Talk:Creatine

Misunderstood

Djbell (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Creatine is clearly misunderstood in lazy (most) bodybuilding circles, but the linked Quackwatch article and a quick pass through pubmed illustrates that this stuff is more legit than the tone of this article suggests. Perhaps it's not what the conventional wisdom suggests, but many of these studies show rather dramatic effects. On the other side of the coin, I have not read about any non-anecdotal evidence regarding the water retention and muscle size myths.

Cut paragraph

I cut the following paragraph from the article because it had been inserted in a way that disrupted the article's flow:

"That's not to say that creatine supplementation doesn't have it's benefits. Creatine promotes ATP production which stimulates cell recovery and growth. This allows the user to have more intense workouts (due to reduced recovery time), which would subsequently result in a greater level of physical fitness. Some strength will be lost when creatine supplementation is stopped; however, the legitimate strength and muscular gains made while using creatine do not just suddenly disappear. This is a misunderstanding common with people who do no actual research and merely agree with what they heard from their buddies in high school."

ListenerX^TalkerX 07:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Since they added a pot-shot of "people who do no actual research....." in there, I say that if someone wants this in the article, let them provide us with the actual research. After all, this article is mostly devoid of good footnotes. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 08:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Bias

Just because something is misunderstood by some doesn't mean that it's not completely safe and marginally effective. It's not creatine's fault, but it seems like that's what we're making it. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that. I see us talking about how it's used. Since creatine alone doesn't do anything, one has to take it. I don't think we are saying, anywhere, oh, icky creatine, you should never have been invented." but maybe i'm missing your point?GodotGrow a vagina 16:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

From the article, I don't get that creatine, basically, is completely safe and effective when taken as directed. Instead it's just a bunch of woo. I guess the article is attacking "creatine woo", not actually creatine, but you'd think a well-rounded article would cover both. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

given that i thought it was all woo (as you said, per the article), maybe you should fix that?GodotGrow a vagina 16:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Liar. You were the one who removed the woo category. I'm more of an Ed Poor type of senior contributor, stumbling around dropping turds of my sage advice so that they may blossom in the green hands of the cabalists. But seriously, I will try and fix it...just don't expect much. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you THAT slow, OC? I removed "food woo" added "food suppliment woo". rolls eyes. reading, it's FUNdamental! GodotGrow a vagina 18:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even read the whole line. That's how lazy I am. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I figured, OC. I'd actually care, if i thought the article mattered. I've got 4 right wing nut jobs making my day every day, so creatine isn't high on my to do. talking, apparently, is. :-) GodotGrow a vagina 18:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

terrible

Essentially nothing in this article is correct. Creatine can cause the muscles to retain water, making them look more pumped, but creatine that is not absorbed into the muscles (some forms of creatine, like creatine monohydrate, are well known for being harder to absorb) lingers subcutaneously and can cause a "puffy" appearance, one that is exacerbated due to dehydration (hence water retention). As a result, bodybuilders do not take "mega doses" of creatine to achieve the "bloat", because the "bloat" associated with "mega doses" is undesirable. Rather, creatine has a reputation among strength training and bodybuilding circles because creatine phosphate rephosphorylates ADP, providing extra ATP; this makes it possible to recovery more quickly between sets and to perform more reps per set. Basically nothing about this very important mechanism of creatine is mentioned in the article. Overall, the whole thing seems like it was written by a skinny kid excited about his ability to squat 135 and who therefore thinks he's got a right to an opinion on the matter, even though creatine is one of the only supplements that is actually well known to work as advertised. Skadefryd (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit button is right there. ^bomination 11:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Silly me! Skadefryd (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

NCCIH says it doesn't solve Huntington's

https://nccih.nih.gov/research/results/spotlight/crest-e-huntington?nav=govd

Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 13:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Creatine does not cause muscle cramps and dehydration

Here is an article from the national library of medice Putting to rest the myth of creatine supplementation leading to muscle cramps and dehydration ^{— Unsigned, by: Chubbychaser / talk / contribs}