Tier 3 — preclinical

Creatine monohydrate supplementation for recovery from muscle disuse: Timing matters

Jeffrey R Stout, Patrick S Pabian
Sports Med Health Sci 2026 8(5):495-500

Bibliography

PubMed
PMID 42539704
PubMed Central
PMC13424173
Funding
No explicit funding statement was located in the accessible PubMed or publisher records during Biohack Blueprint's 2026-10-02 audit. This is an audit-status statement, not confirmation that the study received no funding.
Competing interests
Jeffrey R. Stout reported long-term dietary-supplement-industry funding and serves as an unpaid scientific advisor for AlzChem Inc.; Patrick S. Pabian declared no known competing financial interests or personal relationships.

Study snapshot

DesignNarrative mini-review
ModelHuman evidence review
SampleNarrative synthesis of human studies
InterventionCreatine monohydrate during immobilization, reloading and rehabilitation contexts
DurationVaried by included study
EndpointsMuscle cross-sectional area; Strength; Power; Functional recovery; Rehabilitation outcomes

What the study showed, in plain terms

Review separating creatine use during strict muscle unloading from creatine use during active rehabilitation and reloading.

Key findings

Creatine does not consistently preserve muscle size or strength during strict unloading, while evidence is more favorable when supplementation accompanies progressive resistance-based rehabilitation.

What this study can and cannot tell us

Narrative rather than systematic quantitative synthesis; rehabilitation populations and protocols are heterogeneous, and several disease-specific trials are null or mixed.

Citation network

Articles citing this research paper

2 articles

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

Editorial review

Reviewed by the Biohack Blueprint research team

Last verified