Creatine
Options
Replies
-
surgromanyukha wrote: »Let me clarify what I meant by the meathead thing. I was referring to these big dudes, the backwards hat wearing lugs to whom it seems education is important but big biceps are importanter. You all know who I’m talking about.
Still painting with a broad brush, I see. So...where was that link to the youtube video that made you think creatine supplements were extremely toxic?4 -
surgromanyukha wrote: »@jessef593 yes, I realize creatine is naturally occurring in some foods. But the powdered *kitten* in the jar sitting on your kitchen counter was probably created in a lab. See, my personal standards of “natural” probably differ from most people’s idea of “natural.” By my standards if you consume nothing apart from food and drink then you are 100% “natty.” Any powders, pills, etc to me disqualifies someone as natural because that *kitten* is being produced in a lab. I really don’t care if creatine is found naturally in certain foods if the creatine you absorbed wasn’t from the steak you ate.
For the longest time I was hesitant to even start consuming whey, but now I do. So I consider myself only mostly “natty” but not 100%. Like I said - my personal standards of what “natty” is are probably stricter than other people’s standards.
This might be the dumbest thing I've read on this website, and I was once involved in a 50+ page Dr Oz thread. By your logic, someone eating something made with wheat flour isn't "natty" because, after all, that's a powder.8 -
rckeeper22 wrote: »So . . . in the interest of not creating a new thread on creatine, this does make me curious:
- As a fairly active female, lifting and running 3x week (with some lighter endurance/circuit-based 'recovery' activities 2x/week), if my goal is to get stronger - is creatine something I should look into? What are potential down-sides to taking it?
It can add a small benefit to your lifting by allowing you to lift a bit more in terms of reps according to the research. It has no real effect on longer duration exercises like running, biking etc. It has generally found to produce a small, but consistent increase in muscle gains. So the question is, are you interested in gaining a bit more muscle for the money you will have to pay?
It does cause a bit of water retention in the muscle, making them appear a little fuller, which many like, and the monohydrate has been known to cause some people bloating.
1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »rckeeper22 wrote: »So . . . in the interest of not creating a new thread on creatine, this does make me curious:
- As a fairly active female, lifting and running 3x week (with some lighter endurance/circuit-based 'recovery' activities 2x/week), if my goal is to get stronger - is creatine something I should look into? What are potential down-sides to taking it?
It can add a small benefit to your lifting by allowing you to lift a bit more in terms of reps according to the research. It has no real effect on longer duration exercises like running, biking etc. It has generally found to produce a small, but consistent increase in muscle gains. So the question is, are you interested in gaining a bit more muscle for the money you will have to pay?
It does cause a bit of water retention in the muscle, making them appear a little fuller, which many like, and the monohydrate has been known to cause some people bloating.
...and it's worth mentioning that a significant percentage of people are non-responders, for one reason or another.
I took creatine for around 6 months and noticed absolutely no changes in my workouts, mass gains, muscle fullness, bloating.....nothing. I stopped taking it a month or two ago and have noticed no changes in the opposite direction.
Doesn't hurt to try it though, it's pretty inexpensive and won't harm you. But the effectiveness is kind of a YMMV thing.
Not discounting the research at all, I've read it myself, it's sound and I don't disbelieve it - just saying the results aren't a universal thing.5 -
surgromanyukha wrote: »Let me clarify what I meant by the meathead thing. I was referring to these big dudes, the backwards hat wearing lugs to whom it seems education is important but big biceps are importanter. You all know who I’m talking about.
I’d be curious to see this “natty” progress you’ve made over the last 3-4 years I think you said it was?
I’ve been lifting for 3 years. Occasionally supplementing with creatine. All the while getting regular blood tests, physicals, and all that good *kitten*. At no time were any irregularities noted. All the while the heaviest I’ve ever reached was 186lbs, not exactly a lug or meathead as you put it. So why exactly haven’t I blown up to an Olympian sized physique considering that I am no longer “natural”? I would like to know you’re reasoning on this.
Also some of these backwards hat wearing guys are some of the nicest most respectful, intelligent, and even modest people I have met. You’d know that if you ever spoken with them rather than silently judging them from your smith machine in the corner. Maybe one of these days you should grow a pair and say some of these opinions of yours straight to their faces. Wouldn’t that be something, we’ll see just how far your superb natural physique and righteous opinions get you.
6 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »rckeeper22 wrote: »So . . . in the interest of not creating a new thread on creatine, this does make me curious:
- As a fairly active female, lifting and running 3x week (with some lighter endurance/circuit-based 'recovery' activities 2x/week), if my goal is to get stronger - is creatine something I should look into? What are potential down-sides to taking it?
It can add a small benefit to your lifting by allowing you to lift a bit more in terms of reps according to the research. It has no real effect on longer duration exercises like running, biking etc. It has generally found to produce a small, but consistent increase in muscle gains. So the question is, are you interested in gaining a bit more muscle for the money you will have to pay?
It does cause a bit of water retention in the muscle, making them appear a little fuller, which many like, and the monohydrate has been known to cause some people bloating.
...and it's worth mentioning that a significant percentage of people are non-responders, for one reason or another.
I took creatine for around 6 months and noticed absolutely no changes in my workouts, mass gains, muscle fullness, bloating.....nothing. I stopped taking it a month or two ago and have noticed no changes in the opposite direction.
Doesn't hurt to try it though, it's pretty inexpensive and won't harm you. But the effectiveness is kind of a YMMV thing.
Not discounting the research at all, I've read it myself, it's sound and I don't disbelieve it - just saying the results aren't a universal thing.
Gotcha, I really appreciate the info. So if I'm understanding correctly: The potential upside of creatine is that it may lead to minor strength gains, and 'plump out' the muscles so they're more aesthetically pleasing (in terms of appearing fuller). The downsides are that it may or may not work (meaning it could be a waste of money), and potentially some bloating. Is that accurate?
I'll have to give it some thought, and decide if the bang is worth the buck - though sounds like the downsides are pretty minor. I have heard before that creatine should be cycled, so that the body doesn't start relying on it and stop producing it naturally. Is that relevant or just bad gouge?
0 -
rckeeper22 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »rckeeper22 wrote: »So . . . in the interest of not creating a new thread on creatine, this does make me curious:
- As a fairly active female, lifting and running 3x week (with some lighter endurance/circuit-based 'recovery' activities 2x/week), if my goal is to get stronger - is creatine something I should look into? What are potential down-sides to taking it?
It can add a small benefit to your lifting by allowing you to lift a bit more in terms of reps according to the research. It has no real effect on longer duration exercises like running, biking etc. It has generally found to produce a small, but consistent increase in muscle gains. So the question is, are you interested in gaining a bit more muscle for the money you will have to pay?
It does cause a bit of water retention in the muscle, making them appear a little fuller, which many like, and the monohydrate has been known to cause some people bloating.
...and it's worth mentioning that a significant percentage of people are non-responders, for one reason or another.
I took creatine for around 6 months and noticed absolutely no changes in my workouts, mass gains, muscle fullness, bloating.....nothing. I stopped taking it a month or two ago and have noticed no changes in the opposite direction.
Doesn't hurt to try it though, it's pretty inexpensive and won't harm you. But the effectiveness is kind of a YMMV thing.
Not discounting the research at all, I've read it myself, it's sound and I don't disbelieve it - just saying the results aren't a universal thing.
Gotcha, I really appreciate the info. So if I'm understanding correctly: The potential upside of creatine is that it may lead to minor strength gains, and 'plump out' the muscles so they're more aesthetically pleasing (in terms of appearing fuller). The downsides are that it may or may not work (meaning it could be a waste of money), and potentially some bloating. Is that accurate?
I'll have to give it some thought, and decide if the bang is worth the buck - though sounds like the downsides are pretty minor. I have heard before that creatine should be cycled, so that the body doesn't start relying on it and stop producing it naturally. Is that relevant or just bad gouge?
No benefit to cycling. it's not steroids. it's a nutrient/mineral1 -
surgromanyukha wrote: »education is important but big biceps are importanter. You all know who I’m talking about.
The dedication, commitment, sacrifice and knowledge of your body and how nutrition works required to become a ripped "meathead" is beyond most people ... If it wasn't we would all be 10% fat and 218lbs
Even if they are not natural, you don't just stick a needle in you and bulk up ... you still need to put in the work, eat the right food, be dedicated, sacrifice your social life .. and learn about cycling and support so you don't screw your self up
I know its beyond my mental capacity
1 -
rckeeper22 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »rckeeper22 wrote: »So . . . in the interest of not creating a new thread on creatine, this does make me curious:
- As a fairly active female, lifting and running 3x week (with some lighter endurance/circuit-based 'recovery' activities 2x/week), if my goal is to get stronger - is creatine something I should look into? What are potential down-sides to taking it?
It can add a small benefit to your lifting by allowing you to lift a bit more in terms of reps according to the research. It has no real effect on longer duration exercises like running, biking etc. It has generally found to produce a small, but consistent increase in muscle gains. So the question is, are you interested in gaining a bit more muscle for the money you will have to pay?
It does cause a bit of water retention in the muscle, making them appear a little fuller, which many like, and the monohydrate has been known to cause some people bloating.
...and it's worth mentioning that a significant percentage of people are non-responders, for one reason or another.
I took creatine for around 6 months and noticed absolutely no changes in my workouts, mass gains, muscle fullness, bloating.....nothing. I stopped taking it a month or two ago and have noticed no changes in the opposite direction.
Doesn't hurt to try it though, it's pretty inexpensive and won't harm you. But the effectiveness is kind of a YMMV thing.
Not discounting the research at all, I've read it myself, it's sound and I don't disbelieve it - just saying the results aren't a universal thing.
Gotcha, I really appreciate the info. So if I'm understanding correctly: The potential upside of creatine is that it may lead to minor strength gains, and 'plump out' the muscles so they're more aesthetically pleasing (in terms of appearing fuller). The downsides are that it may or may not work (meaning it could be a waste of money), and potentially some bloating. Is that accurate?
I'll have to give it some thought, and decide if the bang is worth the buck - though sounds like the downsides are pretty minor. I have heard before that creatine should be cycled, so that the body doesn't start relying on it and stop producing it naturally. Is that relevant or just bad gouge?
Pretty much.
You don't have to cycle it.
My personal results included trying to balance the water gain with wanting to be light for distance running. I gained about 3-4 lbs, but I definitely was able to kick out a few extra reps during my strength training sessions. Those gains "outweighed" the water weight. I had no digestive issues from it and it's super cheap.
I think the research says 20-25% of people are non responders.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions