Creatine - Overrated? (Split from Stupidest things you have seen in a gym...)

SS,

You've been paying attention!!! Yes, I've spent a lot of time looking into creatine. The studies are very mixed concerning its effects on human performance. Even the exercise "protocol" that creatine seems to be the most beneficial for (repeated bouts of maximal idokinetic (180?/s) contractions w/ short rest intervals - see Greenhaff's original paper) does not show an effect in all studies.

Metabolic studies have shown creatine increases, decreases! or has no effect on phosphocreatine replenishment rates. Hell, the original study showing faster replenisment of phosphocreatine stores during recovery found that in the quadriceps, but NOT the tib. anterior (this is in a proceedings abstract). The full paper published thereafter only presents the quad data in favor of creatine's effectiveness.

The resistance training studies have mixed results on strength gains and those that do show an effect only show enhanced strength gain in some, but not all exercises.

The seemingly (unless you read it - the abstract is horribly misrepresentative) best study showing an benefit for muscle hypertrophy (Volek et al., 1999) only showed an effect on a fiber type (IIAB) that constituted 7% of the total muscle volume.

Resistance training increases muscle creatine stores about 20%, bringing them to closer to the limit. This is the extent of increase induced by creatine supplementation. There is a limit to the amount creatine that can be stored in the muscle cell - approach that limit and creatine supplementation will not increase stores. Take a guy who's been training, eating a lot of red meat, and you've got a guy who's not as likely to increase muscle creatine stores much with a loading protocol.

If, and this of course happens a lot (but not always), there is a loading effect on creatine stores, there are other (scientifically confounding issues):
-Creatine increases muscle glycogen stores - this is a great thing! This is how I use it precontest and why I put in in those shakes - for faster glycogen replenishement. (Of course, drinking all those kcals means that my glycogen doesn't drop much.) However, is the effect of creatine supplementation a matter of glycogen stores or creatine (and creatine phosphate) stores?...

-Cr. increases water weight - HELLO Mr. PLACEBO!!! A really good study (in humans) worked around this by resistance training subjects quads with electrical stimulation. Regardless of whether the subjects knew they were on creatine, it wouldn't affect the training stimulus - all of the reps were induced the the electricity. The results showed no difference in muscle growth.

Bottom line: THere are so many studies showing no effect of dietary creatine supplementation on performance, metabolism or strength gain w/ res. training. I would say that this is a matter of placebo effect (big time), intitial creatine stores (genetics and diet), perhaps muscle fiber type of the subjects, exercise protocols used (definitely), etc.

I tell people that they should try it - they could be creatine deficient. ;^) If it works, it works, regardless of how. Unfortunately, I think I've missed out on my chance to make use of a placebo effect. LOL

-Randy

Good info bro! I was always a bit skeptical about creatine. It never really did much for me. Except make me hold some water...

You guys should really start a thread about creatine with that info.... So more guys can see it

SS,

I have read that as well, but haven't seen it referenced. Creatine biosynthesis is essentially regulated by the rate controlling enzyme for its synthesis (an arginine:glycine amidinotransferase, I think).

It is controlled by thyroid hormone, growth hormone, cortisol and the sex steroids. Higher levels of each (with the exception of cortisol) will increase the levels of the hormone and creatine synthesis.

So, a test ester ("liquid") will increase creatine synthesis. Perhaps the idea comes from the notion that orals are harder on the liver, which is the primary site of creatine synthesis in humans...

BTW, thanks for the compliments, Bro!!!

I'll let the boys figure out what you win.

-Randy

Bump this-I am sure everybody is using creatine. Or was anyway!LOL!

everyone needs to ! its cheap , and imo it works ! it simply cant not work i think , if its not working , try the new products with diff delievery methods , people using steroids would find it more useful to add creatine to their cycles ,low ATP levels mean circulatory AAS molecules dont bind to the androgen receptors well ! as this process is dependent on atp levels .

also ,there is good evidence that creatine specifically stimulates the formation of myofibrillar protein in newly developing fibers (Ingwall, 1972; 1974; 1975; 1976).

Creatine monohydrate powder is absorbed nearly 100% in the gut. (e.g., see Vandenberghe et al. 1997). After a period of loading, a 5 gram dose is almost entirely recoverable in the urine, minus normal 24hr degradation (a non-enzmatic process in humans - see Walker's classic review for this).

Creatine loading does not change intracellular levels of ATP in skeletal muscle. Very little except very intense exercise does. ATP levels are VERY stable in exerciseing muscle. When it drops, the Gibb's free energy of the ATP is reduced dramatically, dropping contractile efficiency, so the energetics are set up to maintain this at all costs. Levels at rest can be perturbed by drugs like beta-guanadinopropionic acid, which poisons the creatine phosphate system. However, I have never seen any data showing that creatine increases resting ATP levels in skeletal muscle cells. If you've got some, Ray, pass it on, Bro.

Ingwall's data was in developing fetal mouse cardiac muscle cells and myotubes. It was not replicated by Fry and Morales in 1980. (Morales was an author on the earlier studies - makes you kind of wonder, as Ingwalls work seems to end with here career in the mid 1970's). Ingwall's comparison was between 5mM (I believe) [Cr] vs. none. What is physiological? Certainly no creatine is not. Inwall's data tell me that creatine is likely a normal constituent of the milieu in which skeletal muscle cells develop (in utero, for instance), but not that increasing levels in differentiated cells by 20% will have an effect on contractile protein expression. I need some better data. Undifferentiated cells in humans are satellite cells - they are not what we are concerned about in terms of myosin accumulation. (Their job is to donate nuclear material so the differeentiated cells can grow and maintain nuclear domain size - see Edgerton's work.)

In fact, Poortmans et al. (2002, 2003) have studied creatine's effect (or lack thereof) on muscle protein turnover at rest, post-absorptively, in the fed state and after resistance exercise. Creatine supplelmentation that increased creatine stores had NO effect on protein synthesis or turnover in general.

So, I still think that if it works for you, go for it. It's not likely to hurt you (as poortman's has demostrated, too), unless you do a lot of other stupid shit (like take 50g a day and try to exercise in a garbage bag for 10 hr straight). I'd definitely recommend that vegetarians consider it, as they tend to have what you might call creatine deficiency. ;^) As far as your average meat eating wt. training, geared up guy, I just don't think its all that its cracked up to be. BUT - every little bit counts, and creatine is certainly a better supplement to take than something like colostrum (just my opinion).

As I said, I use creatine in my "super shakes." I also use it to carb-up when I'm dieting for shows - a great idea if following a CKD, IMHO. Also good for carbing up before getting on stage (as long as you account for the possiblity that it could smooth you out - another topic, though ;^) ).

-Randy

So Ingwalls studies were not even done on skeletal muscle-they were done on cardiac muscle(heart)? And I believe I read in one of your posts that there is a big difference in deveolping fetal cells and mature cells. So-Just how did creatine become so "scientifically necessary" for muscle hypertrophy-if all these studies are flawed or do not prove creatine supplementation is advantageous? Think creatine is marketing hype for supp companies? Outstanding research bro-it almost sounds like you are researching creatine for a thesis or something ! I think it is very interesting that Fry and Morales could not duplicate Ingwalls work (claims).

SS,

Ingwall used fetal mouse cardiac cells as well as developing skeletal muscle cells. It was all done in a culture dish.

As far as the hype - I think EAS contributed to a lot of it early on. When you've got millions of guys trying to put on weight (gymrats to college level football players) and they find something that will put on 5 lb in 5 days, there is a huge placebo effect.

This is not to say that CR will not work! I think it is just a hit or miss proposition. I'm just playing the devil's advocate here. There ARE good data that it affect metabolism (just mixed overall) and performance (likewise mixed). If you can train harder - are a RESPONDER - then you will grow / adapt better.

I think its VERY interesting that Fry and Morales didn't replicate the data. I've seen / heard of scenarios in science where data is flawed, semi- or even completedly fabricated by an advisor / senior researcher, whereas the lower man on the totem pole (often a grad student) sits and watches this happen. I can't help but wonder (I have NO direct evidence that this was the case) if morales was this low man on the totem pole who later (after Ingwall was not in the picture) wanted to really do things the right way.

Here is the abstract. Notice the mention of perfection of measurement techniques. He even finds that a creatine analogue that was previously found to INCREASE protein synthesis, actually depressed it. The explanation is that the creatine analogue interefered withe metabolism, much like have NO creatine in the culture dish woudl (as was the case for inwall's study). No wonder protein expresssion was less in the NO creatine condition.

------
Fry and Morales (1980). “A reexamination of the effects of creatine on muscle protein synthesis in tissue culture.” J Cell Biol 84: 294-297.
Experiments designed to test the hypothesis that intracellular creatine level regulates the synthesis of muscle specific proteins have failed to demonstrate any creatine regulatory effect. Manipulation of the extracellular creatine in culture medium over a 5,700-fold range (1.3-7.4 mM) was successful in altering intracellular total creatine by only a factor of 20 (1.4-42 mg creatine/mg protein), an indication that muscle cells are able to regulate intracellular creatine levels over a wide range of external creatine concentrations.Alterations of cell creatine had no effect on either total protein synthesis or synthesis of myosin heavy chain. Methods were perfected to measure total creatine, and incorporation of [3H]leucine into total protein and purified myosin heavy chain from the same culture dish to avoid the possibility of variation between dishes. The creatine analog 1-carboxymethyl-2-iminohexahydropyrimidine (CMIP) previously reported to stimulate myosin synthesis in culture was found to depress creatine accumulation by cells and depressed total protein synthesis and synthesis of myosin heavy chain. This inhibitory action of CMIP is consistent with the reported competitive inhibition of creatine kinase and presumed interference with energy metabolism
Reprint Status: NOT In File
-----

-Randy