Talk:Creatine

Untitled

• Talk:Creatine/Archive 1: Sept 2004 – Aug 2006-2007

Controversy section reference?

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)

The reference is in fact contrary to information provided by the United States' National Institute of Health [1]66.108.143.254 (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference 25, the one about the "NCAA ban" is manipulated in the reference section to contort the meaning of the reference. The reference, which is entitled "NCAA's advertising and promotional standards" had nothing to do with any sort of creatine ban. The full quote: "NCAA-banned substances* (e.g., stimulants, anabolic steroids, marijuana) and impermissible Nutritional Supplements that NCAA member institutions may not provide to student-athletes (e.g., creatine, amino acids, ginseng)]," only lists creatine as a substance that teams can't distribute to athletes. I'm removing that specific reference.Goldste7 (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The following link is a list of supplements banned for distribution by teams, which lists creatine, as well as a number of non-banned supplements. [2]Goldste7 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

References?

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)

Zoffoperskof (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi all:

Creatine supplements and supplementation discussions have been moved to the supplements page. Please discuss the biochemical and physiological functions of creatine only on the main creatine page. Thanks! I think this will help separate the two topics -- people interested in supplementation don't really care about GAMT enzymes and biochemists don't care that much about the supplement debate.

Qrater 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

'Addition of creatine to the vegetarian diet has been shown to improve athletic performance'.

Links to an internet source as 'proof'. However the source pretty much boils down to 'more research needed'.

Revision/removal suggested.

Nerusai

competition with glutamine for absorbtion

Is there any truth to the claim that creatine competes with glutamine for absorption? -- Sy / ^(talk) 00:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is a myth.. [3]

Myth: "Don't take your creatine with protein because protein contains glutamine and glutamine competes with creatine for the same transporter!"

The Real Deal: There's not an ounce of truth to this. Creatine and glutamine have completely different receptors. Creatine transport into skeletal muscle is regulated by the Creatine Transporter7 while glutamine transport into skeletal muscle is regulated by a system known as "System Nm." 8 The only thing these transporters have in common is that they are both sodium-dependent transporters, meaning that they use differences in sodium concentrations across the cell membrane to drive creatine into cells. Apparently somewhere along the line, somebody believed that since glutamine and creatine transporters both shared that characteristic, they must be the same transporter and the myth spread from there. Let the confusion end here: they do not share the same transporter, and taking protein/glutamine with creatine won't decrease creatine uptake into muscle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sysy (talk • contribs)

...uhh, I'm relatively sure that by "absorption", they are talking about absorption through the alimentary canal, like after you eat them. Leondegrance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leondegrance (talk • contribs) 02:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Contributors:

Long further reading section

I move this here, I doubt if these references were used to write the article, but they may be useful to expand it.

• Burke DG, Chilibeck PD, Parise G, Tarnopolsky MA, Candow DG. (2003). "Effect of alpha-lipoic acid combined with creatine monohydrate on human skeletal muscle creatine and phosphagen concentration". Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. Sep (13): 294–302. PMID 14669930.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).

• Dangott B, Schultz E, Mozdziak PE. (2000). "Dietary creatine monohydrate supplementation increases satellite cell mitotic activity during compensatory hypertrophy". International Journal of Sports Medicine. 2000 Jan (21(1):): 13–6. PMID 10683092.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).

• Hespel P, Op't Eijnde B, Van Leemputte M, Urso B, Greenhaff PL, Labarque V, Dymarkowski S, Van Hecke P, Richter EA. (2001). "Oral creatine supplementation facilitates the rehabilitation of disuse atrophy and alters the expression of muscle myogenic factors in humans". J Physiol. 2001 Oct 15 (536(Pt 2)): 625–33. PMID 11600695.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).

• Hultman E, Soderlund K, Timmons JA; et al. (1996). "Muscle creatine loading in men". J Appl Physiol (81): 232–237. PMID 8828669. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).

• Juhn MS. (2003). "Popular sports supplements and ergogenic aids". Sports Med. 33 (2): 921–39. PMID 12974658.

• Powers ME; et al. (2003). "Creatine Supplementation Increases Total Body Water Without Altering Fluid Distribution". Journal of Athletic Training. 38 (1): 44–50. PMID 12937471. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help).

• Rae C, Digney AL, McEwan SR, Bates TC. (2003). "Oral creatine monohydrate supplementation improves cognitive performance; a placebo-controlled, double-blind cross-over trial". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - Biological Sciences. 270 (1529): 2147–2150. PMID 14561278.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).

• Robinson TM; et al. (2000). "Dietary creatine supplementation does not affect some haematological indices, or indices of muscle damage and hepatic and renal function". British Journal of Sports Medicine. 34: 284–288. PMID 10953902. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help).

• Schroeder C; et al. (2001). "The effects of creatine dietary supplementation on anterior compartment pressure in the lower leg during rest and following exercise". Clin J Sport Med. 11 (2): 87–95. PMID 11403120. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

• Ellington WR (2001). "Evolution and physiological roles of phosphagen systems". Annu. Rev. Physiol. 63: 289–325. doi:10.1146/annurev.physiol.63.1.289. PMID 11181958.

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)

Creatine

I am confused as to why it says that it may cause kidney damage, and then says that it is secreted in a benign form. Does benign not mean harmless? 24.65.87.238 (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it refers just to the stress on kidneys? If you take 30 grams of creatine, and your body can only store 3 grams, then the other 27 grams are just going to circulate until your liver or kidneys do something about it; and 27 grams is a lot of a material to process. The creatine could be 100% inert, but your livers/kidneys will still have to work hard to excrete it. 'The dose makes the poison', after all. --Gwern (contribs) 19:16 10 June 2009 (GMT)

It doesn't even mention in the article that creatine or creatinine causes kidney damage. Either way in healthy invidiuals, 20+ grams a day does not cause any impaired kidney function. --Yankees76 (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

The use of creatine has been controversial. Whether it should be controversial is another issue. As time goes by with further proof of effectiveness and no indications of problems, these older claims become less and less relevant. At some point it may make sense to reword this section to say something like "initially there were claims that creatine use was not effective and possibly dangerous, but these have not been borne out", or something along those lines. For now, I've restored the deleted statements and their supporting references. --Mmm (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Werty26262626 (if that's really your name ;-), you have not responded to my comments above. You seem to feel that because you disagree with the sources (an MD and a journalist) it is appropriate to remove links to their comments. I respectfully disagree. I added those references because the statements about creatine use being controversial were marked by someone else as needing references, and the references I supplied do indeed show that there are credible sources making those statements. In other words, there has been controversy over creatine use. These references document that fact. Or are you trying to claim that there has not been controversy? If so, can you provide documentation of the lack of controversy? --Mmm (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mmm! As I've said before, my problem is not with the statements themselves, but with the references provided(and just to make myself clear, the previous editing summary, was in response to Edward321's)! I mean, of course I want everyone to know about the facts and controversy surrounding the use of creatine! But to be specific here, my problem with the M.D.'s article, resides in the fact that it doesn't cite any bibliographical references at its end. Also, the fact that he doesn't make any clear distinction between the supplements mentioned below the main article and the forbidden substances he also mentions there(steroids and h.g.h.), seems a bit weird. But in the end, he did make it kind of clear (in the main creatine article) that the point is that «absence of proof, isn't proof of absence»!... So I must admit, that I may have exaggerated a bit, when I removed that article, since it served to prove the main point(controversy), and for that I appologize to everyone! But reference number 3, that one I can't agree with! In this reference, she(Amber Davis) makes statements along the lines of: «its drug like physical addictiveness»; and: «the unfair advantage it gives»(almost every strength and speed athlete uses it anyway, not to mention the fact that creatine doesn't produce such unbelievable results, besides being legal and, for all we know, proven safe). She then goes on by adding: «If an athlete loads on creatine continually, then it is possible and probable that the body will eventually quit making it on its own» (I thought only steroids were known to do that? But then what about glutamine? If we eat it, say, by consuming eggs, does that mean that our body will stop making it on its own? Amber Davis seems to ignore the fact, that after the loading phase, one's only supposed to use 3 to 6 gr. a day...Hardly enough to hinder our body's own creatine production. Besides the fact that cycling, although not proven to be necessary, is recommended!); and that due to the absence of naturally ocurring creatine: «a disastrous effects could occur, even death»(her spelling). She also states that creatine increases the chances of severe injury(logic:an athlete is on creatine and he injures himself severely, ergo creatine did it) and that there is: «an increase of urinary creatine excretion» (geez, could that be creatinine?). She finally states that creatine will, or at least may cause heart, kidney and liver failure/disease! So, to sum it all up, creatine use, according to A.D., will make your body cease endogenous creatine production, may cause death (via the previously mentioned mechanism), causes addiction, increases the risk of severe muscle injury and may also cause heart, liver and kidney(possible on people with pre-existing kidney problems, but not proven) failure. And all I ask is: where's the proof of these(statms.)? Where are the verifiable bibliographical references? Where's the science? I'd say that Amber Davis is pulling these statements straight out of her ass! Furthermore, I doubt that she's even a real journalist, and if she is, then shame on her! Bear in mind, that this article was taken from a site, where there are 13 and 15 y.o. kids talking about their experience with whey and stuff like that, which already tells us that this isn't some sort of scientific journal/site, or anything of that sort! Also, I've never even heard/seen that type of statement made in any published study about creatine, and I've asked this to my Exercise Physiology teacher, and all he told me, was that there probably was more research done on creatine, than on any other supplement before it, and that all of the data has proven it(creat.) to be safe and effective(if used properly)! So you can't just go around saying this and that about creatine or anything else, unless you have viable and reliable studies to support whichever claims you're making. Besides, for all it's worth, just like creatine might end up being SCIENTIFICALLY proven dangerous farther along the road(or 100% safe, we don't know it yet); with time and proper research; that is also valid for t.v., mobile phones, the internet, microwave ovens, hell even many pharmaceutical drugs and the very food we eat(even though most of these are considered fairly safe)! But for now, it is important to keep an open mind, and most of all, a fair judgement, and not to start being alarmist(like Amber Davis has been). And since for the time being, none of A.D.'s statements seem to be scientifically proven, and appear to be based on nothing more than assumptions and poor logic, they should thus, be permanently removed from wikipedia. Because we all have an obligation towards ourselves and each other, of providing nothing more than research proven, unbiased sources of information, something that can only be accomplished through the elimination of all fallacious content from wikipedia! Unless the objective is to manifest a personal view, which should be done elsewhere, and especially, without doing so under the guise of real science/journalism. Truth, is of the utmost importance! And on a final note, I believe that the substances we all should try to eradicate from sports, are steroids and h.g.h.(and such). And this can only be accomplished by promoting safe and effective training, healthy and balanced nutrition and, why not, a sound supplementation regimen... This is something towards which moderate creatine monohydrate(the only independently researched form of creatine) use might as well contribute!! Oh, and always remember, that there are a lot of bad journalists and M.D.'s out there(paid by the drug companies, supplement companies, and such. Some are just stupid!), so we have to be extra careful when choosing an article from the web, for it might not be what it seems at first sight(being from a REAL journalist or M.D., is not enough)! I hope we agree on this, and that all «no. 3 references» remain outside of wikipedia forever, not because they tell you something you don't want to hear/know about, but because they're not based on science and telling the unbiased truth! --Werty26262626 (talk), real wikipedia user name, no sock puppet, 27.04.2008.9

Tagged POV and SYN

"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)

I agree, it does not make sense to include it as a controversy. One single biased source is not enough to create a controversy though it may deserve getting mentioned briefly because it's so weird. M99 87.59.102.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

rm section

there is too much poorly written bs in here... recommend serious cleanup if re-added--Xris0 (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Creatine's effectiveness in the treatment of many muscular, neuromuscular, and neuro-degenerative diseases is well-documented,. Despite this, in 2001, the Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments (AFSSA) (the French Agency for Medical Security of Food) had proposed its banning as a performance enhancer on the grounds that creatine could possibly cause cancer . A plethora of scientific evidence, however, shows that this warning was based on wrong assumptions, parts of these allegiations made by AFSSA have been discussed in an interview with Dr. Markus Wyss d . By contrast, if anything, Creatine and its analogues have been shown in several in vitro and in vivo animal models of cancer to slow down cancer growth, instead . Concerning this and other allegiations, the educated reader is advised to refer to the published literature that clearly shows that Creatine, if taken at the recommended dosage and in its highest possible chemical purity, is safe and without scientifically proven serious side effects . In the meantime, Creatine has become one of the most popular and indeed most effective nutritional supplements with scientifically proven ergogenic effects, holding approximately a 10% share of the sports supplement market..

{Sciencereview} for treatment section

There are now some quality reviews like PMID 18652079 which can be used instead of listing individual studies. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

sex

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)

Do you mean if fewer old people die during intercourse, when they have been supplementing with creatine? M99 87.59.102.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC).

No, as in this case sex would be considered an endurance based activity, and creatine has not been shown to improve the performance of athletes performing enduranced based activities. It is only good for short bursts of activity ( yes yes, I know for some people sex is quite short, but I'm talking on the basis of a few seconds ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.16.152 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.29.128 (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I kinda agree that comment was hilarious, but to be serious, short bursts of activity such as contracting one's pelvic floor muscles (the ones Kegels target) when the urge to ejaculate is peaking can actually suppress ejaculation, thereby allowing for longer sessions of intercourse. It may be an 'endurance sport' for some, but selectively and intensely firing certain muscle groups can 'keep the game' going for longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.80.9 (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis in "Chronic Compartment Syndrome"

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)

GATM enzyme confusion

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)

marijuana?

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)

Expansion tag

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)

Molecular weight

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)

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)

Possible copyright violation?

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)

Cognitive ability Section

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)

No. It's the number quoted directly from the study.[4]--Yankees76 ^Talk 13:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

EC number wrong?

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)

Some sentences seem overly-technical

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)

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)

lack of research = it's bad?

"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)

Unsourced, etc.?

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)

Non-sensical sentence.

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)

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)

Proposed improvement to sentences

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)

Supplements

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)

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)

nutritional sources??

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)

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)

Pronunciation

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)

Health Effects

The following statement seems to be incorrect:

"Extensive research has shown that oral creatine supplementation at a rate of 5 to 20 grams per day appears to be very safe and largely devoid of adverse side-effects,[23] while at the same time effectively improving the physiological response to resistance exercise, increasing the maximal force production of muscles in both men and women.[24][25]"

Source [23] indicates that during a research with several individuals no evidence was found to substantiate a deleterious effect in the use of creatin for a short period of time. Also source [23] indicates that no research was conducted so far to evaluate the long term effects on the prolonged usage of Creatin in healthy subjects, thus, it is incorrect to say that:

"Extensive research has shown that oral creatine supplementation at a rate of a rate of 5 to 20 grams per day appears to be very safe and largely devoid of adverse side-effects..."

Moreover the "Extensive research misleads he reader to believe that several studies reached that conclusion, which in fact the author of the sentence is pointing to only one source.

The sentence should be modified to:

"One research has shown that oral creatine supplementation at a rate of a rate of 5 to 20 grams per day appears to be very safe and largely devoid of adverse side-effects for short periods of time..."

The scientific source [23] says the following:

"There appears to be no strong scientific evidence to support any adverse effects but it should be noted that there have been no studies to date that address the issue of long-term Cr usage."

Another possibility is to copy and paste the paragraph from the scientific article [23] and put it also in italic providing credit to the original source.