The ongoing research on [[creatine]] continues!
And this time, it's being challenged in a way that it hasn't really been challenged
before.
It might even have us question whether creatine is still worth our money.
Let's check it out.
There are very few fitness [[supplements]] more researched than creatine.
And with such extensive data, you would think that our understanding of creatine is mostly
settled.
But of course, in science, regardless of the amount of data, nothing's ever truly concrete.
Like, not too long ago, researchers used to believe that lifting weights is great for
your health.
They still believe that, but they used to too.
And now this new meta-analysis questions what we have long believed about creatine and its
moderate effect on increasing your muscle gains.
Now, the point of contention here is not so much that past creatine data is wrong, but
rather that the data commonly used a measurement that might not have been completely valid
in measuring muscle growth.
That measurement is known as lean body mass, a relatively simple, easy-to-interpret, and
cost-effective measurement tool.
What lean body mass actually is, is essentially all the mass in your body minus your fat mass.
And yes, that includes things like bones and organs, but since the size of these things
don't really change much in adults, it's believed that changes in lean mass will be largely
attributed to changes in muscle…
… and… also water.
It's this little liquidy aspect where the biggest issue lies in measuring with lean
body mass.
You see, one thing we learned about creatine supplementation over the years is that it
can increase body water retention.
So, with lean body mass, you're likely to overestimate how much muscle you gain with
creatine with all the extra water lying around.
It's kinda like being super stoked about the huge box of chocolates your coworker gave
you, but when you open the box, there's way more plastic tray than there is chocolate.
And worse yet, the chocolate is filled with cherry….
ugh.
Okay, it's not that bad, but the point is that, with creatine, your lean mass gains
might have quite a bit of plastic tray, or water, when all you want is to see how much
chocolatey muscles you have.
With that in mind, the goal of this new research was to look at existing creatine evidence,
but only evidence that measured hypertrophy using direct imaging tools, like ultrasound
scans, and not lean body mass.
They ultimately found 10 relevant studies for their analysis.
And to get straight to the point, they estimated that the standard effect size with supplementing
exercise with creatine compared to no creatine was 0.11.
Based on standard effect size classifications, this is considered a "trivial to small" effect.
Saying creatine provides only trivial to small gains in muscle sounds a lot less exciting
as many of us have previously believed.
Ouch.
But, let's not get too hasty and throw [[creatine]] into the same pile of trash as something like
[[BCAA]]s just yet.
First, we need to acknowledge the existence of creatine "non-responders," people that,
due to them having naturally high creatine levels already or unfavorable muscle fiber
compositions, will see little to no effect with creatine supplementation.
This seems to affect roughly 20 to 30% of individuals, a pretty high portion that we
need to consider potentially influencing the results of this study.
But perhaps the strongest pushback to the new findings is calling it a "trivial to small"
effect in the first place, an argument made by the long-respected fitness expert Greg
Nuckols.
In his response article to this new study, Greg elaborately dissected and questioned
the use standard effect size classifications for fitness research, especially considering
that these classifications were initially developed for interpreting data in psychology
and behavioral science.
Essentially, Greg argues that classifications require proper context of the data being interpreted.
Especially in something like hypertrophy, where small effect sizes are generally observed
anyway, small increases to it can carry a lot more weight.
With this in mind, using his super fitness science brain, Greg devised a new range of
effect size classifications that might be more fitting for muscle hypertrophy outcomes.
Now I highly recommend every one of you, especially if you're interested in creatine and really
just fitness science in general, to read Greg's entire article so you can understand his full
thoughts on this matter.
But to quickly summarize, based on his hypertrophy-adjusted effect size chart, an effect size of 0.11
is more likely to fall within the classification of a small to medium effect, which aligns
a lot closer to the general beliefs of creatine's effectiveness on muscle growth.
I really do like Greg's interpretation here.
Dude is wicked smaht.
And, I even think Greg might have opened up a long-overdue discussion on effect sizes
that the fitness science community desperately needs.
But we'll leave that to the researchers and keyboard warriors on twitter to figure out.
Now based on all we just covered, what does this ultimately mean about creatine?
I'd say, eh, not much but worth thinking about the next time you buy creatine.
Honestly, I've always had held the belief that creatine provides a rather "okay" effect
and nowhere near as great as it's sometimes advertised.
But at least the research has been consistent in showing that an effect is there, which
is more than what we can say about a lot of other supplements.
Creatine has also shown other benefits, like cognitive benefits, which sure, is also only
small in effect, but also consistently there.
This new study might have very well nudged creatine down by just a hair, but creatine
is still a solid supplement, at least in my opinion, but you let me know.
If you enjoyed the video, please give it a trivial to small thumbs up and share it with
your creatine-loving friends.
Subscribe for more.
As always, thank you for watching and don't forget to GET YOUR PROTEIN!