Creatine!? Wtf?

Punkrocker

Punkrocker

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Ok so I been lifting just about 9 years now and have used anabolics here and there And protein powder. I never really dabbled into creatine. I mean, I bought some in the past and used it for maybe a week or two and didn't notice anything and just ignored it seeing as my results were much more aggressive on anabolics. So get this, I just finished a cycle of dymethazine, and I wanna try to keep my gains the best I can. I watch some YouTube videos about creatine and then read an article by some bodybuilding doctor basically saying that 5grams daily isint enough and that you need 25grams daily(not loading but always).

Here's the link:

Creatine: How Much Should You Be Taking? | Arnold Schwarzenegger

So I been doing this and I swear I notice a difference primarily in strength and honestly, I've noticed that I'm more horny lately! That I do not understand because creatine is just a bunch of amino acids linked together so I have no clue how it could be doing this although I saw some study saying that creatine raises DHT levels. Also I'm on trt so Its not boosting any natural test. I dunno guys, 25grams daily of creatine monohydrate is giving me noticeable results.....and diarrhea
 
jameschoi

jameschoi

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Do you have to drink mega water at 25g?
 
Punkrocker

Punkrocker

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Do you have to drink mega water at 25g?
I dunno. I'm just grabbing a bottle here and there. My piss is light yellow/clear so I guess I'm good. I think the article states that the excess dehydration is a myth. I dunno man, so far so good
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Ok so I been lifting just about 9 years now and have used anabolics here and there And protein powder. I never really dabbled into creatine. I mean, I bought some in the past and used it for maybe a week or two and didn't notice anything and just ignored it seeing as my results were much more aggressive on anabolics. So get this, I just finished a cycle of dymethazine, and I wanna try to keep my gains the best I can. I watch some YouTube videos about creatine and then read an article by some bodybuilding doctor basically saying that 5grams daily isint enough and that you need 25grams daily(not loading but always).

Here's the link:

Creatine: How Much Should You Be Taking? | Arnold Schwarzenegger

So I been doing this and I swear I notice a difference primarily in strength and honestly, I've noticed that I'm more horny lately! That I do not understand because creatine is just a bunch of amino acids linked together so I have no clue how it could be doing this although I saw some study saying that creatine raises DHT levels. Also I'm on trt so Its not boosting any natural test. I dunno guys, 25grams daily of creatine monohydrate is giving me noticeable results.....and diarrhea
Stupid article is stupid. There are a plethora of studies that show that saturation can be achieved with ~3-5g/day, it just may take a little longer than if you loaded at 20-25g/day. Plenty of studies have shown benefits using 5g/day with no loading period. He’s probably trying to sell more creatine lol.
 
Punkrocker

Punkrocker

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Stupid article is stupid. There are a plethora of studies that show that saturation can be achieved with ~3-5g/day, it just may take a little longer than if you loaded at 20-25g/day. Plenty of studies have shown benefits using 5g/day with no loading period. He’s probably trying to sell more creatine lol.
Did you read the article?
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Are you also a Physicist/nutrition and performance scientist?
That's beyond fallacious logic my friend... I planned on citing/referencing peer-reviewed, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies and meta-analyses written by multiple PhDs.

If you don't want to hear what I'm going to say (supported with research), I'm not going to waste my time typing up a response. But then that begs the question, why come here and post if you're not open to a discussion?
 
Punkrocker

Punkrocker

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
That's beyond fallacious logic my friend... I planned on citing/referencing peer-reviewed, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies and meta-analyses written by multiple PhDs.

If you don't want to hear what I'm going to say (supported with research), I'm not going to waste my time typing up a response. But then that begs the question, why come here and post if you're not open to a discussion?
I simply asked you a question
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I simply asked you a question
An irrelevant question though. A fact is a fact, regardless of who is saying it, and an incorrect statement is incorrect, even if an "expert" is the one making it. I have more than enough evidence to explain why he is wrong, but apparently you're more interested in my qualifications than my evidence, even though I'm not using an appeal to authority, but instead relying on peer-reviewed studies and meta-analyses to draw conclusions.

There's also some bad/incorrect logic he used as the basis for his calculations, which is why he came up with such a large required dose.

As I asked before, do you want me to explain why he is wrong, or should I not bother because I'm not a physicist? But I also want to know what being a physicist has to do with this? There's no physics involved in this at all...
 
Punkrocker

Punkrocker

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
An irrelevant question though. A fact is a fact, regardless of who is saying it, and an incorrect statement is incorrect, even if an "expert" is the one making it. I have more than enough evidence to explain why he is wrong, but apparently you're more interested in my qualifications than my evidence, even though I'm not using an appeal to authority, but instead relying on peer-reviewed studies and meta-analyses to draw conclusions.

There's also some bad/incorrect logic he used as the basis for his calculations, which is why he came up with such a large required dose.

As I asked before, do you want me to explain why he is wrong, or should I not bother because I'm not a physicist? But I also want to know what being a physicist has to do with this? There's no physics involved in this at all...
Ok well why don't you explain to me why 5grams a day is plenty. I would like to hear your reasoning
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Screw it, here's why he's wrong.

He says:
Humans carry about two grams of creatine per kilogram of lean muscle mass (one gram per pound). The maximum we can put into muscles is about 3g/kg (1.4g/lb)[47]. To hit this level, a 150 pound male would need about 25 grams of creatine supplementation.
That's fine, but then he says:
To increase the amount of creatine we carry to a level above the baseline (1g/lb), we need at least two grams per day for maintenance, plus 0.4g for every lean pound of muscle. For a 200 pound male carrying 60 pounds of lean muscle, a reasonable calculation would be:

(0.4g/lb * 60 lbs)/0.95 + 2g ≈ 27.3g
Is he forgetting that "maintenance" levels does not mean "creatine necessary for everything besides the muscles?"

As I'll show below, a normal diet results in normal creatine stores that are 60-80% saturated. Given that 95% of creatine is found in skeletal muscles, that means that the "maintenance" level of 2g/day (dietary intake) for "normal" function (not ergogenic benefits) is sufficient to reach 60-80% of creatine saturation for skeletal muscle. That's from diet. The goal of supplemental creatine is to get that extra 20-40% saturation.

His calculations are base on the (incorrect) assumption that the baseline level of creatine saturation is 0%, which is asinine.

Furthermore, about about half of the total body pool of creatine is obtained via diet, and the other half is synthesized. Assuming the high-end of the 1-2g/day intake via diet, and another 2g/day via synthesis, that gives 4g/day to reach 60-80% saturation. Let's assume 60%, as that will give us a larger required dose to reach saturation via supplementation. So if 4g gets us to 60% saturation, we need another 2.67g to reach saturation, which makes a lot more sense than 27g, and it is consistent with the literature consensus/recommendation of ~3g/day.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645018/

I will preface my comments by stating that the following information comes from the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, from a paper authored by these people:

Richard B. Kreider, Douglas S. Kalman, Jose Antonio, Tim N. Ziegenfuss, Robert Wildman, Rick Collins, Darren G. Candow, Susan M. Kleiner, Anthony L. Almada and Hector L. Lopez

In a normal diet that contains 1–2 g/day of creatine, muscle creatine stores are about 60–80% saturated. Therefore, dietary supplementation of creatine serves to increase muscle creatine and PCr by 20–40% (see Fig. 4.)
The total creatine pool (PCr + Cr) in the muscle averages about 120 mmol/kg of dry muscle mass for a 70 kg individual [7]. However, the upper limit of creatine storage appears to be about 160 mmol/kg of dry muscle mass in most individuals [7, 8]. About 1–2% of intramuscular creatine is degraded into creatinine (metabolic byproduct) and excreted in the urine [7, 9, 10]. Therefore, the body needs to replenish about 1–3 g of creatine per day to maintain normal (unsupplemented) creatine stores depending on muscle mass. About half of the daily need for creatine is obtained from the diet [11]. For example, a pound of uncooked beef and salmon provides about 1–2 g of creatine [9]. The remaining amount of creatine is synthesized primarily in the liver and kidneys from arginine and glycine by the enzyme arginine:glycine amidinotransferase (AGAT) to guanidinoacetate (GAA), which is then methylated by guanidinoacetate N-methyltransferase (GAMT) using S-adenosyl methionine to form creatine (see Fig. 1) [12].
Once muscle creatine stores are fully saturated, creatine stores can generally be maintained by ingesting 3–5 g/day, although some studies indicate that larger athletes may need to ingest as much as 5–10 g/day in order to maintain creatine stores [7, 8, 10, 46, 47, 48].
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-017-0173-z
 
Malbranque

Malbranque

Member
Awards
1
  • First Up Vote
I wish I was able to take creatine. Its a wonderful supp but it revs my asthma up something awful.
My body reacts great to it, but my lungs hate me for it.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I dunno if youve come across any of his posts in the anabolic forum, but Spurfy is pretty onto it and advocates using 30gm creatine mono per day.

Mind you, his recommendation is in conjunction with running anavar, cos of synergy.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
To simplify things, and to bring together his claims with the JISSN paper, we see that a "normal" diet achieves muscle creatine stores of 120mmol/kg of dry muscle weight. Creatine loading can get to 140-155mmol/kg (that's about 80% saturation of so, which is consistent with the literature). So now his claims of needing to get to 100% saturation are based on incorrect assumptions, that is that we're starting at 0% saturation and need to get to 100% saturation. We're starting at 80% saturation (assuming a normal diet), so we only need to get an additional 20% saturation. That means multiplying his end-result by 0.2. 27.3*0.2=5.46, so that's 5.46g/day. Not 27.3g/day.

The "baseline" brings us to 60-80% saturation, not to 0%, as he claims. The vast majority of creatine is found in muscles; when we refer to baseline levels, that doesn't mean we're somehow at 0% muscle saturation. His calculations are based on incorrect starting assumptions, which is why the end-result is incorrect.
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-017-0173-z
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
To simplify things, and to bring together his claims with the JISSN paper, we see that a "normal" diet achieves muscle creatine stores of 120mmol/kg of dry muscle weight. Creatine loading can get to 140-155mmol/kg (that's about 80% saturation of so, which is consistent with the literature). So now his claims of needing to get to 100% saturation are based on incorrect assumptions, that is that we're starting at 0% saturation and need to get to 100% saturation. We're starting at 80% saturation (assuming a normal diet), so we only need to get an additional 20% saturation. That means multiplying his end-result by 0.2. 27.3*0.2=5.46, so that's 5.46g/day. Not 27.3g/day.

The "baseline" brings us to 60-80% saturation, not to 0%, as he claims. The vast majority of creatine is found in muscles; when we refer to baseline levels, that doesn't mean we're somehow at 0% muscle saturation. His calculations are based on incorrect starting assumptions, which is why the end-result is incorrect.
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-017-0173-z
But all of these calculations are unnecessary, as many studies have already directly shown us what is needed to achieve saturation, and how saturation can be maintained, so these theoretical calculations aren't really necessary when we have direct testing on the subject.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Did you read the article?
Post an article that has been peer reviewed and published in a respected journal. Anybody that posts articles on sites like that and claims to be against bro science is a complete hypocrite. If you have an actual scientific/medical article, I'd be more than happy to read it, but not going to waste time on this buzzfeed-level crap and then have you ask for people's qualifications when they disagree with the article.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Are you also a Physicist/nutrition and performance scientist?
Yeah - not knocking you here, but muscleupcrohn, I would wager, could get a "nutrition degree" from most colleges without even going to the classes. He'd just be wasting a bunch of money to get a piece of paper. "Truth" doesn't change just because you suddenly have that piece of paper, so it is really pretty much worthless, especially in modern society where research is at your finger tips once you've learned the basics of reading and reasoning.

Besides - what does this have to do with physics? Would you go to Ed Whitten for advice on how to get swole? I mean, sure he could probably figure some schit out, but he probably isn't all that interested....

But all of these calculations are unnecessary, as many studies have already directly shown us what is needed to achieve saturation, and how saturation can be maintained, so these theoretical calculations aren't really necessary when we have direct testing on the subject.
Ok, to play devil's advocate here and just to maybe take a new angle that I haven't researched yet but I probably will because it seems that some people have results with 30 grams based on the OP and the mention about "Spurfy" - what if saturation is only one factor? What if there is some kind of gene expression benefit from such a large dose, even if we can't hold onto much of it? Or what about something like a change in the gut microbiome?

Again, maybe you have the evidence at hand to point out why this isn't the case, and it could simply be a case of there being a study that used larger doses and saw no additional benefits....

And finally - 30 grams of creatine daily!!! Bro, you're gonna get kidney failure!!! (sarcasm in this line).
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Yeah - not knocking you here, but muscleupcrohn, I would wager, could get a "nutrition degree" from most colleges without even going to the classes. He'd just be wasting a bunch of money to get a piece of paper. "Truth" doesn't change just because you suddenly have that piece of paper, so it is really pretty much worthless, especially in modern society where research is at your finger tips once you've learned the basics of reading and reasoning.

Besides - what does this have to do with physics? Would you go to Ed Whitten for advice on how to get swole? I mean, sure he could probably figure some schit out, but he probably isn't all that interested....



Ok, to play devil's advocate here and just to maybe take a new angle that I haven't researched yet but I probably will because it seems that some people have results with 30 grams based on the OP and the mention about "Spurfy" - what if saturation is only one factor? What if there is some kind of gene expression benefit from such a large dose, even if we can't hold onto much of it? Or what about something like a change in the gut microbiome?

Again, maybe you have the evidence at hand to point out why this isn't the case, and it could simply be a case of there being a study that used larger doses and saw no additional benefits....

And finally - 30 grams of creatine daily!!! Bro, you're gonna get kidney failure!!! (sarcasm in this line).
We have a plethora of studies showing ergogenic benefits with reasonable/normal doses/use. Is there possibly some other benefit independent of achieving saturation that you can only get from massive daily doses? I can't rule that out 100% right now offhand, but given that we 100% know that significant ergogenic effects (and cognitive benefits, if you're a vegetarian/vegan) can be reliably achieved with normal doses, I don't see a need to go up to massive doses, particularly with the added cost (25g from 3-5g) and the potential upset stomach you may get from dosing so high.

Either way, his entire article was written about how to achieve optimal saturation, and his starting assumptions were incorrect. Even if there are other benefits of higher doses independent of saturation, it's the claim that high doses are needed to achieve saturation that I was saying is incorrect. You in no way need to use 27.3g/day indefinitely to achieve and maintain saturation. That's a silly claim that is easy disproven by mountains of studies and research.

But what would I know, I'm not a physicist?
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
We have a plethora of studies showing ergogenic benefits with reasonable/normal doses/use. Is there possibly some other benefit independent of achieving saturation that you can only get from massive daily doses? I can't rule that out 100% right now offhand, but given that we 100% know that significant ergogenic effects (and cognitive benefits, if you're a vegetarian/vegan) can be reliably achieved with normal doses, I don't see a need to go up to massive doses, particularly with the added cost (25g from 3-5g) and the potential upset stomach you may get from dosing so high.

Either way, his entire article was written about how to achieve optimal saturation, and his starting assumptions were incorrect. Even if there are other benefits of higher doses independent of saturation, it's the claim that high doses are needed to achieve saturation that I was saying is incorrect. You in no way need to use 27.3g/day indefinitely to achieve and maintain saturation. That's a silly claim that is easy disprove by mountains of studies and research.

But what would I know, I'm not a physicist?
Yeah - you definitely destroyed the article, I agree there. But I was just wondering if, based on the bro-bservations about larger doses if it might have something else going on, other than placebo. I kind of doubt it, but just trying to find some angle.

And...now that you mention it - what the heck are you anyways if you're not a physicist?

Now that I think of it, a lot of people who write nutrition-based articles do seem to be a type of physicist.... well, they're moonshots at least.
 
Punkrocker

Punkrocker

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
So yeah, besides captain knoweverything destroying the dosing protocol, has anyone ever noticed an increase in libido from taking creatine as crazy as that sounds?
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Yeah - you definitely destroyed the article, I agree there. But I was just wondering if, based on the bro-bservations about larger doses if it might have something else going on, other than placebo. I kind of doubt it, but just trying to find some angle.

And...now that you mention it - what the heck are you anyways if you're not a physicist?

Now that I think of it, a lot of people who write nutrition-based articles do seem to be a type of physicist.... well, they're moonshots at least.
I'm studying civil engineering, so I have taken some (many) physics-related courses, but I'm admittedly no physicist haha.
 
WesleyInman

WesleyInman

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
25 grams LOL. Insane.

Even when I started using and selling creatine in 1996, Bill Phillips and Phosphagen HP were only even pushing frontloading at 10g ED.

Get yourself some creatine HCL. Run this at 3grams per day, even on off days. Less water retention, better overall results from a salt ester imo. You will hear people say there is no difference. I strongly agree. This is also more bio-available and therefore requires less dose and has higher absorption. Stuff is A++. One of the only natural products I used religiously in my competition career alongside thousands of milligrams of test per week LOL.

Try this out-
http://stores.gymntonic.com/creatine-hcl-100grams-by-raw-dynamix/
 
Punkrocker

Punkrocker

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
25 grams LOL. Insane.

Even when I started using and selling creatine in 1996, Bill Phillips and Phosphagen HP were only even pushing frontloading at 10g ED.

Get yourself some creatine HCL. Run this at 3grams per day, even on off days. Less water retention, better overall results from a salt ester imo. You will hear people say there is no difference. I strongly agree. This is also more bio-available and therefore requires less dose and has higher absorption. Stuff is A++. One of the only natural products I used religiously in my competition career alongside thousands of milligrams of test per week LOL.

Try this out-
http://stores.gymntonic.com/creatine-hcl-100grams-by-raw-dynamix/
Gotta rake in that commission!!!
 
WesleyInman

WesleyInman

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Gotta rake in that commission!!!
Did you look at the price of creatine HCL?

It's $12.99 cents. You cannot even be serious right now?
 
WesleyInman

WesleyInman

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
I'll stick with my trusty monohydrate thanks
That's fine but honestly don't be a dick about it man.

This is why guys like me here, who have competed 20+ years don't reach out to help.

Because of responses like yours.

In fact, yeah. I'm done helping here.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
25 grams LOL. Insane.

Even when I started using and selling creatine in 1996, Bill Phillips and Phosphagen HP were only even pushing frontloading at 10g ED.

Get yourself some creatine HCL. Run this at 3grams per day, even on off days. Less water retention, better overall results from a salt ester imo. You will hear people say there is no difference. I strongly agree. This is also more bio-available and therefore requires less dose and has higher absorption. Stuff is A++. One of the only natural products I used religiously in my competition career alongside thousands of milligrams of test per week LOL.

Try this out-
http://stores.gymntonic.com/creatine-hcl-100grams-by-raw-dynamix/
Even if it is more bioavailable and requires a lower dose, all that would mean is that it may minimize any potential adverse effects (like stomach upset at higher doses). I fail to see how you can achieve greater results (ergogenic effects) than what is achieved from reaching optimal saturation. With that in mind, the logical conclusion is that if you tolerate creatine monohydrate well (no bloating or upset stomach, etc), there's really no reason to switch to a different form. The real benefit would be for people who don't tolerate creatine monohydrate well.
 
WesleyInman

WesleyInman

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Even if it is more bioavailable and requires a lower dose, all that would mean is that it may minimize any potential adverse effects (like stomach upset at higher doses). I fail to see how you can achieve greater results (ergogenic effects) than what is achieved from reaching optimal saturation. With that in mind, the logical conclusion is that if you tolerate creatine monohydrate well (no bloating or upset stomach, etc), there's really no reason to switch to a different form. The real benefit would be for people who don't tolerate creatine monohydrate well.
Great post. Definitely possible.

I see much better feedback from HCL then from mono. 3g of HCL always gets better feedback then 5 of mono.

I've seen it over hundreds of clients over the years. Granted this is not a study and relies on personal communication. But in my experiences, this should not be disregarded.

I can learn alot by my clients. Also in myself, I swear by HCL over mono. I used mono from 1996 until probably 2012? Exclusively. I still like mono, but mono gives me leg cramps and I bloat.

Even for me HCL just performs better. I feel stronger and with more endurance on it and I never retain water.

It does taste worse, but that is it.

But hey, I am all for people sticking to what they like best. I simply shared this for some of the guys here to consider. It's never a bad thing to experience a new option and see how you respond IMO.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Great post. Definitely possible.

I see much better feedback from HCL then from mono. 3g of HCL always gets better feedback then 5 of mono.

I've seen it over hundreds of clients over the years. Granted this is not a study and relies on personal communication. But in my experiences, this should not be disregarded.

I can learn alot by my clients. Also in myself, I swear by HCL over mono. I used mono from 1996 until probably 2012? Exclusively. I still like mono, but mono gives me leg cramps and I bloat.

Even for me HCL just performs better. I feel stronger and with more endurance on it and I never retain water.

It does taste worse, but that is it.

But hey, I am all for people sticking to what they like best. I simply shared this for some of the guys here to consider. It's never a bad thing to experience a new option and see how you respond IMO.
Yeah, if you don't respond well to monohydrate, then you feeling better and less bloated using a different form makes it better for you. My point was that the research suggests that it's incorrect to say that HCL is "more effective" than monohydate in the absolute sense, as in the way citrulline is more effective than arginine (maximal efficacy and ergogenic effect). If someone has any negatives with monohydrate, then it may be worth trying a different form, but for people who monohydrate treats well, I see no reason to switch.

But yeah, people are always welcome to share their experiences and make possible suggestions, as long as the suggestion isn't CEE haha.
 

kelvarnsen

Member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
25g, 50g, take 100g if you want, all that excess is just going to be pissed out in your urine.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer

BlockBuilder

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I stopped reading at the Creatine pic with a guy who’s clearly on grams of anabolic steroids. Seriously though, in the article it even states this is a hypothesis of what MIGHT be better than the normal creatine dosing protocol. I could not handle that much creatine. I’d spend all day on the toilet. Pros wouldn’t outweigh the cons.
 

ironkill

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
What a d bag. Don't ask questions and then respond like an a hole when you don't like the answers. Don't waste your time guys
 
jameschoi

jameschoi

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Does anyone take creatine before and after your workout.
 
rugger48

rugger48

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
So let me understand this, you have used anabolics, but can’t figure out how to to use creatine?

Really?
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Here we go again. Cue hair loss discussion.
Haha - I didn't even realize that would be a thing. So creatine will make you go bald and die from renal failure. The stuff should be banned, hahahaha.

It's only interesting because he is asking specifically about creatine/libido. Insufficient DHT will reduce libido - so if he has low DHT and takes a bunch of creatine, in theory, it may improve his libido. Still....the possibility of placebo is strong.
 
Punkrocker

Punkrocker

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Haha - I didn't even realize that would be a thing. So creatine will make you go bald and die from renal failure. The stuff should be banned, hahahaha.

It's only interesting because he is asking specifically about creatine/libido. Insufficient DHT will reduce libido - so if he has low DHT and takes a bunch of creatine, in theory, it may improve his libido. Still....the possibility of placebo is strong.
Finally a decent response
 
Punkrocker

Punkrocker

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
And the only reason I was responding to the other guy like an a$$hole was because he was being a pretentious douche about it. No one likes a know it all, even when they are right. :)
 

franks009

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Does anyone take creatine before and after your workout.
I take 5gs pre and 5gs post. Tbh i feel and stay more "saturated" than 5gs per day. I used only 5gs per day before and i see a difference. I dont care how accurate a study is, you cant relate it to every different body out there.
 

franks009

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Not just with creatine but any supp you can use a study or peoples experience to get a reference on where to start and just adjust your amount accordingly on what works for you because everyone is different. Its just like a diet. Someone can absorb fat better than carbs so you cant base any specific diet for everyone because it simply wont work for everyone
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
So let me understand this, you have used anabolics, but can’t figure out how to to use creatine?

Really?
He only follows the advice of physicists. Stephen Hawking's bulking routine coming soon!
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
He only follows the advice of physicists. Stephen Hawking's bulking routine coming soon!
Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have made the incorrect starting assumption that “baseline” muscle creatine saturation is 0%, which is why his calculations gave him such high needed doses to reach saturation; you’re really starting at 60-80% saturation, not 0%.
 
Aleksandar37

Aleksandar37

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have made the incorrect starting assumption that “baseline” muscle creatine saturation is 0%, which is why his calculations gave him such high needed doses to reach saturation; you’re really starting at 60-80% saturation, not 0%.
well look at Mr. know it all with his logic and facts based in reality lol ;)
 
MySTeek

MySTeek

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
So yeah, besides captain knoweverything destroying the dosing protocol, has anyone ever noticed an increase in libido from taking creatine as crazy as that sounds?
Your libido increase could have something to do with your rebounding from DMZ.

I wish I was able to take creatine. Its a wonderful supp but it revs my asthma up something awful.
My body reacts great to it, but my lungs hate me for it.
You ever mess around with cordyceps?
 

Jstrong20

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Stupid article is stupid. There are a plethora of studies that show that saturation can be achieved with ~3-5g/day, it just may take a little longer than if you loaded at 20-25g/day. Plenty of studies have shown benefits using 5g/day with no loading period. He’s probably trying to sell more creatine lol.
I'm aware of the studies but I also notice better results with more. Stuffs so cheap that even if it's just in my head it's not like I'm going to break the bank by triple dosing. lol
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I'm aware of the studies but I also notice better results with more. Stuffs so cheap that even if it's just in my head it's not like I'm going to break the bank by triple dosing. lol
27.3g/day indefinitely, as the article recommends, is insane. That's not triple dosing, that's more than quintuple dosing haha. >25g/day is just asking for an upset stomach really. You do you; if you think more works better, then by all means, use more, but it's silly (incorrect) to write an entire "scientific" article saying why you "need" >25g/day to achieve saturation. The article is 100% inaccurate, and is based on incorrect assumptions. I didn't mean to say it's stupid to take more than 5g/day creatine (it's not necessary, but it's safe and cheap enough), just that the article was stupid.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I'm not even going to mention all the hair loss and kidney failure from 25 g/d
 

Similar threads


Top