The creatine article on this site

H

Hansson

New Member
I'm somewhat disturbed by the creatine article on this site... :)

The result in it says that those who took creatine gained considerable weight. That is not surprising of course as the water retention goes up when on creatine. But if the article wasn't just an advertisement, the results should of course have been drawn say three weeks after the creatine cycle, when the extra water left the body! To use the results from the last week on creatine doesn't say anything about the lasting results of the cycle.

Am I missing something? I hope I don't come off as rude or disrespectful - in that case, it's my English skills that's lacking... I'm just curious about the lasting effects of creatine as the most common argument against it's effectiveness is that the effects dissappear (weight and strength gains) after you stop using it.
 
I Dont understand what you are talking about. The only creatine 'article' on this site that I can find is basically a reference in one of the HST reports.
it shows FFM was higher at 12 weeks compared to placebo.
Nothing about 3 weeks. Creatine will cause an increase in cellular hydration, this increase will stay until cellular creatine levels return to where they were prior to supplementation. This takes somewhat around 30days without supplementation to achieve.
The muscle that you grow while taking creatine will stay.
 
I don't know how you read my post. You seem to totally missed my point or else you're just plain... aggressive.

Why article in citation marks? Would you call it something else?

"Nothing about three weeks". No, three weeks (or four weeks according to what you write) after the cycle if finished is when I thought it would be interesting to know the results. Wasn't that clear from what I wrote? I guess most people that use a certain supplement is interested in the permanent gains in muscle and strength - not how much they weigh in the last week of the cycle when they are carrying an excessive amount of water.

You say that muscled gained while on creatine will stay like if it was hard fact. A lot of people say differently (as for example, on Cyberpump or Hardgainer) with the argument that as your strength goes back the muscle will adapt back (adapt is not the optimal word but I can't find a better one right now - if you want to, you'll know what I mean).

I don't know if I made my point clearer as I think it was quite clear from the original post. I don't think I can explain it more than this anyway.
 
Hansson

I have seen two general views on this.

One view is that people's gain from creatine is "one" shot deal. The strength gain jumps, and then it vanishes (when the water goes away).

The second view is that not only does creatine cause temporary water weight retention (and thus accompanything strength gain), but once it goes inside the muscle, it speeds up muscle recovery and aids in hypertrophy.

From my experience, I believe that it does help in the long run. The first time I used creatine, I noticed gradual increase in strength. The second time I used it, I got a very _cheap_ brand, and I didn't notice anything.
 
I guess I didnt understand what you were talking about, mainly because its well known what happens after a cycle, the water weight reduces.
However, creatine increases muscle size (through hypohydration but also increases in myosin heavy chain etc), changes in muscle morphology (increases in certain fibre type), increases strength, and some endurance, which all helps.
Everything except the water should last. But if you eat less, do less and all the other worst effects, of course it will not last. Its not like Hormonal supplements that increase muscle mass over and above the bodys ability to support it hormonally. Its just an aid to increase the speed at which you will reach your ceiling naturally.
Creatine is one of the FEW, quality ergogenic aids that has been shown time, and time again to provide positive effects.
A recent meta-analysis of interest
 
Thanks for the answers!
I personally believe creatine is one of the few supplements (except protein of course) that is worth taking. I haven't yet but will next year - that's why I'm curious about lasting gains. I've seen a figure floating around lately saying about 80% respond to the creatine nad about 20% don't. I just hope I'm in the former group.
I'm a little surprised about the results for HMB in the meta-analysis as the 'anecdotal evidence' on the net seems to say it's almost worthless. Well, well.
 
HMB has its place, but it doesnt 'feel like deca' :D

Its useful for periods of overloading and the like, Bryan likes it, but I personally feel its too expensive to make it worthwhile.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Hansson @ Dec. 18 2002,3:40)]I'm a little surprised about the results for HMB in the meta-analysis as the 'anecdotal evidence' on the net seems to say it's almost worthless. Well, well.
Click to expand...
Steve Nissen, who did the Meta analysis, makes bucks off HMB sales. That's why he pushes it so hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top