Talk:Creatine/Archive 1

message: User:128.172.154.59 added this to the main article:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creatine&action=edit
:"Creatine is not considered doping and is currently acceptable to all sports-governing bodies". That is not true everywhere. In the NCAA rules, athletes are not allowed to take creatine. Moreover I would say that it is important to notify that selling creatine in France is not allowed. I would also add that creatine has bad effects of long-term supplementation. Some of the effects are unknown but have already been studied.
What are these effects exactly?  You can't make statements like this with no evidence
I'm just moving it here, where it's more appropriate. - jredmond 15:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: NCAA has banned distribution of creatine and other supplements by its member institutions, but does not prohibit creatine use.  - Karl Stas 09:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Doping?

message: An anonymous user replaced the sentence "It must be noted creatine has no significant effect on aerobic exercise" with the following text:
:Creatine has been noted to improve aerobic performance and anaerobic capacity in elite rowers in the course of endurance training. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2003 Jun;13(2):173-83.
:Most studies agree that creatine has no effect on endurance (aerobic) exercise. I do not think the findings of one isolated study warrant this edit. At the very least, it should be phrased more cautiously. - Karl Stas 21:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the distinction needs to be made between aerobic endurance and aerobic exercise. Since aerobic exercise will always have anaerobic components (and vice versa, anaerobic exercise usually induces aerobic respiration afterwards), I still think it would benefit from creatine usage, especially for the initial starting and warmup when the aerobic aspect hasn't quiet caught up with the increased activity. Tyciol 16:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aerobic exercise

message: You should note some of the adverse affects of creatine has been found and from the studies I've done there has been no true long term studies on creatine.It should be noted that Creatine is still controversial in many countries including the United States. -Unknown
:Long-term studies are generally for new compounds like drugs. Since creatine is naturally created by the body and found within meat, that isn't really required, unless you're taking extreme doses. Like any food (for example, eating a lot of meat, drinking a lot of milk), people start off with little, and can then judge for themself the effects. There's no theory or evidence of creatine having any negative effects as far as I know. Tyciol 16:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adverse effects

message: I just wanted to know if the article should include the affects that prolonged oral consumption of creatine has in kidney failure and renal disease.  I know that it is considered dangerous for people already suffering from renal disease to take creatine, but I'm not sure if there were some studies that showed that prolonged use by athletes did show an adverse affect on their kidneys (prolonged meaning never stopping, day after day for years on end.
 - I agree this whole article reads like a big Creatine ad. I took creative for 2 years and I started
 to notice some problems such as extreme fatigue, constant thirst, and dimished libido. I stopped
 taking the Creatine and within 2 months I was fine. Oh yeah, I lost like 15 pounds in just a few weeks, obviously Creatine makes you look and feel bigger then you really are
::Look at your symptoms. Constant thirst? That's called dehydration - try drinking more water. Extreme fatigue? Overtraining - get some sleep. Dimished libido? Low testosterone - check out hormone replacement therapy. It's physiologically impossible for creatine to have caused those symptoms - you're acting like it's a steroid - check up the chemical make up of creatine and explain how it could possibly affect your libido. I'm interested in hearing your theory. Yankees76 14:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whole heartedly agree with Yankees76 here. Creatine has never been shown to induce any of the effects you are describing. It "may" have contributed to dehydration (ever so slightly) due to intracellular retention of water but more likely you were just training harder and thus needed to drink more. Your experience is unique and could be easily attributed to other factors well before concluding creatine had anything to do with it. Glen Stollery (My contributions) 14:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renal (kidney) failure 

message: There was some good material in these edits, however I reverted them because 24.63.49.70  practically re-wrote the entire article, destroying hours of work by many individuals, without adding proper links, or citing studies or references etc. Properly added to the existing material, some of this new text could greatly enhance the article. I suggest that we slowly incorporate this text so as not to completely undo the work of others. Yankees76 14:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  24.63.49.70's Edits from January 12 

message: If cell-tech is mentioned, can someone please make a compelling argument (rather than cite) why the company merits a mention?  Why not just mention the better performing formulation, cite why it is better chemically, and mention cell-tech as one retailer?  Otherwise move it to a cell-tech article.  
Also, the synthesis section is weak.  What enzymes catalyze the synthesis?  Creatine kinase is mentioned and well linked but the whole synthesis pathway is one line.
---------------------
So if we were creating an article on cars and someone posted that, for example, the Ford Thunderbird was the first car to include power steering and is the top selling car of all time, you would take exception to that as well? After all, we're mentioning product and company names. I don't see how this is still an issue, especially when you consider than another product is also mentioned (Phosphagen), and yet not one change or challenge has been made that particular product's inclusion. This leads me to believe that the deletions are due to biased opinions towards one particular company and/or product.  This product mention appears only the 'history of creatine' section and I've even go so far as to include why creatine and alpha lipoic acid is an important discovery, and cited and linked to the study that shows this.  Also to the best of my knowledge, the discovery of this combination has been patented and Cell-tech is the only "retailer" legally allowed to combine the two for sale. The fact that one product happens to be the first to include this discovery and also happens to have the most studies published on it, does not make it's inclusion an advertisement. 
The article is on creatine - if it's not on creatine supplements or supplementation - then a new entry should be included for them with that information in those entries and the creatine article itself devoted to just talking about C4H9N3O2-H20. Once you include creatine supplementation, its inevitable that supplements (whether they are creatine variations, product names, or manufacturers) are going to come up.
I'm working on updating the creatine synthesis section - though in the meantime you could always take a stab at it. Yankees76 15:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cell-tech mania 

message: Because of the potential for side effects and interactions with medications, dietary supplements should be taken only under the supervision of a knowledgeable healthcare provider.
Side effects of creatine include weight gain, muscle cramps, muscle strains and pulls, stomach upset, diarrhea, dizziness, high blood pressure, liver dysfunction, and kidney damage. The weight gain is thought to be due primarily to water retention. Creatine should not be used by anyone who already has problems kidney function, high blood pressure, or liver disease. Taking creatine supplements may prevent the body from making it's own natural stores. The long-term consequences of this are not known. 
A 2001 report  by the Food Safety Agency of France (AFSSA) raised questions about creatine supplements possibly putting users at greater risk for cancer, particularly if such supplements are taken for long periods of time. However, the European Commission and the Council for Responsible Nutrition in the United States both determined that AFSSA's claims are unsubstantiated and not based on any scientific evidence of a connection between creatine and cancer. All three organizations do agree, though, that risks of long-term use of creatine are not known at this time. 
Creatine supplements containing contaminants from the production process have been reported. Be sure to buy products made by established companies with good reputations, and who distribute their products through trustworthy and knowledgeable establishments.Media:http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsSupplements/Creatinecs.html
It seems the general consensus  is that not enough research has been conducted.
:I'm wondering what your point to posting this (outdated) information is? Consensus amongst whom? The media circa 2001? Actually I might take you seriously, but since you plagiarized your entire post from different sources, I can tell you're not actually knowledgable on the subject. There is absolutely no proof to support your contention that creatine is potentially harmful - only anecdotal reports that don't have a shred of scientific evidence to support them.
:Why didn't you talk about the  National Strength and Conditioning Association's annual conference report, where post-study questionnaires were filled out by 164 athletes who participated in creatine studies was presented? The data showed no reports of muscle cramping and no reports of muscle strains or pulls in subjects taking creatine-containing supplements. Further, a significantly greater increase of GI distress (stomach discomfort) was reported in subjects ingesting placebos compared to creatine-containing supplements! The cause of muscle cramps and dehydration are both due to inadequate water consumption, not creatine supplementation. 
:There are no studies that show liver dsyfunction or kidney damage as a result from using creatine.  There have however, been studies that show that there are no detrimental effects on athletes' liver and kidney functions from short-, medium-, or long-term use of this supplement. 
:And as far as long term use goes, if creatine caused long-term side effects, there would be indicators in the shorter studies. There have been several studies conducted on creatine supplementation, which concluded that long term creatine use has no side effects. Yankees76 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the claims are a bit questionable, I'd like to see the scientific trials (and corresponding theories) to back these claims. I do agree with some though. Weight gain does happen due to more water weight in the muscles. I'm not sure why it says 'is thought to', since it's pretty evident. Muscle cramps make no sense at all. Stomach upset possibly, since we may not have adapted to digest raw creatine as well as say, from meat. I doubt diarreah, that just doesn't make much sense. If anything, due to the enhanced water absorption I think your stool would be a bit drier (so you need to compensate by drinking more water). High blood pressure doesn't really make any sense. Liver dysfunction perhaps if the creatine supplements have any toxic content (no evidence of this). Kidney damage for similar reasons, but again, no evidence for it. As for not letting the body make it's natural stores, that's similarly unfounded. This might be so for steroids or dopamine, but there's no evidence of it for stuff like creatine or CoQ10. REcommendations to find a good provider without contaminants make sense too. Tyciol 16:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Safety

message: Monkeyman I am afraid you are the one GROSSLY mislead on this issue. Yes stud(ies) have been funded by Degussa but as the FDA does not appove dietary supplements the industry must be self regulating. These studies were all done by reputable labs and performance studies all in double blind placebo conditions. There have been dozens of studies showing inder 1% of label claim some of which I will reference below. Aside from all this "creatine serum" is trademarked by MMUSA so at least make it 'liquid creatine' so as to be neutral in brand selection. But I VOTE delete to serum part all together
The following shows the different tests on three different batch numbers
Compound---------Label Claim------Test 1--------Test 2--------Test 3
Creatine-----------500mg/1----------5.5mg/l--------2.1mg/l-----2.7mg/l
Creatinine--------0mg/1-------------12.1mg/l------11.7mg/l----13.9mg/l
and from my own countries local news:
Muscle Marketing USA fined $70000 for false claim
Muscle Marketing USA fined $70,000 for false claims about sports performance product
Muscle Marketing USA Limited has been fined $70,000 in the Auckland District Court today for breaching the Fair Trading Act in relation to its sports performance enhancing product ATP Advantage Creatine Serum.
In sentencing, Judge Everitt said that Muscle Marketing's claims about its product were so far from actual reality that it was a very bad case of a misleading statement. "The company was highly culpable. On a scale of 1-10 it was 8."
The Commerce Commission investigated claims that Muscle Marketing USA was making false representations in promotional material and labelling regarding the quantity of creatine in its ATP Advantage Creatine Serum product and the benefits that people would get from using it.
Creatine is a nutrient that is synthesised from food by our bodies. It provides the energy muscles need to move and is often used by athletes to improve their sports performance.
Fair Trading Director Deborah Battell said that in the Commission's view, Muscle Marketing USA falsely represented that 5ml of its serum yielded the equivalent of 2500mg of creatine.
"Tests conducted on the serum showed that 5mls of the product contained only around 11.5mg of creatine. This means that on the basis of Muscle Marketing USA's recommended daily dose of 5mls a day, athletes would not be able to obtain the benefits as represented.
"A 150ml bottle of the serum retails for $119.95. This is a significant outlay, particularly when people are paying this price based on misleading representations" Ms Battell said.
"It's another example of a product where consumers are utterly reliant on claims being made by the company because they have no realistic means of checking the actual composition or effectiveness of the product," said Ms Battell.
In sentencing, Judge Everitt commented that people will always have pride in their appearance and are vulnerable to this kind of marketing. The Act is designed to create fair trading and to protect the public from "snake oil people and the like", he said.
---
I've been in this industry ten years and its certified cr@p. DELETE! Glen Stollery (My contributions) 18:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I vote to delete, or leave the creatine serum reference, with an added paragraph explaining the results of tests and studies on the supplement. Yankees76 19:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote for deletion of serum component

message: The article mentions it being banned in France, does anyone know of any other country, state, or organization that it is banned in?
:Actually the article should really define what banned means; Is it a scheduled drug? Banned for use by French sporting bodies? Banned actually tells us very little... You wouldn't say cocaine is banned so why say it about creatine? Can anyone elaborate on that definition some more? POW! 04:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creatine Ban 

message: The part attempting to attribute creatine as an ancient Greek supplement is unsourced, contains weasel words, and is based on logical fallacy.  I'm removing it.   Also, as creatine is firstly a metabolic intermediate and secondly a supplement, some reorganization is due.  The Crow 20:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and reorganization. 

message: Note that Wikipedia guidelines prohibite commercial linking. Please do not add commercial links or advertisements (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. There is undeniable evidence (i have your email address) that you are an employee of Pasio Ingredients, therefore your unverified edits about your company and it's products that were made on June 18, 2006 have been reverted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm or a new medium to advertise your products.  Yankees76 22:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention [[Anthony Katgert]]/Pasio Ingredients 

message: The Celltech study was done on sedentary people and did not measure muscular performance. The study also did not show an increase in weight gain in Cell-Tech users over regular creatine users.
Here's a copy of the study summary:
"Department of Human Kinetics, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada B2G 2W5.
Alpha-lipoic acid has been found to enhance glucose uptake into skeletal muscle in animal models. Studies have also found that the co-ingestion of carbohydrate along with creatine increases muscle creatine uptake by a process related to insulin-stimulated glucose disposal. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of alpha-lipoic acid on human skeletal muscle creatine uptake by directly measuring intramuscular concentrations of creatine, phosphocreatine, and adenosine triphosphate when creatine monohydrate was co-ingested with alpha-lipoic acid. Muscle biopsies were acquired from the vastus lateralis m. of 16 male subjects (18-32 y) before and after the experimental intervention. After the initial biopsy, subjects ingested 20 g x d(-1) of creatine monohydrate, 20 g x d(-1) of creatine monohydrate + 100 g x d(-1) of sucrose, or 20 g x d(-1) of creatine monohydrate + 100 g x d(-1) of sucrose + 1000 mg x d(-1) of alpha-lipoic acid for 5 days. Subjects refrained from exercise and consumed the same balanced diet for 7 days. Body weight increased by 2.1% following the nutritional intervention, with no differences between the groups. There was a significant increase in total creatine concentration following creatine supplementation, with the group ingesting alpha-lipoic acid showing a significantly greater increase (p < .05) in phosphocreatine (87.6 --> 106.2 mmol x kg(-1) dry mass [dm]) and total creatine (137.8 --> 156.8 mmol x kg(-1) dm). These findings indicate that co-ingestion of alpha-lipoic acid with creatine and a small amount of sucrose can enhance muscle total creatine content as compared to the ingestion of creatine and sucrose or creatine alone.
 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
"
It can be found on Pubmed. As can be seen body weight was measured but no analysis of muscular performance was done. The only listed measurements were body weight and creatine muscle concentrations and body weight was not improved in the Celltech group. It is stated the subjects were sedentary. To access Pubmed Click here .
:The purpose of citing the study was to show that alpha lipoic acid enhances muscle phosphocreatine levels and total muscle creatine concentrations (and if you see where I bolded above - I believe that was what the study was designed to determine. I don't beleive that putting a study summary about weight gain over regular creatine users fits into the context of why the study was quoted in the first place. And if I'm not mistaken that particular study was not even performed using Cell-tech - just creatine monohydrate and ALA. Even the Muscletech website lists that study as being performed on the ingredients in Cell-tech - not the actual formula. Yankees76 13:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Celltech

message: The statement was made by Bill Phillips in his Sports Supplement Review 3rd Issue (2000). It is common knowledge to anyone who is familiar with Creatine and it's published studies (See Pubmed ). The argument made against this is a common mistake and logically upside down. Let's just say for instance an entirely new animal is discovered in Colombia. The correct statement is made: Animal A only is known to exist in Colombia. This statement is not made false by someone stating that "the entire world has not been searched exhaustively, One could exist somewhere"  but made false by someone presenting evidence that it does exist elsewhere. The studies at the University of Memphis and the University of Nebraska do exist and do show the results mentioned. Studies for other products showing the results in question have not been presented. Basically all that is required is to find one study of a creatine product that shows increases in muscular performance and weight gain over regular creatine and either a) does not contain the formula or b) does contains the formula but with additional ingredients and performs better than the original formula. Then it would be worthy of a new distinction. Giving the formula a different name or doubling the dose (10 grams of creatine and 70 grams of carbohydrates for example) does not change the formula. For instance 2 aspirin is not a different formula than 1 aspirin. Quadzilla99 09:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm changing the text to say, "The combination of creatine and carbohydrates is the only formula that has been proven in studies to improve muscular performance and weight gain over regular creatine." And please - don't quote Bill Phillips again. The Supplement Review is an advertisement. Yankees76 13:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Phosphagen HP

message: Substituted at 14:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The reference to the claim that the performance enhancement of creatine has been questioned is just a commentary purporting that some studies have shown negative physical effects. But to my knowledge, every study I've seen involving oral creatine has shown either postive effects or no effect. Can anyone find the sources this doctor is mentioning?152.3.41.118 (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference is in fact contrary to information provided by the United States' National Institute of Health 66.108.143.254 (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section reference?

message: There are no references for the 'Function' section.  The only part that I'm questioning really is that phosphocreatine functions to transport energy from ATP synthesis sites to use sites (why can't ATP just diffuse across the cell itself?) The experiments that established this should be referenced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medos2 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: I move this here, I doubt if these references were used to write the article, but they may be useful to expand it.
*.
*.
*.
*.
*
*.
*.
*.
*
* 
Wallimann T, Wyss M, Brdiczka D, Nicolay K, Eppenberger HM.	
Intracellular compartmentation, structure and function of creatine kinase isoenzymes in tissues with high and fluctuating energy demands: the 'phosphocreatine circuit' for cellular energy homeostasis.
Biochem J. 1992 Jan 1;281 ( Pt 1):21-40. Review.
Shin JB, Streijger F, Beynon A, Peters T, Gadzala L, McMillen D, Bystrom C, Van der Zee CE, Wallimann T, Gillespie PG. Hair Bundles Are Specialized for ATP Delivery via Creatine Kinase.
Neuron. 2007 Feb 1;53(3):371-86.
T. Wallimann, M. Wyss, D. Brdiczka, K. Nicolay, and H.M. Eppenberger.
Intracellular compartmentation, structure and function of creatine kinase isoenzymes: the "phospho-creatine circuit" for cellular energy homeostasis.
Biochem. J. 281: 21-40 (1992).
(Comprehensive review with the PCr-circuit model)
T. Wallimann, and W. Hemmer.
Creatine kinase in non-muscle tissues and cells.
Mol. Cell Biochem. 133/134: 193-220 (1994)
--Dirk Beetstra T C 12:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long further reading section 

message: "Creatine's effectiveness in the treatment of many muscular, neuromuscular, and neuro-degenerative diseases is well-documented, yet institutions such as the NCAA and Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments have proposed its banning as a performance enhancer." What does a sports authority proposing to ban creatine (as doping) have to do with medical uses of creatine? Anabolic steroids have medical applications yet are banned in most sport competitions. The the argument is constructed from an obvious WP:POV and is an unacceptable synthesis. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged POV and SYN 

message: There are now some quality reviews like  which can be used instead of listing individual studies. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  {Sciencereview} for  treatment section 

message: I was wondering if Creatine could affect longevity in men during sex?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.179.119.18 (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  sex  

message: The para that describes this looks like the author took a study that found one patient with increased compartmental pressure after supplementing AND working out, and extended this finding with an entire paragraph talking of the dire consequences of Chronic Compartment Syndrome and postulating that a number of creatine users may suffer lower leg pain.
This is clearly synthesis, and would welcome suggestions on how to make this more scientific and accurate. HelpnWP (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis in "Chronic Compartment Syndrome" 

message: The biosynthesis section says "The enzyme GATM (L-arginine:glycine amidinotransferase (AGAT), EC 2.1.4.1)" and the image caption says "GATM - Glycine amidinotransferase". How are GATM and AGAT related (family vs specific member? synonyms? older vs modern name?). GATM is a totally unrelated page and Arginine:glycine amidinotransferase makes no mention of GATM. DMacks (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GATM enzyme confusion 

message: The 'Cognitive ability' section currently reads "supplementation with creatine significantly increased intelligence compared with marijuana." I'm pretty sure this is vandalism as the study it's referencing doesn't mention marijuana or cannabis. I'm guessing it used to read placebo. I Didn't changed it because I'm not 100% on that and personally believe plausible sounding information to be worse than retarted information.
Apologies for poor wiki form. This is my first post
67.180.30.179 (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  marijuana? 

message: Ive added an expansion tag, as the article seems to be missing key information about the function of creatine in the body and its biochemistry.  WHile there are some details on synthesis, there are a number of other wiki articles that appear to be related reaction products (phosphocreatine & creatine kinase), that are not really mentioned.  The function of this chemical is probably more important to the article than its value as a supplement, so should be focused on accordingly.  Unfortunately, I'm not much of a biochemist, and dont feel qualified to make the changes necessary. I'd be greatful if someone is able to tie all the creatine articles together though.  Cheers, Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion tag 

message: The molecular weight of creatinin is not 313.13 as stated in the table, but 113.13. Best regards, Lars M Rasmussen, prof, clin. chem. Denmark  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.78.129 (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry, I was looking at the wrong molecule - creatinine. The mol weight here is correct! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.78.129 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molecular weight 

message: The text of the article's paragraphs beginning "There is less concern today...", and "In theory...", and "Long-term administration..." under the section "Use as a food supplement" appears to be virtually identical to text found on the mayo clinic site under footnote 8's link.
- Mmoople (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright violation? 

message: Please revise this youth dosage amount quotation to some typical standard. Quote: "0.03 g/kg/day".  What?    
68.11.130.51 (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's the number quoted directly from the study.--Yankees76 Talk 13:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

text: That looks like "grams in the daily intake per kilogram of the test subject". Thus a 70kg test subject would get 2.1 g/day. I've seen percent body weight used in older studies, but that sounds odd to the layman for roughly the same reason "attoparsec" does. ― Darekun (talk)  09:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cognitive ability Section 

message: 200-306-6 is N-amidinosarcosine (as of Jul 17 2011). Substance name creatine didn't return any result.Clocktwibright (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  EC number wrong? 

message: For example,
"Genetic deficiencies in the creatine biosynthetic pathway lead to various severe neurological defects"
I have some genetic background, but I still have no clue what that even means?
Aeonx (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that it means people suffer neurological problems when they have genetic defects which inhibit their ability to synthesize creatine. What's wrong with that? Larryisgood (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sentences seem overly-technical 

message: Is 99.233.126.11's [change of 2011-10-29T05:38:25] warranted? It looks like some made up text. --Mortense (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced, etc.? 

message: I propose that these sentences under the pharmacokinetics heading:
"The rest is eliminated out of the body as waste. Creatine is consumed by the body fairly quickly, and if one wishes to maintain the high concentration of creatine, Post-loading dose, 2-5 g daily is the standard amount to intake.[25][26][27]"
be replaced with these sentences (to improve the style, clarity and readibility):
"Any excess above this preset amount is eliminated from the body as waste. Creatine is consumed by the body fairly quickly, and if one wishes to maintain a high plasma concentration of creatine (post any aforementioned "loading dose" period), 2-5 g daily is the standard amount to intake.[25][26][27]"
109.149.158.177 (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed improvement to sentences 

message: The article seems disingenuous in its positive description of creatine benefiting muscular development and performance in resistance training. The study cited in reference No.8 clearly refutes such benefits, yet it is not cited in the "Supplement" section. This reference No.8 is immediately available in full text, is very clear and informative and plainly concludes there were no measurable benefits of creating supplementation in a controlled, double blind study of creatine supplements and placebo in a a study of 30 participants in resistance training and creatine supplementation. Reference No.8!says it all, yet is left out of this section that plainly states that creatine supplementation does benefit users in resistance training. The references that are cited here, No.'s 20 and 21 are not available in full text, yet the abstract implies that creatine was not found to provide significant benefits in resistance training. It certainly isn't clear, and access to these articles costs between $35 and $64, making it prohibitive to check for interest. I wonder if the author read them?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.139.220.75 (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The study in Reference #8 was performed on Creatine ethyl ester, an obsolete gimmick that was at one time touted by supplement manufacturers to be a superior form of creatine, but ultimately disproven and now makes up a very small percentage of the world's creatine production and sales. Using this study as evidence that creatine does not work, would be ignoring the hundreds of studies that show the most researched and popular form of creatine, Creatine monohydrate, has considerable muscle building and performance benefits for athletes and weight trained individuals. See Creatine supplements for a somewhat more thorough overview of the athletic benefits of creatine.Yankees76 Talk 20:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supplements 

message: The following sentence makes no sense whatsoever.
"A survey of long-term use gives the creatine content of several foods."
It appears to be the result of two unrelated half-sentences accidentally strung together.
109.149.158.177 (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; its poorly worded, and makes no clear meaning. Let's delete and ask whoever interprets it to discuss here. Thanks for posting the notice.--Jbeans (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-sensical sentence. 

message: I have changed the pronunciation transcriptions since they contained a diphthongized /-aɪn/ version which is at best very rare and highly likely non-technical. I believe the same should be done for all WP entries with same biochemistry -ine suffix. The sources I used are two of the best guides available for AmEng and BrEng, the Merriam-Webster (already used by the previous editor) and the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary. Neither of these sources show the  /-aɪn/ variant, which is perhaps used by very few people who may be native speakers of English but are unfamiliar with biochemistry (in other words, an incorrect "spelling" pronunciation used by people who never say creatine). Incidentally, both dictionaries concur in listing the two acceptable pronunciations in the same order (as shown here).Viktor Laszlo (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: in the article it says: "Given the fact that creatine can be synthesized from the above mentioned amino acids, protein sources rich in these amino acids can be expected to provide adequate capability of native biosynthesis in the human body." which are precisely these "proteine sources"??? please add a list to the article so you know what to eat! thank you! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much every protein source has L-arginine, glycine, and L-methionine. I don't think including a list of proteins that can biosynthesize creatine would be particularly useful, or needed. Yankees76 Talk
Creatine supplementation uses a pure form. It would be interesting to know more about the process that produces it. 92.25.5.8 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: nutritional sources??

message: An analytical study published March 31, 2015 in the British Journal of Cancer conducted a population-based case-control study on the relationship between muscle-building supplements, including creatine, and the testicular germ cell cancer risk.  Associations with Creatine, and other muscle building substances show a strong relationship between users, and testicular germ cell cancer (doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.26).  Significantly stronger in early users.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sooleymon (talk • contribs) 15:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Effects 

message: I propose that this sentence under the Supplements heading:
"Both two studies reviewed in 2007 found no impurities."
be replaced with one of these two sentences (to improve readibility):
"Both of the two studies reviewed in 2007 found no impurities."
or
"Both studies reviewed in 2007 found no impurities."
Mattpengelly (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional sentence improvement proposal 

message: you noted that the International Society of Sports Nutrition is known to have engaged in p-hacking in your recent edit summary when you removed an external link to one of their systematic reviews (or "position stands" as they call them); can you provide a link to a reliable source that supports this assertion? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISSN journal 

message: Creatine (/ˈkriːətiːn/ or /ˈkriːətɪn/[1][2]) is a nitrogenous organic acid that occurs naturally in vertebrates. It's role is to recycle ATP, the energy currency of the cell, primarily in muscle but also to a lesser extent in the brain, and several other organs. This is achieved by donating phosphate groups to ADP to regenerate ATP.
Creatine is produced endogenously at an amount of about 1 g/d. Synthesis predominately occurs in the liver, kidneys, and to a lesser extent in the pancreas. The remainder of the creatine available to the body is obtained through the diet at about 1 g/d for an omnivorous diet. 95% of the bodies creatine stores are found in the skeletal muscle and the remaining 5% is distributed in the brain, liver, kidney, and testes
With this as the reference for the second paragraph https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3407788/ Meel11223 (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See the above thread. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2017 

message: The first part is written in a confusing, and non direct way not to mention being wrong in some places
Creatine (/ˈkriːətiːn/ or /ˈkriːətɪn/[1][2]) is a nitrogenous organic acid that occurs naturally in vertebrates and helps to supply energy to all cells (well not all cells mainly muscle, and to a lesser extent brain, and some other organs) in the body, primarily muscle. This is achieved by increasing the formation of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Early analysis showed that human blood is approximately 1% creatine, and the highest concentrations are found in animal blood (LOL first it says human blood, and then changes to animal blood???), brain (0.14%) (listing a lower source of it first?), muscle (0.50%) (the major location of creatine, and should be listed first and it is actually 95%), and testes (0.18%). The liver and kidney contain approximately 0.01% creatine.
How about 
Creatine (/ˈkriːətiːn/ or /ˈkriːətɪn/[1][2]) is a nitrogenous organic acid that occurs naturally in vertebrates. It's role is to recycle ATP, the energy currency of the cell, primarily in muscle but also in the brain. This is achieved by recycling ADP to ATP via donation of phosphate groups.
 
Creatine is produced endogenously at an amount of about 1 g/d. Synthesis predominately occurs in the liver, kidneys, and to a lesser extent in the pancreas. The remainder of the creatine available to the body is obtained through the diet at about 1 g/d for an omnivorous diet. 95% of the bodies creatine stores are found in the skeletal muscle and the remaining 5% is distributed in the brain, liver, kidney, and testes
I can see you have that down further in the article but it is more appropriate in the introduction. 
I recommend a change immediately. The introduction is an abomination. Meel11223 (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the lead based upon your proposed edits, but modified it for consistency with a couple reviews that I've cited. The 95% figure wasn't mentioned in the cited source in the body, so I've removed it.  The endogenous production rate also wasn't supported by a source, so I used a recent review one to cite an amount of 8.3 mmol/day in young adults.  Let me know if you think there are still any unresolved issues. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Edit: I just noticed the review you cited below supports the 95% figure, but the proposed addition here is the exact wording used in the source.  I've added the review, but had to change the wording to avoid issues with WP:COPYVIO. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  horribly written 

message: "Pregnancy and breastfeeding
Creatine cannot be recommended during pregnancy or breastfeeding due to a lack of scientific information. Pasteurized cow's milk contains higher levels of creatine than human milk.[24][25]"
The sentence essentially says that since there is a lack of research done, it must be bad. Seriously?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.136.206 (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dietary supplement labels often contain a statement that the product is not intended for use by pregnant/lactating women, or children. This is not to imply causes harm. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that clinical trials reported a safety evaluation have not been conducted in those populations.David notMD (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  lack of research = it's bad? 

message: "Heterocyclic amines
When creatine is mixed with protein and sugar at high temperatures (above 148 °C), the resulting reaction produces heterocyclic amines (HCAs). Such a reaction happens when grilling or pan frying meat.[42] Creatine content (as a percentage of crude protein) can be used as an indicator of meat quality.[43]
A Meta-analysis from 2011 concluded that "search for the excretion of heterocyclic amines remains a future task to definitively exclude the unproved allegation made by some national agencies".[31]"
1) What are 'heterocyclic amines?
2) Are they good, bad, indifferent, and why? (I vaguely remember reading that 'amines' -- bad -- are produced when cooking out using charcoal, but that isn't what this section says.)
3) The first paragraph starts off explaining how heterocyclic amines are produced, then the third sentence of that paragraph is about something else, namely that the creatine content of meat can indicate the quality of that meat. Why is that useful information?
4) Second paragraph:
a) 'search for the excretion of'. . .   meaning 'how heterocyclic amines are excreted from the body'
b) what 'unproved allegation'?
c) how will understanding the pathway of heterocyclic amine excretion definitively exclude that unproved allegation?
Langing (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions About the Heterocyclic Amines Section 

message: Creatine is synthesized via a two step reaction with two different enzymes:  
1. Arginine:Glycine Amindinotrasferase  (AGAT - sometimes called GATM in older papers).  
2. Guanidinoacetate methyltransferase (GAMT).  
The current image incorrectly has GAMT catalyzing both steps. Step 1 should be labeled as AGAT.
Thanks for your great work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.233.102 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The current image clearly shows GATM then GAMT - as you suggest it should. You suggest that AGAT is the new name for GATM, but it appears that GATM remains current. It's true that the article is inconsistent in use of AGAT and GATM - is that what you're concerned about, or am I missing something else that you're seeing?  — soupvector (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Creatine Synthesis incorrect pathway

message: The "supplement" section currently begins with:
"The Mayo Clinic states that creatine has been associated with asthmatic symptoms and warns against consumption by persons with known allergies to creatine.[17]".
The citation is a 404, and the statement that "[literally anybody] warns against consumption by persons with known allergies to creatine" is too obvious to mention, so I will edit this portion out whilst leaving the start of the sentence with a "citation needed" tag. I (and many other weightlifters, I'm sure) would welcome somebody more knowledgeable to advise us of any properly sourced contraindications.2A00:23C4:4F07:1000:51ED:B111:9877:ABB1 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Mayo is not MEDRS; that is gone. Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contraindications 

message: I merged Creatine supplement back to here. It had been split out way back in 2007.  In the ensuing 11 years this article blew up to recreate the supplement content here, and the articles developed independently, saying different, partial, and inconsistent things. They also each became shot through with bad content including blatant spam.  
I left a similar message on the supplement talk page.
If folks want to discuss a resplit now that we have a unified chunk of content (which still needs a bunch of work) that is fine, but we would have to be careful not to let that happen again. Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note - merging back 

message: Hello Jytdog, I have been reviewing the literature on the health effects of creatine supplements and would like to add some additions. Some references are meta-analyses, and others are individual studies. I apologize if I added to the clutter already present - I see you removed a lot of content that was previously added and also some content I added recently. See my sandbox for the types of additions I would like to make. I would love to hear your feedback. I am a new Wikipedia user, so please be patient with me!
BetaEdits (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Content based on individual studies will not be OK.  Please use sources that are OK per WP:MEDRS.  Please be sure you have read WP:MEDMOS too (no references to "patient", etc).  Let me know  when it is ready! Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to Supplement health effects 

message: I added an educational video in the section about the Genetic Deficiencies. Can someone please help me understand why this is not appropriate? Thanks! Auract (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Educational video on creatine deficiencies

message: Hello, I attach a file that should be a sufficient argument to delete the red exclamation mark in the "Hazards" table in the right column.  Thank you for the change.
 
4prostor (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hazards" table 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hi everyone! I'm excited to contribute to the community and update this page with information from systematic reviews on pubmed. Overall I think the section on supplemental health effects can use an expansion. Here are things I think we can add information to:
1) Expand on supplemental use in athletic populations. Currently the article delineates two main populations, anaerobic and aerobic exercise groups, but does not list specific sports (ex: Soccer, weightlifting, power lifting, runners, American football players) nor does it delineate muscle groups that were improved via creatine supplementation. A number of systematic review articles can be found that discuss impacts on different muscle groups. Additionally, there has been some delineation between usage in professional vs amateur athletics similar to resistance trained vs non resistance trained athletes response to certain training protocols. 
2) Parkingson's: The last reference is to usage for Parkinson's disease treatment is from 2014, but some new meta analysis from 2017 has been released to discuss this further
3) Diabetes: The page does not discuss the benefits of glycemic control in the diabetic populations with the most recent studies from 2016
4) Elderly population: Supplementation has also been done in the elderly to measure parameters that increase exercise performance and mitigate medical issues such as osteopenia, obesity, muscular atrophy, etc. 
5) Adverse health effects: There is a specific concern in research over renal function from exogenous creatine supplementation. The most recent literature from 2019 is not addressed and the single reference to an article from 2012 on renal function can be expanded upon. Additionally, concerns for creatine supplement-ion in the pediatric population uses a reference from a pediatrician from 2010 are not accurately stated currently. The current argument from the single physicians powerpoint is "Why bother" in a population that is likely already maximally loaded with creatine from their diet even though he does address possible ergogenic benefits with supplementation should a patients creatine stores not adequate and he only states concerns for special populations within the pediatric group such as those with kidney disease. This section should be expanded, clarified and corrected to pull from resources like a systematic review, not a powerpoint slide.  
6) Clinical pharmacology: Much to be expanded upon here such as synthesis, transport, MOA for energy metabolism, protein synthesis, membrane stabilization. Pharmacokinetics such as dosing, absorption, clearance. Lastly there are a studies on gyrate atrophy, mitochondrial diseases, muscular diseases and heart disease with both animals and humans studies in each category but I will have to look into systematic reviews for each category to see if there is a summative statement to share with the wikicommunity.
Open for suggestions and welcome feedback. 
Thanks, Akennedy 4 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCF WikiMedicine Project Spring 2020 

message: I think the subsection of Renal Function was an important addition. The part of the article that I thought could use the most improvement is the body's capacity to excrete creatine and if these is a toxic ingestion dose. Following are some suggested edits by section. Thank you for all the hard work!
History
Figure ‘The cyclic derivative creatinine exists in equilibrium with its tautomer and with creatine’ should be moved somewhere under Pharmacokinetics
Metabolic Role
Add link for amino acid Wikipedia page
Suggested structure for 1st sentence: Creatine is a naturally occurring non-protein amino acid which has a primary metabolic role of combining creatine with a phosphoryl group to generate phosphocreatine. Phosphocreatine is then used to regenerate ATP by donating its phosphoryl group to ADP.
Metabolic Role: Phosphocreatine System
Add relevant Wikipedia link for mM units
Add Wikipedia myosatellite cells page link to 'satellite cells'
Pharmacokinetics
Add Wikipedia Pharmacokinetics page link to pharmacokinetics
Add links for volume of distribution, clearance, bioavailability, mean residence time, absorption rate, and half life
Could possibly replace the term ‘pharmacokinetics of creatine’ with ‘how they body processes creatine’
Pharmacokinetics: Loading Phase
Move (total of 20g/day) to right after ‘5g creatine taken four times a day’
Change ‘equal’ to ‘equally’ in second sentence
Change ‘ergogenic benefits’ in last sentence of first paragraph to ‘ergogenic benefits (discussed in the Therapeutic Uses section)’
Change ‘mitigating diseases’ to ‘mitigate diseases that cause creatine deficiencies’.
Add a link for ‘loading dose’ Wikipedia page to 'loading phase'
Pharmacokinetics: Maintenance Phase
Add a wikipedia link for 'maintenance dose'
Pharmacokinetics: Clearance
What happens if one continues to take large doses of creatine after maximal body stores are achieved? Is there a toxic dose? Or is all the extra creatine excreted in healthy individuals?
Is creatine cleared by the kidney and/or other organs? What is it broken down to?
Perhaps add the following equation to help explain role of renal function in creatine metabolism and therefore provide a basis for concerns about renal function with creatine supplementation
Creatine -> Creatinine -> Creatinine excreted in urine 
Therapeutic uses: Muscular disease
Add link for muscular dystrophies Wikipedia page
Therapeutic uses: Huntington’s Disease
Do these studies agree on effects or mostly disagree?
Add link for primary studies, systematic reviews i.e. links that explain what these terms mean
Adverse effects: Renal function
Was renal function studied with creatine supplementation at the same level as mentioned in the loading and maintenance phase sections or at any consumption rate?
Change ‘health’ to ‘healthy’ in last paragraph
Is renal disease a contraindication to creatine supplementation? Are there other common diseases which are contraindications for creatine supplementation?
Add a line saying that kidney damage can occur when creatine is taken with certain medications discussed in the Interactions section
Anwer2007 (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review for UCF WikiMedicine Spring 2020 

message: The current mention of claimed nootropic effects in the text seems a little brief,
and there's no direct mention of IQ points at all.
I just now came across a claim on some pop-sci/nutrition site that creatine supplementation may be able to raise IQ by 10-12 points.
(https://www.supernutritionlife.com/creatine-benefits-raise-iq-how-to-use/)
I haven't yet looked into whatever evidence they supposedly have for that at all,
and I have no idea if it's credible,
but regardless of whether the claim has good evidence, or is controversial, or is thoroughly debunked, or just unsubstantiated,
since the claim is definitely already being *made* "in the wild",
the wikipedia article should definitely directly *address* something that important, right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayseychow (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think not. Wikipedia should be based on hiqh-quality secondary sources (a review published in a highly-cited journal that covers a lot of studies; a meta-analysis of studies, also in a respectable journal). All sorts of claims are made in low-quality sources but that does not mean that they can be included in a Wikipedia article. --13:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of claimed nootropic effects seems too brief, no mention of IQ points at all ("Raise IQ by 10-12 Points?") 

message: I think the possible effect of hair loss due to increased dihydrotestosterone should be included. 
Source: https://www.healthline.com/health/creatine-hair-loss Hyuhanon (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hair loss not mentioned anywhere 

message: — Assignment last updated by TacoTuesday247 (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Writing Science

message: Reading this article the adverse side effect section seemed to be lacking in information and depth of the topic. One piece that should be expanded on is the information about potential weight gain due to water retention. It should provide more information as to how to creatine works to pull water into the cells and that weight gain from creatine should be noted before an individual chooses to take this supplement, but doesn't mean this side effect will be long term, and will reside once the user stops taking creatine and their total creatine concentrations return to normal. These are the changes that we propose be made to this article to further enhance this article's quality. Any comments or suggestions are appreciated! Skol1214 (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making Changes to the Weight Change Section