https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/6/10812.3.4. Resistance Training Program
After the 7-day wash-in, both groups followed the same RT program that comprising 3 full-body sessions a week for 12 weeks (Supplementary Materials, Table S1). All sessions were supervised by tertiary qualified exercise physiologists and commenced with a standardised warm-up of dynamic flexibility exercises. Each session consisted of 5 exercises: 2 compound movements each for the upper and lower body, and 1 isolation movement for the upper body. Four sets were prescribed for all movements to ensure an adequate weekly training volume for hypertrophy [32]. Training intensities were 6 to 12 repetition maximums (RM) with 60 and 120 s of rest between sets and exercises, respectively. To adhere to the prescribed RM, an individual’s rating of perceived exertion (RPE) on a Likert scale of 1–10 was recorded. RPE corresponds to the number of repetitions an individual perceives they will be able to perform after the set is complete, where an RPE 5 equates to 5 reps more, RPE 6 is 4 reps more, RPE 7 is 3 reps more, and so on [33]. When a RPE of 8 or lower was recorded, the external load (kg) was adjusted on successive sets to ensure that subjects achieved the target RM. The RM method was used to ensure that training intensities were relative to the individual’s abilities while also standardising the training intensity across all participants [34].
I'm not quite sure this is clear enough for me, though it does somehow suggest that they were pushing the participants to do as much as they could. But like I say, unclear.
Small N as well - only a few dozen people.
I have the same impression. Possibly it could be made less subjective by literally repping to failure, but I'd guess that has potential ethical implications.
Reps to failure can be done pretty darn safely with machines and incredibly low risk of injury if done on the higher rep ranges (say 20 per set). You’re not going to get rid or risk of injury but in order to even do this study, my opinion is you have to be at a normal level of injury risk or the study is pretty much flawed by design.
The wording is a little technical. They're saying that, if the subject thought they could do at least 2 more reps at the end of this set, they increased the weight on the next set. So if creatine does allow people to do more reps at a given weight, subjects on creatine should have lifted heavier weights. (To me, that doesn't seem like the right way to adjust for creatine, which is thought to provide extra energy, not the ability to lift heavier.)
Still, this cohort might suffer from the issue of lack of awareness about _how exertive_ the actual workout is. I feel this is also something you should learn.
It's good that it's studied, but it does sound that they've "conclusively" proven something, and I'm not so sure. Small sample size too, like you said.
So it gives you more energy at molecular level. But as you said, you have to actually use that energy.
For example, you could be using it in athletics, running, etc and it’s not inherently going to give you growth.
The effects have been known to be small. You get a little extra energy that might push you a little further in a set going to failure or with one or two reps in reserve. Maybe you slide in some lengthened partial that you go a bit more through the range of motion that you would have had energy to do otherwise.
And that happens again and again over the course of years and you get a tiny bit extra from it, probably. I’m not sure this study design disproves that at all.
So no, taking creatine without doing the work probably won't make a difference (except to your wallet), but use in conjunction with consistent and effective exercise, the effect is real.
One thing though: don't bother with the creatine loading phase, it's a marketing scheme to sell more product.
ChatGPT: "This process, known as cell volumization, contributes to muscle size gains."
So there's also that reason to take it :)
Creatine is dirt cheap. Anything expensive is probably a scam.
After the 7-day wash-in, both groups followed the same RT program that comprising 3 full-body sessions a week for 12 weeks (Supplementary Materials, Table S1). All sessions were supervised by tertiary qualified exercise physiologists and commenced with a standardised warm-up of dynamic flexibility exercises. Each session consisted of 5 exercises: 2 compound movements each for the upper and lower body, and 1 isolation movement for the upper body. Four sets were prescribed for all movements to ensure an adequate weekly training volume for hypertrophy [32]. Training intensities were 6 to 12 repetition maximums (RM) with 60 and 120 s of rest between sets and exercises, respectively. To adhere to the prescribed RM, an individual’s rating of perceived exertion (RPE) on a Likert scale of 1–10 was recorded. RPE corresponds to the number of repetitions an individual perceives they will be able to perform after the set is complete, where an RPE 5 equates to 5 reps more, RPE 6 is 4 reps more, RPE 7 is 3 reps more, and so on [33]. When a RPE of 8 or lower was recorded, the external load (kg) was adjusted on successive sets to ensure that subjects achieved the target RM. The RM method was used to ensure that training intensities were relative to the individual’s abilities while also standardising the training intensity across all participants [34].
It is possible it doesn’t capture everything, because they don’t say anything here about setting the initial load, or adjusting the load up for low perceived exertion, only down for high perceived exertion.
It makes sense that the body's adenosine re-phosphorylation is not rate limited by creatine at all (which the body produces naturally). In that case, having extra creatine lying around would just make your pee more expensive and give you a nice placebo effect from believing you can lift more. (And placebo effects are real effects, particularly for effort related tasks. Just not due to chemistry of the treatment.)
(1) Yes, that the loading phase was BYPASSED. = (
"Those on creatine did bypass a loading phase, which includes taking 20 to 25 grams daily for up to one week. While it is common to start with a loading phase, it can cause gastrointestinal issues and is not necessary to reach saturation levels – the maximum that the body can store at any one time. "
My understanding, to reach saturation without a loading phase - it takes about 3 to 4 weeks. (Could be wrong, going off of memory there.)
With loading, I've read it takes 1 to 2 weeks to reach saturation.
(2) Without measuring creatine levels, what was even tested? How many people were creatine "non-responders?" How many people were getting plenty of creatine from their diets already?
(3) Was the creatine regimen effective and optimal? Water intake is another factor. I don't think a set of 50 people divided between 2 groups is going to be anywhere near enough to capture a nuance like efficacy of the regimen vs no regimen.
> Also, their study is looking at lean body mass changes after the "wash-in" period, so any effect that increased recovery is supposed to have on lean body mass when following the exercise protocol they give for the time period they studied should be captured, no?
I'd say no, simply because it is not known whether the wash-in period was actually a wash-in period without knowing if creatine levels actually changed in a significant way. Second, the study group of beginner weight lift lifters is a chaotic data set. The gains of lifting weights vs not lifting weights is likely magnitudes different from creatine vs no-creatine supplementation. Some beginners might easily get 10% more muscle mass vs 5% for others. An effect that is expected be very low is going to be completely lost in the noisy data. Let alone that we are starting from a questionable baseline.
Overall, since the body can absorb up to about 5g of creatine a day, and the body is likely already intaking 1 or 2g per day - this study is kinda only looking at the effect of an increase of creatine from a moderate dosage to a maximal dosage, across beginner weight lifters. It's like, say you're a bit dehydrated, instead of drinking 500ml of water per day, you now start drinking 550ml of water and then measure any changes from starting a brand new weight lifting routine.
1/ on this RPE stuff, it sounds like they are trying to keep two reps in the tank which is fine but..when? the first set? The last set?
2/ perhaps I'm misreading the supplemental data but the error bars are pretty huge when it comes to changes in LBM, not sure how any conclusions can be drawn
3/ 12 weeks is a short program and it sounds like they chose people who were generally not in shape/beginners. Anyone who has lifted in their life can tell you initial gains are almost always mostly in strength, not mass.
4/ Their choice of lifts for this population also looks unusual.
I'm sure they have the data but I could not find any evaluation of relative strength gains between the two groups. Even if their hypothesis that the LBM gain is identical, strength gains may not be.
Note that this link is not the study! The published paper makes much more specific claims.
Is the scientific community "focused" on creatine?
Study it to death, I care not. If I had research money, I wouldn't use it to kick a dead horse.
So it's fundamentally different from the creatine mechanism above.
For example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5989848/
Here's one on steroids with a no exercise group, they saw gains: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8637535/
That's not an entirely fair description of the situation actually.
Imagine the 4 groups from the cross product of WorksOut?(Yes/No) cross Steroids?(Y/N).
It's intuitive, obvious, and supported by the data that The WorksOut(Y) + Steroids(Y) Group reliably gains more muscle over time than other groups. And similarly that the WorksOut(N) + Steroids(N) group gains the least (including losses too!) .
The interesting groups are WorksOut without Steroids, vs Steroids without WorksOut.
The sad truth is those on steroids, though sedentary, gain more muscle than those who workout without steroids.
Here's the source of what I'm talking about from Jeff Nippard's Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD9p9tEP9RE around 4:05
And it's important we educate folks about who is likely on them and what's realistic naturally. Because many young people are innudated with drug enhanced bodies on social media and think that's possible without steroids (and their negative sideeffects). It's particularly troublesome in the case of sexual selection and competition, for example using the hetero normative pairings, when young women are attracted to the steroidal bodies and when young men are pressured to take damaging gear to compete with peers who are. (There's the equivalent analogues for other sexual pairings/preferences).
> "The sad truth is those on steroids, though sedentary, gain more muscle than those who workout without steroids."
These sorts of adapations are not linear and consistent, similar to the "noob gains" experienced in the first few months by novice lifters.
Anyone who has trained in a somewhat serious gym can tell you that there are many people taking steroids, often times in dosages manyfold what this study use, who have mediocre physiques.
Do you have a longitudinal study source?
> "Untrained males without prior AAS use gained more muscle over a 10 week non-exercise period than similar males who performed exercise."
There's lots of studies that show steroid users accumulate about 2x as much muscle as non steroid users, but those are both in trained groups. Unclear about what happens if someone takes steroids across 10 years, and how much total muscle they accumulate relative to a natural over the same time period.
- It’s obvious to me that I (n=1) gained a ton of muscle and lost a ton of fat very quickly without having done dramatic changes in workouts at first
- It also made it waaaay easier to work out. I used to hate it bc I was exhausted all the time, and now I don’t really mind, and sometimes even enjoy it. In actual practice pulling these variables apart is hard
PSA: T levels have declined markedly over the past generation or two. But when one tests for low T, the goalposts move bc every time a new population is studied for setting benchmarks (generally every decade or two), the definition of clinically “low” is moved to the new 2.5%ile of that study, such that someone in the current 3rd %ile (considered A-okay by most doctors) would have been in maybe 2.4th %ile (considered red alert by most doctors) using the previous benchmarks (made up numbers but roughly right).
(This is a dumb approach, the binary magic of the 2.5%ile (2 standard deviations), and it frustrates me greatly bc i was denied care bc my first test was 2.4%ile and 2nd was 2.6%ile and thus i was told i was fine bc of the 2nd result and offered anti-depressants instead).
Fixing this is not about muscles, it’s about having energy to live life fully and not be cranky.
So if you’re constantly tired, consider testing for this. And use a functional doc, as in my experience from shepherding 5-10 other folks through this process, the standard doc knows little about this stuff and thinks that having a condition like this is binary
Sorry, a bit off-topic, but no change in my life has been more important besides kids, so I try to spread the word where even somewhat appropriate
Quick note to add: if you're reading the above comment and you still want kids, it's important to note that loss of fertility is one of the most significant side effects of testosterone (or any steroid). There are additional medications that can reduce the risk (and possibly reverse it after fertility is already lost), but it's not guaranteed.
When a man takes exogenous testosterone, their endogenous production (in the testicles) plummets. This is largely fine, but the production in the testicles also leads to sperm production, and that gets lost.
The solution to this is HCG, which stimulates some testicular production. But it is not a perfect solution, and recently CA has made it much harder to use HCG for this purpose (which was always off-label).
So you don’t always have to work for them, especially if you used a steroid like Tren which is 5x more anabolic than testosterone.