Creatine

[newbee2022]

Just now, Sheryl said:

For those who consume sufficient animal protein relative to their metaboluc needs  there is obviously  usually no need to supplement creatine  or amino acids  etc. 

 

However for vegetarians  it can be a good idea. 

 

The elderly are another group of concern as it is now known that protein needs increase in old age while overall caloric needs (and, often, food intake) decreases. 

 

Personally, being both elderly and a vegetarian (and having osteopenia)  I think it wise to take it in modest dosage. 

 

Many hody builders seem to find it useful as well. 

 

Certainly this is not something most people need to supplement but to suggest it cannot benefit anyone is going too far. 

Thank you that you confirm what I posted already.

Now hopefully everybody here will believe it. 🙏 😂

[BigStar]

21 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

There are no respectable studies at all. 

 

So then, as suspected, you don't follow the science at all, but merely your own little authoritative Opinions, calling those "science."

 

Now Sheryl's article is published here:

 

Rawson, E.S., Venezia, A.C. Use of creatine in the elderly and evidence for effects on cognitive function in young and old. Amino Acids 40, 1349–1362 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00726-011-0855-9

 

and

 

Amino Acids is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research related to the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, and toxicology of amino acids and related compounds.

 

The editors and board members are listed here:

 

https://link.springer.com/journal/726/editors

 

And they all look very qualified indeed, though perhaps not up to your own professional qualifications as yet unknown.

 

So you might explain why this study isn't in fact a respectable study.

 

I could quote some possible explanations as to why supplemental creatine (MORE than just dietary creatine) may be effective, but you may follow your opinion. 🙂

 

To reference one more, a controlled study published in a peer-reviewed journal:

 

McMorris, T., Mielcarz, G., Harris, R. C., Swain, J. P., & Howard, A. (2007). Creatine Supplementation and Cognitive Performance in Elderly Individuals. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 14(5), 517–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825580600788100

 

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of creatine supplementation on the cognitive performance of elderly people. . . . Results showed a significant effect of creatine supplementation on all tasks except backward number recall. It was concluded that creatine supplementation aids cognition in the elderly.

 

So again it would be enlightening to know why this also wasn't a respectable study--except that you KNOW.

 

I won't mention the rat studies. Rats ain't humans!

 

We go back to Sheryl's original and quite accurate point:

 

On 4/15/2024 at 9:25 PM, Sheryl said:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21394604/

 

There is some evidence that creatine supplementation is helpful in the elderly

 

So I think the science suggests it's not a bad idea for the elderly to supplement. Can't hurt, anyway.

 

 

[newbee2022]

31 minutes ago, BigStar said:

 

So then, as suspected, you don't follow the science at all, but merely your own little authoritative Opinions, calling those "science."

 

Now Sheryl's article is published here:

 

Rawson, E.S., Venezia, A.C. Use of creatine in the elderly and evidence for effects on cognitive function in young and old. Amino Acids 40, 1349–1362 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00726-011-0855-9

 

and

 

Amino Acids is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research related to the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, and toxicology of amino acids and related compounds.

 

The editors and board members are listed here:

 

https://link.springer.com/journal/726/editors

 

And they all look very qualified indeed, though perhaps not up to your own professional qualifications as yet unknown.

 

So you might explain why this study isn't in fact a respectable study.

 

I could quote some possible explanations as to why supplemental creatine (MORE than just dietary creatine) may be effective, but you may follow your opinion. 🙂

 

To reference one more, a controlled study published in a peer-reviewed journal:

 

McMorris, T., Mielcarz, G., Harris, R. C., Swain, J. P., & Howard, A. (2007). Creatine Supplementation and Cognitive Performance in Elderly Individuals. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 14(5), 517–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825580600788100

 

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of creatine supplementation on the cognitive performance of elderly people. . . . Results showed a significant effect of creatine supplementation on all tasks except backward number recall. It was concluded that creatine supplementation aids cognition in the elderly.

 

So again it would be enlightening to know why this also wasn't a respectable study--except that you KNOW.

 

I won't mention the rat studies. Rats ain't humans!

 

We go back to Sheryl's original and quite accurate point:

 

 

So I think the science suggests it's not a bad idea for the elderly to supplement. Can't hurt, anyway.

 

 

Thank you for outdated stuff. I'm not interested. Keep it for yourself😂😂😂

[BigStar]

11 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Thank you for outdated stuff. I'm not interested. Keep it for yourself😂😂😂

 

But you haven't explained why they aren't respectable and are in fact now invalid. Why not? We've had your latest authoritative opinion, but not the supposed science it's based on. Why's that?  😂😂😂 Too modest?

[BigStar]

22 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

Now hopefully everybody here will believe it. 🙏 😂

 

Nobody said, or believed, that creatine supplements are necessary. That wasn't the issue, just your strawman.

 

[Sheryl]

Bickering/flaming posts have been removed. Please keep it civil and constructive.

[Carlotta]

Hello George, I'm sorry I couldn't reply sooner. I was busy at the orphanage over Songkran. I have attached a few studies. Find out for yourself what applies to you. The data varies. But I didn't want to offer you very old studies, as others do, but more recent results. As you said, you have had good experiences with creatine. Then it does work. Whether as a placebo or a chemical-physiological effect is irrelevant, isn't it? Even if it doesn't work for you, that doesn't mean it's bad, as Big Star (with Big Ego) would insinuate. Nobody here has sovereignty of opinion over individual topics. Everyone can express themselves freely, even with nonsense. There are always new dietary supplements and every year there is a new hype, or another pig is chased through the village. Maybe Quercetin or Fisetin? Who knows? You can always ask me.

1. https://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/creatine

2. https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-021-00412-w

3. https://www.essex.ac.uk/blog/posts/2023/01/19/creatine-supplements-what-the-research-says-about-how-they-can-help-you-get-in-shape

4. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-023-01870-9

5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8949037/

[BigStar]

2 hours ago, Carlotta said:

Even if it doesn't work for you, that doesn't mean it's bad, as Big Star (with Big Ego) would insinuate.

 

 

If it don't work, it don't work. However, it would be impossible to verify if it really works (except as placebo), as you don't have a control--a clone of yourself who didn't take creatine.

 

And subtopic I addressed was Sheryl's point re: mental benefit for the elderly, not the possible physiological effects generally, notably in the young where it's most studied, and for exercise in particular. OP was asking specifically those who don't lift weights.

 

2 hours ago, Carlotta said:

 

1. https://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/creatine

2. https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-021-00412-w

3. https://www.essex.ac.uk/blog/posts/2023/01/19/creatine-supplements-what-the-research-says-about-how-they-can-help-you-get-in-shape

4. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-023-01870-9

5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8949037/

 

#2 references, and accepts the validity of, one of the "old" studies I referenced earlier. How strange. If you, on the other hand, disagree, then please do offer up the contrary evidence. I keep asking for this w/o response. Wonder why that is.

 

 

[Rimmer]

A personal attack has been removed