Creatine is created within the body so a vegetarian eating plant precursors can help create their own baseline supply.
A non-aggressive, curious question: can you give a citation for the "significant" health benefits of 0.5g creatine? That seems like quite a claim. (I'm reading "not insignificant" as "significant", perhaps a step too far?)
Note that there have also been brain benefits from creatine, but those have only been observed in ~20g/day studies (its not just athletic performance).
"Although the human body produces a portion of its daily creatine needs, approximately 50 % must be obtained through the diet – predominantly from animal-based foods like red meat and fish"
So in that context, a vegetarian can benefit from small amounts of supplementation if they aren't getting it in their diet.
FYI the standard null hypothesis is that differences are not significant until shown otherwise. E.g. no doctor will prescribe 50mg metformin to a prediabetic even if it might have an effect; it will be physiologically meaningless.
> the numbers you are fixated on are for athletes or neurotropic nerds
If you have other numbers/studies to back "0.5g of creatine, I feel, is a useful amount", then I'm willing to "fixate" on those numbers.
Vegetarian status is irrelevant.
> A null hypothesis is a default statistical assumption that states there is no real relationship, effect, or difference between variables or groups.
It is up to whoever to show that there _is_ a relationship. Hence me asking for a citation.
citations are bullshit for this context. Unless you are doing research.
> you are either doing it for moral reasons
Or red meat isn't easily available or cheap in the place where you live? There are many reasons why red meat isn't in your digestive system that are outside "morals". Beef is literally at an all-time high in the US. https://www.macrotrends.net/3141/us-ground-beef-prices
Summary of this thread:
Me: 0.5 g of creatine is small
Other: No it isn't
Me: Citation please?
Other: no
Me: null hypothesis
You: Incorrect interpretation of null hypothesis
Me: Correction
You: "citations are bullshit"
There are many people who feel morally grey about eating meat yet still choose to do so. E.g. there are science-based discussions in plant-based-diet social media; relatively few plant-based diet discussions revolve around morality. Facts matter.
I agree that n=1 experiments are important and often _overrule_ any RCT for an _individual_. If that's your point, I _agree_. But you should say so instead of me trying to infer whatever it is you're arguing...? Is that even what you're saying?
The goalpost shifting is immense. All I wanted was a citation for 0.5g creatine being meaningful, and instead I get "facts are irrelevant", "citations are bullshit", and "morals".
(To be clear: I'm not saying that you're saying "facts are irrelevant"; I'm annoyed that you seem to think that _I'm_ arguing "facts are irrelevant". See this? This is me giving you grace. I would appreciate the same in kind.)
/me throws up arms
or were you just trying to make a point that you didn't think 0.5g is meaningful.
i don't fucking know. vegetarians seem to gain more than non vegetarians from creatine supplementation. implying that eating meat is meaningful. then you fixated on 0.5g as if 4oz of red meat per day was allot or not, I don't even know.
but I see it now. the accusation of goal post shifting, you are arguing about what idk. find your damn citation.