Creatine yep its been done to death....

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 19, 2007 1:18 PM GMT
    Ok so I am accused alot of being a Creatine anti facist.

    Ive done the reading Ive read virtually every report, wouldnt dare pretend to understand most of it, and formulated my opinions ie whether or not it works it hasnt stopped me yet in my goals and I shall pass for now.

    But has anyone with a slighlty more analytical mind analysed the studies sufficiently to be able to relate volume of consumption to Lean Muscle mass gain in an exact amount? Half the reports dont give you the information clearly enough to be able to work that out and merely refer to weight added from what I have seen.

    Im not after necessarily a report but if you care able to show the calculations and back this up with a report all the better

  • MarvelClimber

    Posts: 511

    Sep 19, 2007 5:25 PM GMT
    Here's a link to a Men's Health article.

    It has a few footnotes about studies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 19, 2007 6:00 PM GMT
    Every report? There are literally hundreds of them!

    It sounds like you are asking for a dose-response curve. But there is no way to make a linear calculation of the type that you suggest. You just have to do the experiment. In the case of creatine, it's known that mass and strength increases during supplementation depend on both exercise level and individual metabolism. So to make a good curve, you need to set an arbitrary diet and exercise regimen, and recruit a group of subjects with very similar physiology. Let's say, a set of triplet athletes. Then let's say, you invite me over "to get to know them" a little better.

    Anyway, metabolism is a network of reaction pathways and compounds like creatine are involved in reactions at the core of the network. Supplementation has multiple effects and those effects are contextual. That is, they depend on a lot of different variables. One would need a very good supercomputer-level model of a particular subject's metabolism in order to make a predictive calculation of that sort. In practical terms, it's nearly always easier to just do the experiment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 19, 2007 11:04 PM GMT
    yep mindgarden I have trawled and consumed and sat in the Sports Science Library (National Uni) where I live and tried to find a conclusive argument to justify its usage.

    From what I have seen so far is that altho everyone claims miracle lean muscle mass growth and strength they are unable to quantify it in realistic terms based on a comparative study group as you point out.

    So pretty much alot of the reports claim increases but they are not substantial enough or consistant enough to form the basis of a sound opinion on.

    As I say, Im trying to keep an open mind on it but at the moment I feel its such an insignificant piece of the puzzle unless you are a pro athlete/sportsman it does not justify usage.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2007 1:00 AM GMT
    I've always gone with the assumption that creatine's affect was that it keeps you from fatiguing too early so you can work a little harder/longer. Something to do with preventing lactic acid, blah-blah-blah. I'm NO body builder, but I can often tell when I skip creatine before a workout day. I just don't feel like I can go as far. But it doesn't have a stimulant affect like caffeine or it's very subtle.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2007 7:44 PM GMT
    yuo are correct in that assumption but at what point do they decide that more than your natural level is beneficial?

    I cant see any analysis on existing creatine levels within the individuals so could it be that super sports guys are such because they have higher levels?

    Not sure if that makes sense