Updated September 28, 1998; see postscript

By Ken Stone

Might as well start with the superlatives:

“Creatine is by far the best product I've seen on the market in 14 years,” says George Jackson, 39, a partner in Gold's Gyms in the Southern California cities of San Marcos, Oceanside and San Diego.

“I usually swim in the morning, and the second day after I began taking (creatine) I was swimming better than at any time in my life,” says 1968 Olympic decathlon champion Bill Toomey, who took a job as marketing chief for Natural Alternatives, which sells the supplement.

“Creatine may be the best-kept secret in exercise and nutrition,” writes registered dietitian Susan Kleiner in her book “High-Performance Nutrition” (Wiley & Sons Inc.).

“Creatine is probably one of the more exciting areas of supplement research since carbohydrate loading for endurance events,” says William Kraemer, a Penn State University scientist who directed the first U.S. study examining the effects of creatine on body building. “Creatine is something that definitely gives a 5 to 10 percent boost to power capabilities.”

Creatine monohydrate is a natural compound found mainly in meat products. It’s produced in the liver and kidneys, and reportedly has been shown to maximize energy and delay fatigue in short-burst, high-intensity activity.

If the hype is to be believed, this stuff is the greatest thing for muscle development since anabolic steroids. But unlike steroids, it’s legal and “perfectly” safe. British track stars Sally Gunnell, Linford Christie and Colin Jackson reportedly took creatine before their 1992 and 1993 breakthroughs in sprints and hurdles.

Well, all right. Let’s all go out and invest our life savings in creatine pills and powder, so we can go to the WAVA meet and bring home a ton of medals. Why not become a distributor? Heck, let’s all quit our jobs and go to work for the creatine industry!

Sorry for the sarcasm, but you have to laugh at the thought that any diet supplement can produce all good things to all people and do nothing harmful. With creatine -- as with all pie-in-the-sky diet claims -- a grain of salt is advised.

In only a few minutes with the search engines, I learned a little more about possible creatine negatives.

A.S. Gissen reports in (a now dead link) “Another important finding is that whereas on the first day of creatine supplementation the uptake of creatine was high (up to 70% retention of a 10 gram dose), after one week of supplementation almost all the administered creatine was excreted in the urine.”

A paper by K. Vandenberghe, et al, (“Caffeine Counteracts the Ergogenic Action of Muscle Creatine Loading”) reported:

“A group of Belgian scientists examined 9 healthy male subjects (ages 20-23 years) who were physically active but not highly trained. Before and after six days of creatine (.5 g/kg per day), creatine plus caffeine (same dose of creatine plus 5 mg/kg per day of caffeine), and placebo treatment, they found that muscle ATP concentration was the same throughout the experiment. However, phosphocreatine levels increased significantly (4%-6% in both the creatine and creatine plus caffeine groups). Knee extension torque increased 10%-23% only in the creatine group. The creatine plus caffeine and placebo groups didn’t exhibit increases in muscle torque. This study demonstrates that caffeine can negate the ergogenic effects of creatine.”

Someone also writes: “Some people have complained about headaches, and also a few people have been known to getting stomach upsets if too much creatine is taken at a time. And as mentioned before: Very little or any research has been done on the long-term effects.”

One creatine-taker reported that doctors thought he was showing signs of kidney problems when blood-tested. He writes that one must:

“Always make certain that you are drinking plenty of water. This is especially important to help the kidneys deal with the abundance of nutrients that bodybuilders seek to keep in their blood. Consider dropping supplements such as creatine monohydrate about a week before taking a blood test for insurance or a physical. This is what I did for my second blood test (along with increased water intake), and the second test was ‘normal.’ Dropping supplements briefly before a blood test may save some hassle, is easier than trying to educate those conducting the blood test about supplements, and should not have a large impact on training progress.”

Another creatine-taker wrote that: “Personally, I didn’t gain any benefit from using creatine, except for perhaps a slight decrease in the need for heavy breathing after a set (from a reduction in ammonia levels). It is possible my creatine was partially destroyed by temperatures when imported from the U.S. -- can anyone support or refute this theory?”

Finally, Jeff Feliciano writes in the June 1995 Flex Magazine: “For some individuals, however, such high creatine doses are not tolerable either physically or financially.”

My point? Let's all take a deep breath, wipe the roses from our glasses and be rational here. Yes, a lot of people report some amazing things. But no, creatine is not a cure-all for slow legs or weak arms. Let’s be careful what we put in our bodies. Check out the literature, talk to your doctor and above all keep a healthy sense of skepticism about all nutritional claims. It’s your body.

Postscript (updated September 28, 1998)

Months after composing the above in late 1996, I read the chapter in Susan Kleiner's book “High-Performance Nutrition” devoted to creatine and decided it was worth a shot. I also noted an interesting exchange on the subject posted to the T-and-F Mailing List (reproduced below). Finally, I was impressed with an FAQ on creatine that boosted my confidence in its safety. Main thing I learned: Drink gallons of water while taking creatine, and avoid taking it with acidic juices. I noticed that it helped me recover faster from a hard workout. Later I noticed the acute and painful cramps it generated in my lower legs and feet especially. So I stopped taking the stuff. (Overhydration didn't work for me apparently.) Cramps immediately vanished. Sigh.

Creatine-takers vs. Creatine-critics
on T-and-F Mailing List

From: "Witek J. Grzymala-Busse"
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 17:38:52 -0600 (CST)
Subject: t-and-f: creatine adventure

I finally became a believer in creatine. I took the supplement before
with out really thinking that it would help me much but that has all
changed in the last one month. In my event the hammer and the weight
distance of the throw is a product of speed and body position. This weight
season strated out great. I was throwing well over my PR everything
looked great. I was throwing X8.5" in practice on a regular basis (real
distances are not important). I finally had speed and explosivness. At my
first track meet of the year at KSU I threw the weight X8' 1". I was
happy even though I was very sick and lost my voice. Since that track
meet for no reason I could think of I stopped taking creatine, soon
after my speed started to decline. I was throwing in practice X2-X3'.
This trend continued for two weeks. At first I thought I was over
training but that was not the case. I finally realized that I stopped
taking creatine. After talking it over with one of the trainers we
both concluded the problem was a lack of creatine. I started taking it once
again but with the directions the trainer gave me. That was three days
ago, today I went and threw the weight and I once again was quick, my
best throw today was X7'. Funny but, I was unused to having the speed
today. For anyone that is wondering I take the creatin at night with sugar. The
trainer says the sugar helps the creatine. In effect, creatine
has helped me throw the weight several more feet. I am not payed by the
creatine lobby, but I am just a happy creatine user.

W G-B

From: Buck Jones
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 13:44:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: The cons of creatine(Re: t-and-f: creatine adventure)

Holiday Greetings!

Most times people do not wish to hear un-asked for advice.
Furthermore, I think that each individual is able to make their own
decisions about what to believe and what not to believe. I have refrained,
therefore, from commenting on the creatine issue. However, I have found
little posted to the 'con' side of creatine supplements, and given my
frustration reading the following post, I felt a need to reply.
My understanding is this: the purpose creatine supplementation is
based on the physiological role of creatine-phosphate (CP) in the cell. CP
is essentially a storage form for high energy phosphates. During the
initial few seconds of exercise, CP is used to rapidly re-synthesize ATP by
transferring the high energy phosphate group to ADP via the action of an
enzyme, creatine kinase. This process provides a source for ATP very
rapidly, and is the primary ATP source during the first 5 to 10 seconds of
maximal exercise. For maximal exercise of longer duration, anaerobic
glycolysis becomes the primary supplier of ATP, followed by a gradual shift
to aerobic glycolysis for longer time periods. Aerobic production of ATP is
responsible for about 50% of the demand for events of about two minutes, and
so on until events of around one hour, where aerobic glycolysis accounts for
about 98% of ATP.
The natural source for creatine is the liver and the pancreas. It
is formed via several enzymatic steps from arginine, glycine and methionine.
Creatine supplementation is aimed at increasing the available supply
of creatine, and I expect CP, in the muscle. The increased availability of
these compounds is purported to increase the capacity for regeneration of
ATP from CP, and thus increase the length of time before dependance on
anaerobic glycolysis. I have also come across suggestions that creatine
supplementation can decrease the recovery time following heavy training. In
general, creatine has been claimed to improve performance in most all track
and field events. Here at Washington State University, the athletic
department actually spend part of its budget to supply supplements to many
of its athletes.
So, rebuttal:
Let us begin at the source, the can, the powder that actually gets
mixed into the shake, or whatever, and gets poured down the throat. The
supplements are quite expensive - strike one.
The following are some issues that need to be addressed, and have
not been addressed, by the people who care about, or by the people who wish
to sell creatine based supplements:
The stuff enters the stomach. Don't bother with buying
creatine-phosphate versus plain old creatine, I simply don't believe there
is any way the phosphate group is not hydrolyzed in the highly acidic
environment (this would give you creatinine as a product), this is to say
nothing of its effects on the parent molecule. What is the breakdown time
of CP in the stomach, and how much of it in what form enters the intestine?
- - strike two.
So maybe I'm wrong, and the stuff enters the intestine. But, I
don't believe that anything as hydrophilic as creatine-phosphate (or even
creatinine) is going to be able to cross out of the intestine without the
aid of a specific transporter protein. Creatine can probably diffuse across
the membrane, but there are also lots of normal, intestinal, bacterial flora
that do a good job of digesting and breaking down stuff. Bottom line, is
there any evidence that creatine has any significant availability to the
blood? - strike three.
If so, the stuff would next go to the liver. This is a good place
for creatine, as the liver is the foremost production site for creatine, and
it now can follow the 'natural' pathway, in a sense, to the muscle. But,
the problem is this: The production of creatine in the liver is dependent
on the action of enzymes. And it is the nature of enzymatic processes that
they are negatively regulated by a surplus of their end products.
Therefore, it is most likely that the influx of a large dose of exogenous
creatine would pretty much shut down the de novo production of creatine in
the liver. Furthermore, the liver being the enzymatic bonanza that it is,
the surplus is likely to be broken down into storable constituents, utilized
for energy production (here I mean non-specific processes, similar to the
utilization of amino-acids for energy production), or converted for urinary
excretion, none of which will lead to an increase in availability of
creatine to the muscles. - strike four, and we go from baseball to bowling.
Next, the muscle. Let us suppose that we are able to increase the
available supply of creatine to the muscle. Does this mean we get a greater
supply of CP and thus more rapidly available ATP? Probably not. Creatine
acquires its phosphate group in the mitochondrial membrane by transfer of a
phosphate from ATP. The CP then is transported to the myofibrils - its site
of action, where it is available to phosphorylate ADP to ATP. So here are
the problems:
Is there any evidence that greater supplies of creatine allow
greater supplies of CP? - no.
Is there any evidence that CP is ever reduced enough during maximal
exercise that it limits ATP production? - NO. This is an important point.
The crux of matter is whether CP, or more accurately the lack of CP, is
limiting to force production in the muscle. And the answer is no. Creatine
serves essentially as a shuttle for high energy phosphates from the
mitochondria to the myofibrils. As an analogy, creatine is like a chair
lift at a ski resort. If there were an excess of skiers, the number of
chairs available WOULD be the limiting factor in how many skiers went down
the slopes. But the number of skiers is not in excess. The number of
chairs IS. If there are no lines, there is no point to putting in more
chairs. Similarly, it is the production of ATP in the mitochondria that is
limiting. (Not to mention the issue that a lack of ATP itself very likely
does not contribute to fatigue. ATP levels apparently do not fall to levels
where they become rate limiting to myosin-ATPase (muscle contraction) even
during very intense exercise).
In conclusion, I have ignored a couple of aspects of creatine
supplementation, or any supplementation for that matter. It is likely that
the body responds to a dietary surplus of creatine by shutting down
endogenous production, and even adjusting further by breaking down, or
excreting any excess. Once an equilibrium has been achieved, sudden
cessation of the supplementation can certainly lead to a deficit, and thus,
loss in performance, as it takes time before homeostasis is re-established.
During this period, re-initiation of the supplemental regimen is going to
correct the deficit and restore performance. Not, however, providing
evidence of performance enhancement.
Creatine has been shown to increase weight gain. This has often
been attributed increased accumulation of muscle mass. However, as far as I
am aware, the gains have never been correlated with any increases in muscle
power or performance.
Finally, I have ignored the placebo effect. Placebo effects are
enhancements in performance due to the belief of the subject that they are
taking something that works. Placebo effects are quite real, and they can
be significant. They are the reason that scientific trials have to be
'double-blind', with the subjects and testers both unaware until after,
whether a placebo or 'real' treatment was administered.
With apologies to Mr. Grzymala-Busse, whom I respect for providing
anecdotal evidence for the success of creatine supplementation, I think it
might be better said he became a 'True Believer' in creatine. I will
certainly eat these words (mixed in with my creatine shake) if it turns out
that he is right and I am wrong.

Respectfully yours,
Buck Jones
jonesb@mail.wsu.edu

From: witek@argus.rs-systems.com
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 23:28:14 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: The cons of creatine(Re: t-and-f: creatine adventure)

Hello

I would like to take time to respond to Mr Jone's reply.
First of all the track and field list server's primary purpose is to
disseminate information, if you do not like the "un-asked advice" don't
read it. Let others take advantage of it. Many times people get new ideas
regarding training from "unasked advice".
Now let us get down to his main points of his argument.
Cost: By surfing the web the lowest price I could find for creatine
monohydrate was $64.99 fo 1.0 kilograms and in another place $32.99 for
500 grams. If you were taking five grams of creatine monohydrate a day it
would cost you less than 33 cents a day. 33 cents a day is not that
expensive.

I agree with him that Creatine Phosphate would be hydrolized and not
effective in the stomach and in the intestine, thats why I take creatine
monohydrate which will not be chemically altered by the stomach and will
be abosorbed by the muscle tissue as we will see later in this letter.

His strike four regarding the liver as a controling device for creatine is
pure speculation it could occure but you have to prove
it, in fact all the points Mr. Jones wrote about are his ideas unsupported
by an scientific literature.
However after a quick search of the net I found some articles which
refute this and other points; Harris, R.C. et. al. (1992) Elevation of
Creatine in resting and exercised muscle of normal subjects, by creatine supplements,
Clinical Science, 83, 367-74. This articel states that creatine levels
in muscle increase as a result of creatine supplements. If the liver was
able to function as mr. Jones stated the article would state Mr Jone's
point, which it doesn't.
His last point regarding the analagy of creatine as a ski lift is
plausable but his outcome of this analogy and the real world's effect of
creatine are quite different. Maughan, RJ in Creatine supplement and
exercise performance. International Journal of Sports Nutrition 5:
94-101, 1995 studied the effect of creatine and its effect on intensity
of a work out and concluded that creatine increase the ablity of humans
to work out at a higher level of intensity with the help of creatine. Or,
Greenhaff P.L et al 1993 Influence of oral creatine supplement on muscle
torque during repeated bouts of maximal voluntary exercise in man.
Clinical Science, 84, 565-71. In this article the author states that
creatine in effect increases strength during repeat exercise.

If any of Buck's point were valid the above mentioned studies would not
show the results that they did show. Creatine monohydrate is shown to
increase levels of creatine in muscle and increase strength.

I appreciate Buck's comments however his comments are just speculative in
nature and not true.

W G-B
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 06:51:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Jack Nubbins
Subject: t-and-f: Is Creatine the Answer?

Dan Kaplan asked if Creatine may be the new
performance enhancing drug of choice. The answer is
no. Contrary to the claims of manufacturers',
marketers' and sponsors' of the supplement, no
widely respected oganization or medical group have
validated the claims that it can significantly
increase muscle mass, strength or endurance. I
suspect Creatine is just another of a long string of
diversions (and money makers) to distract mainstream
people from what really builds muscle and increases
strength. In the 1960s and '70s protein powders
were intoduced by supplement companies. In the early
'80s there were vitamin "mega-packs". In the mid 80s
it was Amino Acids, then "Branched Chain" Amino
Acids, then in the late 80s it was L-Triptofan amino
acid which was a big seller until it was discovered
that not only did it not build muscle but destroyed
your liver. In the early 90s chromium was the
new way "to massive increases in muscle mass", and
now we have Creatine. Supplement companies such as
Twin Labs, Weider Enterprises and GNC cannot sell
illegal drugs so they create other supplements or
"reinvent" old supplements to sell to mainstream
people who see the impressive physiqes of the men in
the advertisements and claims and buy the products.
Don't be fooled. What is now considered a
ridiculously low dose of 5 mg per day of Dianabol,
which weight lifters in NJ began taking in the 1950s,
will cause massive increases in strength and muscle
mass. One could take maga doses of Creatine, amino
acids, branched amino acids, L-trypofan, chromium,
vitamin mega packs and protein powders and train like
a savage for years and not see improvement even
close to what one 6 week cycle of 5 mg per day would
do for you even if your training is erratic, you
take no supplements, your diet and sleep habits poor,
ect.. Sad but true. And the irony is that for
most people the steroid at low doses may be no more
dangerous than any of the supplements. This post is
not in any way promoting steroid use, it is just the
observations of someone who has been paying close
attention for a long time.

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 14:22:28 -0600 (CST)
From: ficke_sp@students.uwlax.edu
Subject: Re: t-and-f: Is Creatine the Answer?

I'm sorry Jack, but I beg to differ with you opening statement. There is
plenty of support in the scientific literature out there that suppports the
claim the creatine boosts performances. Two that I have on hand and you can
look at are:

Ekblom, B. (1996). Effects of Creatine Supplementation on Performance. The
American Journal of Sports Medicine, 24, s-38 - s-39.
Volek, J. (1997). Creatine Supplementation and its possible role in
improving physical performance. American College of Sport's
Medicine's Health and Fitness Journal, 1, 23 - 29.

This second one lists 20 references of which many show improvements in
performance due to creatine supplementation. The bottom line is looking
like power events such as the throws and or/ power lifting, football linemen
and backs all benefit from creatine. The running events the seem to be
showing benefits from creatine are the short sprints that rely heavily on
the ATP/CP energy system. ie- 50m - 100m. As the distance goes up, the
results become less concrete, but that's not to say they aren't looking
postive as well through the mile run. HOwever!!!!!! The big question mark
with creatine is that there are to my knowledge NO studies documenting long
term health effects of creatine supplemention. The question in my mind is
not whether it helps, but is it safe to use?

Scott Fickerson
Graduate Student - Human Performance
UW La Crosse

ficke_sp@students.uwlax.edu

At 06:51 AM 2/5/98 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Dan Kaplan asked if Creatine may be the new
>performance enhancing drug of choice. The answer is
>no. Contrary to the claims of manufacturers',
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:05:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald J Nichter
Subject: Re: t-and-f: Is Creatine the Answer?

I totally agree.

I attended a sports medicine conference in Lake Placid last weekend and
one of the leading researches demonstarted the benefits of creatine with
his research results. It is quite equivical that creatine is a
performance enhanceher for very short term, explosive muscualr output.
His research shows that at around 19 seconds of muscular work the
performance output is back to normal (non-creatine enduced) levels.
Inotherwords, repeated
muscular contractions of a short term (mostly under 10 seconds) nature
will be enhanced (particularily if the rest period is minimal). The
longer the rest between contractions the less the benefit because the body
naturally resynthesizes to produce muscular creatine.

As you pointed out, the long term effects are unknown at this time. The
first research article looking at renal function was published in the JAP
last December from what I have been told but I have not seen it.



On Thu, 5 Feb 1998 ficke_sp@students.uwlax.edu wrote:

> I'm sorry Jack, but I beg to differ with you opening statement. There is
> plenty of support in the scientific literature out there that suppports the
> claim the creatine boosts performances. Two that I have on hand and you can
> look at are:
>
> Ekblom, B. (1996). Effects of Creatine Supplementation on Performance. The
> American Journal of Sports Medicine, 24, s-38 - s-39.
> Volek, J. (1997). Creatine Supplementation and its possible role in
> improving physical performance. American College of Sport's
> Medicine's Health and Fitness Journal, 1, 23 - 29.
>
> This second one lists 20 references of which many show improvements in
> performance due to creatine supplementation. The bottom line is looking
> like power events such as the throws and or/ power lifting, football linemen
> and backs all benefit from creatine. The running events the seem to be
> showing benefits from creatine are the short sprints that rely heavily on
> the ATP/CP energy system. ie- 50m - 100m. As the distance goes up, the
> results become less concrete, but that's not to say they aren't looking
> postive as well through the mile run. HOwever!!!!!! The big question mark
> with creatine is that there are to my knowledge NO studies documenting long
> term health effects of creatine supplemention. The question in my mind is
> not whether it helps, but is it safe to use?
>
> Scott Fickerson
> Graduate Student - Human Performance
> UW La Crosse
> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 18:29:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory S Wilson
Subject: Re: t-and-f: Is Creatine the Answer?

Research examining the erogenic properties of creatine use has provided
mixed results. Adequate dietary intake of creatine can be found in the
consumption of meat, fish and other animal products(Harris,
Soderund & Hultman, 1992), however at this time there are no RDA
guidelines for creatine. Moreover, the erogenic benefits of creatine are
probably limited to physical activites of short duration (i.e., sprints,
weight lifting) as opposed to endurance type of activities (Prevost,
Nelson & Morris, 1997; Brannon, Adams, Conniff & Baldwin, 1997). This is
due to the finding that creatine assists in the delay anaerobic
glycolysis, which is the primary energy fuel in short duration activites
(Prevost, et al., 1997). Hence, aerobic activities which rely more on ATP
production are not affected to the same extent by creatine ingestion. As
a result, whether one choses to examine anerobic or aerobic activities
will influence the extent to which the erogenic properties of creatine are
found to be beneficial.

Moreover, a recent study appears in the Journal of Medicine and Science in
Sports which seems to indicate that a significant proportion of the weight
gain associated with creatine useage results from muscle hypertropohy as
opposed to water wieght gain as often assumed. Agreed, the long-term
effects of this supplementation are not known, however, neither were the
long-term effects of other drugs proven before we knew that they worked.

Gregory S. Wilson P.E.D.
Department of Kinesiology
Indiana University

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 18:26:49 -0500

Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 15:56:42 -0800
From: George Dameron
Subject: t-and-f: creatine

In response to adverse events associated with using creatine, I'd like to
add my $.02 worth...

I began consuming the capsule form of creatine in a dose suggested by my
body weight and within 21 days gained 15 pounds. I also began
experiencing severe cramps in my calves during every run, regardless of
pace. Who know how much tissue damage I sustained during the 7 days or
so I fought through it. Once I ceased taking creatine (cold turkey), I
experienced ankle edema (swelling) which stayed present for approximately
3-4 days.

While the number of users of creatine who experienced equivalent severity
of the adverse events as I may be statistically insignificant, I have
seen many publications sharing warnings about cramping and weight gain
among many users. I have not yet heard of any other users experiencing
edema.

G.W. Dameron

************************************************
George W. Dameron, BS
Project Manager
Quintiles CNS Therapeutics
10201 Wateridge Circle
San Diego, CA 92121
619-646-2627
gdameron@qsnd.quintiles.com

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 18:45:21 -0600 (CST)
From: David Black
Subject: t-and-f: creatine supplement study

The most recent issue of "Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise" (Jan. 1998) publishes a study on the effects of
28 days of creatine supplementation on 25 football players
undergoing strength and agility training. This double-blind,
randomized study found that creatine supplementation
promoted significant gains in lean body mass, power-lifting
performance, and sprint performance (on a bicycle ergometer).
Of course these results do not translate directly to enhanced
performance in athletics events, but they do strengthen the case
for creatine as an ergogenic aid.

"Effects of creatine supplementation on body composition, strength,
and sprint performance." Richard B. Kreider, et al. Med. Sci. Sports
Exerc. vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 73-82. 1998.

David Black

dblack@post.cis.smu.edu

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 22:10:42 EDT
From: BFullem1@aol.com
Subject: t-and-f: Creatine Studies

In an effort to boost myself into the top 10 I will post some interesting
articles from Sports Medicine Digest, July 1998, Volume 20 Number 7 ( I just
got it)

"There are more than 70 published and unpublished studies on creatine in the
sports medicine literature"...

"One of the limitations of the creatine literature is the scarcity of trials
that test athletes in actual field studies" Two studies one unpublished and
one published as of this Digest showed opposite findings.

The unpublished one on Navy SEALs had a double blind protocol (neither the
SEALs or the testers knew who was getting what). They received 20g/day for 5
days and repeated an obstacle course before and after supplementation.
"Creatine had no significant effect (p>0.1) on body fat, total body water,
blood lactate, or obstacle course-performance time in these trained athletes"

Ziegnefuss, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 1998; 30:S265

Used trained weight lifters with a different result. 16 serious male weight
lifters with at least 2 years experience were enrolled. They also received
five days of placebo or creatine (0.35 g/kg) double blinded. They were also
placed on a stict diet of 58% carbohydrates and between 20-25 ounces of meat
per day (2.9 g/kg of body weight). The 2 "hard-core" guys got up in the middle
of the night to consume liquid meals and showed the greatest gain.

Knee extensions strength with a cybex was then compared at 7,14,21, and 28
days after stopping the supplement. "Compared to placebo, creatine
significantly increased body mass 1.8% and peak torque 7.4% in the first
week". Two weeks later, peak torque was greater by almost 11% before it
declined toward 7% by week four"

The author concluded that it's possible that subjects who eat more meat may be
able to maintain a creatine load longer and that a five-day creatine loading
procedure confers ergogenic benefits in trained weightlifters on a high
carbohydrate and -protein diet, and that benefits last for at least four weeks
after supplementation is discontinued.

Dr. Brian Fullem
BFullem1@aol.com