supplements. That's the issue with priors.
You also seem to reject the possibility that some things help just a bit. The author has another article in the same vein about "things that can help maybe a bit but the evidence we have doesn't really help detecting small effects" https://dynomight.net/vitamin-d/
You are essentially trying to say that most studies regarding supplements are not valid
Heavily agreed. The supplement industry has such a low level of reliability that it has really soured me on so many practices people have. And I flat out do not understand how some of the supplement stores survive.
mandatory XKCD https://xkcd.com/882/ "Jellybeans cause acne"
People have no idea how successful big pharma’s info campaign has been since what I’m increasingly calling the real Web 3.0 (post-influencer social media and arrival of big corporate narratives).
According to Reddit, Epsom salt has no effect (doesn’t absorb) - you’re wasting your time by using it. They’ll cite all sorts of real, funded studies that agree and yet always the comment section is filled with anecdotal evidence of the contrary - to which a typical response is “hot water in general is soothing” (ignoring efficacy of magnesium sulfate in ice baths).
I digress - creatine is a similar situation. All this confusion at best. It’s also not unlike the health effects of cannabis just prior to going effectively legal - it either causes or cures cancer, or something? We need more research! That’s the real problem!
Any time you see this sort of narrative it’s corporate politics and influence at play.
By virtue of how hard it is to get any information on creatine, it probably threatens some market or vertical at least (whether or not it “works”). Like A. muscaria mushroom or sassafras, you’ll have to do your own research to really know.
I have severe sleep apnea as well as insomnia. I may also be a multi-phasic sleeper. In any case my average sleep per night is ~3.5 hours with only ~1.5 hours of deep sleep. I use light therapy, CPAP, medications, etc but none of it solves my problems. I started taking creatine daily a couple of months ago. I've noticed a significant uptick in my cognitive abilities, despite being constantly sleep deprived. TFA doesn't touch on this apparent benefit of creatine, so thought I'd mention it for others who might be suffering from similar sleep issues.
I take 5g/day, through better part of last 9-12 months (don't remember when I started).
No noticeable cognitive difference/improvement. And the more I've researched creatine the less convinced I am that there are reliable conclusions about cognitive impacts.
Significant physical changes! But other than the pure aesthetics, it's hard to say that my strength increases are tied to creatine or instead a solid routine, plan, diet, and progressive overload. Probably some all of above.
I also take whey protein isolate (20-25g at least once a day)
The Nootropic space fascinates me. A few observations:
- Not sure if caffeine is considered nootropic. Caffeine definitely makes a difference.
- Unclear if placebo effect or real, L-theanine seems to help with calm and focus.
- Otherwise, when it comes to what I'm sure alters my state/body/etc. - drugs! And I'm not suggesting anything specific but my point is the effects are obvious/real/etc. vs. much of the supplement space that suffers from very murky conclusions (imo).
I switched from creatine to eating pickled herring or steak instead. It's WAY more expensive, but considering I don't live in a country with very great control over stuff like adulterants, I'll definitely elect for tasty and safe.
Each 2-ounce rollmop contains about a gram or two of creatine, sometimes more. Steak is about a gram per 8 ounces.
If you can afford it, it's way nicer than choking down that powder in water getting all crunchy in your teeth and stuff.
It's decent pre-workout food although not for everyone as mentioned elsewhere in the comments here (Something like 20% of people don't see any workout endurance benefits)
Sometimes I stay up until 1–3 a.m. because I'm working on a problem that's so interesting I can't stop until I make progress.
If I know I'm only going to get a few hours of sleep, I'll take 5–10 g of creatine, drink plenty of water, and go to bed. The next morning, I usually don't wake up with a headache.
If I skip the creatine under the same conditions, I'm much more likely to wake up with a headache after a short night's sleep.
Now it's become a habit, I automatically take creatine whenever I know my sleep duration is going to be much shorter than usual.
This matches what Gwern wrote years ago [0]. It does unequivocally make you stronger though. So if you're training anyway, may as well take it and hope it makes you smarter as well (just believing might be enough for that sweet placebo effect).
Most people taking creatine just need to drink water. They drink more water using creatine. In reality, the water/hydration is doing the heaviest lift, not the creatine.
This made me wonder if sun exposure/vitamin D has any impact on storing or processing creatine, and maybe that's why the results in Australia were so much greater
I experienced dramatic and obvious hair loss in my late twenties after starting creatine supplementation. I'm talking hundreds of hairs coming out every shower. It stopped when I stopped creatine. No I didn't make any other changes in diet or lifestyle at the time. I hadn't even heard of the link before that. This is actually one of those things that made me start doubting "the science" in general because it's supposedly not true, but, it obviously is true for my head beyond a reasonable doubt.
>Contrary to the common myth, thinking hard does not burn significantly more calories. (Demonstration: Start thinking hard, and watch as your heart rate does not increase.)
this is wrong [0] , it's just hard to measure.
I wonder if there’s any long term studies like how the body gets adjusted to creatine. Because human body is remarkable at adjusting and setting new baselines and I wonder if it’s true with creatine as well, like to have the same effect you need to take more creatine the longer you keep on taking it
I have definitely noticed improvements taking a larger dose with my energy when low on sleep, check out McMorris et al. (2006) which is not cited here. I agree it probably doesn't make you generally more 'smart' but it does may improve function under stress, e.g. when sleep deprived, also see Gordji-Nejad et al. (2024). I think the sleep benefits should at least be mentioned in this article.
Also search for 'sleep' in this comment section, seems many see similar improvements!
In my experience, it wont make you smarter but my brain just feels more energized to think.
I think its supposed to make you able to concentrate better when you are tired. For most people this can make them feel smarter.
> This in turn may increase the long-term gainz from strength-training exercise
Why is "gains" spelled this way? I found myself suddenly trusting the whole thing a little less. But maybe I'm missing something. Is this jargon in the body building world or something? Author being cheeky?
I'm an endurance cyclist, and I take 5g on ride days (4/week). I started based on this study (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15502783.2023.2...). In short, it does have some benefits for endurance sports by enhancing surges in intensity such as climbing or the finishing kick. I've noticed some muscle mass increase, including my upper body, but nothing I would consider dramatic. I can't say I've experienced any mental effects, though I haven't taken an IQ test in decades, so who am I to say?
> Wikipedia quotes a paper saying people make / recycle around 50 kilograms per day. That would imply that people make around 0.5787 grams per second. But this is in tension with the idea that people use 100 watts at rest. Since that 100 watt number seems to be more strongly established, I think 1 gram per second is a better estimate.
The cited paper in Wikipedia might be accurate and the author is just expecting "at rest" to mean awake but mostly idle. I'd wager that during sleep, we use less than 100W. For the sake of argument if you take out 8 hours (asleep time) from a 24 hour period, you end up with a rate of ~0.8681 grams per second, much closer to 1g/s. Anyway, just a little fun with numbers.
Personally I have noticed a lot less cognitive impairment after a poor night’s sleep since starting on 10g per day. It seems to make a noticeable difference in my ability to reason and to act having slept less than 7 hours per night, even on consecutive nights.
I’ve always wanted to use creatine regularly but every time I’ve started taking it, I get a considerable rise in blood pressure. Would be curious to hear if anyone else experiences this or has found a good workaround.
I’ve researched it quite a bit and found that others do experience it as well, but the usual advice of “just drink more water” (which yes, I have tried) is about the extent of info I find on it. Then, the “it causes your body to retain more water” idea which doesn’t seem to be accurate as what I’ve understood is that it causes your muscles to store more water…
Don’t know about cognitive effects, but it gives me around 10% more strength and a fuller, more muscular look.
If the cognitive effects are real, they aren’t noticeable to me without placebo effect. Meaning, I hadn’t heard any notion of creatine impacting cognitive function and I’ve been taking it on and off for years, and never noticed anything.
Thinking back, maybe an uptick in mood and a mental performance while tired? Purely unscientific, though.
Studies I read seems to show a marginal boost in cognitionl and memory, but only if you were otherwise overtaxed for some reason.
Like being tired, stressed, etc...
> Available short and long-term studies in healthy and diseased populations, from > infants to the elderly, at dosages ranging from 0.3 to 0.8 g/kg/day for up to 5 > years have consistently shown that creatine supplementation poses no adverse
> health risks and may provide a number of health and performance benefits.
They missed a zero behind the comma, didn't they?
The conclusions aren't any different (it's one of the few thing that helps strength, poses no danger to your hair, and almost certainly does nothing for cognition), but the articles at https://www.strongerbyscience.com/?s=creatine are far more comprehensive, including the famous extremely long podcast episodes they used to do.
The one thing this misses is many supplements are tainted, which skews the popular perception of both upsides and risks. This was especially true in the US prior to 2005 or so when prohormones were still legal over the counter. Anything branded that wasn't just pure creatine was extremely likely to actually be a low-dose oral steroid, which really can make you lose hair and will increase strength quite a bit more than any dietary supplement.
This also misses caffeine as the other a-tier supplement that consistently shows strength increases in RCTs, though of course, caffeine is more frought than creatine because you build tolerance and it can disturb sleep.
> thinking hard does not burn significantly more calories
Up to 50 Cal extra over ~2 hours of intense thinking IS significant given brains consume 240-400 Cal over 24 hours.
> Start thinking hard, and watch as your heart rate does not increase.
And yet you soon get tired and slow down. Now try the opposite. Stretch or punch the air a few times to get the heart rate going. You'll sustain brain performance for longer. Try it.
Perhaps the problem is that higher brain activity SHOULD trigger heart rate increase, but doesn't due to one of many design defects of the human body.
I just ordered some yesterday because I saw something that reminded what my friend said recently about it boosting cognition. Then this morning I saw it mentioned in some health segment on tv. Now I stumble upon this discussion. Hmmm.
Take this as anecdotal, but I started taking 1500 mg of creatine HCl daily about a year ago. Since then, I’ve felt sharper and able to perform mentally at a higher level for longer throughout the day.
A different discussion on the same general topic 51 days ago (and now flagged)
> Maybe for some reason, Rae et al.’s cohort had lower baseline creatine levels?
Well, yes. It is well known that you must eat fish, beef, i.e., animal protein, to get close to optimal levels of creatine.
I started taking 5g for cognition. Never any clear signal for that, but it does seem to help a bit with my (more than occasional) sleep deprivation. Mostly with fighting off headaches.
I remember learning about Creatine as a weightlifting teen
I never ended up doing it because you had to cycle it, and it was just one more thing to track
Is it the same case in 2026? Is there a simple pill I can take?
For me, whenever I took creatine I got headaches. (I drank enough water, and I could reproduce the issue everytime I tried it, so stopped it as it felt wrong)
On some drug abuse forums I visit people also claim creatine has antidepressant effects. I honestly can't tell but I take 3g daily.
Why is creatine so popular lately? what changed?
I cant talk about scientific reasons, but from my experience, creatine has caused increase in hairfall for me.
Personal anecdotal experience, but I experienced my most rapid period of hair loss while taking creatine. This was for about 1 year when I was 22-23.
It could be underlying genetic predisposition to hair loss, but I do believe the creatine had an accelerating effect. When I stopped taking creatine, the rate of hair loss noticeably slowed down throughout the rest of my 20s.
Dang, missed opportunity to explain the actin-myosine sliding filament theory.
if you are using to slim down it will hold on to water unless you are bulking i dont see creatine to be consumed regularly
if you truly want fuel for the brain nothing beats keto
Okay, I skimmed the article.
Is creatine safe to supplement for children?