bluey2223 saidI can''t think of much creative at this hour, but uhh:I like this or the Creatine Queens.
Yes, but I'm vegetarian and do not take creatine. Supposedly my muscles would have low stores of it, but I'm not convinced from the study that says so because most vegetarians do not eat as much protein grams in general as meat eaters, and creatine can be synthesized from protein since it is an amino acid. Therefore, protein requirements could be higher than we think they are for vegetarians not only due to less bioavailable protein (it's a general rule of thumb to up protein intake by 10% if vegetarian due to antinutrients making plant protein less absorbed) but also due to increased needs not supplied by meat, since meat contains creatine. That said, I'm just questioning the study because of your typical vegetarians not eating enough in general, and typical vegetarians were likely used in these studies that concluded these results, which then sells creatine as a product/supplement that can be marketed to this group of people because "science" says they have lower levels. It's all about money--part of the reason I chose not to pursue the world of PhD because it's all about money and financing rather than discovery of new truths.
The study establishing the baseline criteria for creatine levels was done in 1989.
How well were people planning vegetarian diets back then? Did they use correction factors for bioavailability of plant protein? I am extremely cynical of many scientific studies that say we need to be taking creatine supplements as vegetarians.
I still vote for Backdoor Bandits.