Tier 2 — strong

Common questions and misconceptions about creatine supplementation: what does the scientific evidence really show?

Jose Antonio, Darren G Candow, Scott C Forbes, Bruno Gualano, Andrew R Jagim, Richard B Kreider, Eric S Rawson, Abbie E Smith-Ryan, Trisha A VanDusseldorp, Darryn S Willoughby, Tim N Ziegenfuss
J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2021 18(1):13

Bibliography

PubMed
PMID 33557850
PubMed Central
PMC7871530
Funding
Funding: not applicable.
Competing interests
Multiple authors disclosed creatine-related industry research, donations, sponsorship, advisory-board roles, consulting, speaking support or ISSN leadership; the full paper contains the author-by-author declarations.

Study snapshot

DesignEvidence-based narrative review
ModelHuman
SampleReview of common creatine safety and efficacy questions
InterventionCreatine monohydrate evidence
DurationNot applicable
EndpointsWater retention; Steroid misconception; Kidney safety; Hair loss; Dehydration; Cramping; Youth; Fat mass

What the study showed, in plain terms

Widely cited evidence review addressing consumer myths and recurring safety claims about creatine.

Key findings

The review concludes that recommended creatine monohydrate dosing is generally well tolerated and that several common claims—such as creatine being an anabolic steroid or routinely causing dehydration and kidney dysfunction in healthy people—are not supported by the evidence reviewed.

What this study can and cannot tell us

Narrative expert review rather than a new meta-analysis; several authors are prominent creatine researchers with industry-related research relationships that should be considered when appraising conclusions.

Citation network

Articles citing this research paper

12 articles

Biohack Blueprint analyses that reference this study in their evidence base.

Editorial review

Reviewed by the Biohack Blueprint research team

Last verified