Turning back the clock on aging muscles.

[Ouabache]

This is some compelling new research...
"A study led by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, has identified critical biochemical pathways linked to the aging of human muscle. By manipulating these pathways, the researchers were able to turn back the clock on old human muscle, restoring its ability to repair and rebuild itself." http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-1/Scientists-discover-clues-to-what-makes-human-muscle-age-10175-1/"
"The research also found evidence that aging muscles need to be kept in shape, because long periods of atrophy are more challenging to overcome." http://www.livescience.com/health/090930-aging-muscles.html"

This research was led by scientists at http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/09/30_muscle.shtml" .
and recently published in the journal, http://www.embomolmed.org/details/journalArticle/368207/Molecular_aging_and_rejuvenation_of_human_muscle_stem_cells.html"

 

[Proton Soup]

yeah, getting old sucks. better get in the gym while you can and do your squats. immobility correlates with death.

as for repair and rebuild, we already have some things that help: http://jp.physoc.org/content/573/2/525.abstract

 

[berkeman]

Interesting link, Ouabache. Are they planning to bring something to market out of the research? I couldn't tell with a quick scan.

Proton -- I didn't know that about creatine. Do you use it as part of your workout/nutrition regimen? What kind, and how much?

 

[Proton Soup]

Proton -- I didn't know that about creatine. Do you use it as part of your workout/nutrition regimen? What kind, and how much?

oh, yeah, there's a ton of papers you can find on it at pubmed. i use 5g/day of creatine monohydrate. other varieties are simply hype because the old-fashion mono is dirt cheap.

and i keep meaning to check back and do some more research on this thread topic. there are a couple of other things that may be useful for older people. one is anti-inflammatories like ibuprofen. there was a study that showed taking an entire day's recommended dose in one bolus inhibited protein synthesis in muscle, but another showed that older men that took it ad lib. according to the bottle directions actually improved their strength performance. what i want to know is whether the reduced pain simply encourages more effort towards training, or if there is a link between inflammation and the formation of scar tissue in muscle that is mentioned in the article. another thing is vitamin D, which reduces falls in the elderly.

you may also want to look into fish oil if you're not already doing so. the number of things in the body that it makes better is just amazing.

 

[WhoWee]

oh, yeah, there's a ton of papers you can find on it at pubmed. i use 5g/day of creatine monohydrate. other varieties are simply hype because the old-fashion mono is dirt cheap.

and i keep meaning to check back and do some more research on this thread topic. there are a couple of other things that may be useful for older people. one is anti-inflammatories like ibuprofen. there was a study that showed taking an entire day's recommended dose in one bolus inhibited protein synthesis in muscle, but another showed that older men that took it ad lib. according to the bottle directions actually improved their strength performance. what i want to know is whether the reduced pain simply encourages more effort towards training, or if there is a link between inflammation and the formation of scar tissue in muscle that is mentioned in the article. another thing is vitamin D, which reduces falls in the elderly.

you may also want to look into fish oil if you're not already doing so. the number of things in the body that it makes better is just amazing.

Just a foot note on creatine.

Work your body to a stall point - that is you hit a plateau where strength increases stop or slow. The conditioned body will respond very well to a short term creatine program along with heavy weight training. It is not intended or recommended for continuous use.

 

[Proton Soup]

Just a foot note on creatine.

Work your body to a stall point - that is you hit a plateau where strength increases stop or slow. The conditioned body will respond very well to a short term creatine program along with heavy weight training. It is not intended or recommended for continuous use.

why do you think that? and how long does it take you to hit a stall point?

 

[WhoWee]

why do you think that? and how long does it take you to hit a stall point?

I'm not saying that creatine won't provide a benefit to anyone who gives it a try.

What I am saying is if you are someone who trains a great deal - eventually you will hit a plateau. This is a "stall point" in your development. Often, you'll struggle to maintain the same resistance weight or possibly the number of reps or sets. Some people argue exhaustion/lack of rest and others argue lack of proper nutrition, either way, it does happen.

This is when creatine really seems to help - in the short term. I've witnessed several cases where creatine was effective.

I personally went through this when I competed in the discus. I didn't like to lift weights and focused on my form, balance, and agility. Accordingly, I focused my weight training on low reps and sets with the heaviest weights possible. My bench press quickly jumped from 300#'s to 325#'s in about a 9 week period, then it stayed at 325 for about 5 to 6 months and the sets and reps seemed harder and harder to complete. Looking back, I was very discouraged and nearly quit.

I tried a variety of amino acid supplements and vitamins and tried working different muscle groups and nothing helped. Finally, a strength coach talked me into trying creatine for a few weeks. After about a week I was back on track. Within 3 weeks I was at 350 (we stopped the creatine at that point) and I reached my 400# goal within another 4 to 5 months. From that point, I focused on extra reps and strength maintenance.

On a side note, my son is currently a high school football player and I won't let him try creatine. My logic is that he hasn't yet hit a legitimate plateau and he's growing like a weed. He doesn't need it and I don't know if it's safe for him at this point.

 

[Proton Soup]

yeah, i know all about plateaus. it took me two years to add about 25 lbs to my bench and 80 lbs to my deadlift. you didn't hit a plateau before because, as you say, you didn't like to do it and didn't take it seriously. wait til you're actually focusing on strength, not agility, and still can't make fast progress.

 

[Frame Dragger]

When it comes to creatine you're really trading in your muscles for your endocrine system. If that's acceptable to you (in light of the reasonable fashion you're talking about using it) so be it, but it's not harmless.

Of course, lots of things break weight-loss/gain/bulking plateaus and it can be VERY hard to tell what is the culprit. I would suggest you hold off on supplements until you run the full gamut with your standard diet. High protein, low protein, etc. If that doesn't work, then consider a kick-start as WhoWee is suggesting. I would listen to the guy who reaizes that giving this to his growing boy is a BAD idea... he's not blowing smoke.

 

[Proton Soup]

When it comes to creatine you're really trading in your muscles for your endocrine system.

what are you trying to say? creatine is not a hormone

 

[Frame Dragger]

what are you trying to say? creatine is not a hormone

No it's not, but Creatine is metabolized in the first pass by an enzyme produced by the kidneys, and in the second pass by the liver and pancreas. It's unclear just how the demand of supplementation effects this whole process, but as some people with metabolic disorders, poor kidneys/liver, or who otherwise challenge those organs are effected in the long run.

You can safely assume that, while it certainly may not be what kills you in the end, it's not doing anything for the specific lifespan of your kidney, liver, or pancreas. Muscles beyond the norm for age/size/etc..., or internal organs... did you think you could have it both ways? lol

 

[Proton Soup]

No it's not, but Creatine is metabolized in the first pass by an enzyme produced by the kidneys, and in the second pass by the liver and pancreas. It's unclear just how the demand of supplementation effects this whole process, but as some people with metabolic disorders, poor kidneys/liver, or who otherwise challenge those organs are effected in the long run.

You can safely assume that, while it certainly may not be what kills you in the end, it's not doing anything for the specific lifespan of your kidney, liver, or pancreas. Muscles beyond the norm for age/size/etc..., or internal organs... did you think you could have it both ways? lol

you have no idea what you are talking about.

Effect of Short-term High-Dose Creatine Supplementation on Measured GFR in a Young Man With a Single Kidney.
Gualano B, Ferreira DC, Sapienza MT, Seguro AC, Lancha AH Jr.
Am J Kidney Dis. 2010 Jan 7. [Epub ahead of print]

It currently is unknown whether creatine supplementation is safe for people with or at risk of kidney disease. We report on the short-term effects of creatine supplementation on kidney function in a young man with a single kidney and mildly decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR). A 20-year-old man who had undergone unilateral nephrectomy and presented with mildly decreased GFR without kidney damage underwent a trial with 35 days of creatine supplementation (20 g/d for 5 days followed by 5 g/d for the next 30 days) and had his kidney function monitored. After the intervention, (51)Cr-EDTA clearance (pre, 81.6 mL/min/1.73 m(2); post, 82.0 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), proteinuria (protein excretion: pre, 130 mg/d; post, 120 mg/d), and electrolyte levels were unchanged. Albuminuria, serum urea level, and estimated creatinine clearance were decreased (pre, 4.6 mg/d; post, 2.9 mg/d; pre, 37 mg/d; post, 28 mg/dL; and pre, 88 mL/min/1.73 m(2); post, 71 mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively), whereas serum creatinine level was slightly increased (pre, 1.03 mg/dL; post, 1.27 mg/dL), falsely suggesting kidney function impairment. This prospective report suggests that short-term creatine supplementation may not affect kidney function in an individual with a single kidney, mild decreased GFR, and ingesting a high-protein diet (ie, 2.8 g/kg/d). This finding has great relevance considering that creatine-induced kidney disease has been a growing concern, even for healthy people.
__________________

 

[Frame Dragger]

you have no idea what you are talking about.

Effect of Short-term High-Dose Creatine Supplementation on Measured GFR in a Young Man With a Single Kidney.
Gualano B, Ferreira DC, Sapienza MT, Seguro AC, Lancha AH Jr.
Am J Kidney Dis. 2010 Jan 7. [Epub ahead of print]

It currently is unknown whether creatine supplementation is safe for people with or at risk of kidney disease. We report on the short-term effects of creatine supplementation on kidney function in a young man with a single kidney and mildly decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR). A 20-year-old man who had undergone unilateral nephrectomy and presented with mildly decreased GFR without kidney damage underwent a trial with 35 days of creatine supplementation (20 g/d for 5 days followed by 5 g/d for the next 30 days) and had his kidney function monitored. After the intervention, (51)Cr-EDTA clearance (pre, 81.6 mL/min/1.73 m(2); post, 82.0 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), proteinuria (protein excretion: pre, 130 mg/d; post, 120 mg/d), and electrolyte levels were unchanged. Albuminuria, serum urea level, and estimated creatinine clearance were decreased (pre, 4.6 mg/d; post, 2.9 mg/d; pre, 37 mg/d; post, 28 mg/dL; and pre, 88 mL/min/1.73 m(2); post, 71 mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively), whereas serum creatinine level was slightly increased (pre, 1.03 mg/dL; post, 1.27 mg/dL), falsely suggesting kidney function impairment. This prospective report suggests that short-term creatine supplementation may not affect kidney function in an individual with a single kidney, mild decreased GFR, and ingesting a high-protein diet (ie, 2.8 g/kg/d). This finding has great relevance considering that creatine-induced kidney disease has been a growing concern, even for healthy people.
__________________

In short, you see that protein passes in the urine, returns to pre-supplementation levels upon withdrawel, but there is no indication as to potential damage. Especially with a single kidney, this is hardly surprising in a 20 year old man. You won't see risk factors as quickly as you would in an older man, and you're ALREADY going to find protein in his urine that may mask the results of using Creatine. You are in fact the one who is flying blind. Given the role of CPK in predicting renal failure: (John W. McBride; Kingsley R. Labrosse; Harry G. McCoy; David H. Ahrenholz; Lynn D. Solem; Irvin F. Goldenberg JAMA, Feb 1986; 255: 764 - 768.) and myocardial issues: (JAMA Thomas Q. Kong Jr; Charles J. Davidson; Sheridan N. Meyers; Jason T. Tauke; Michele A. Parker; Robert O. Bonow Prognostic Implication of Creatine Kinase Elevation Following Elective Coronary Artery Interventions as well as Arthur J. Siegel; Lawrence M. Silverman; William J. Evans
Elevated Skeletal Muscle Creatine Kinase MB Isoenzyme Levels in Marathon Runners) and several dozen others.

The role of Creatine supplementation isn't well understood, because most of the studies are concerned with secondary effects of Creatine metabolism such as hightened levels of the afformentioned CPK, and longitudinal studies are inconclusive. You're burning through a lot of ADP and that dumps a lot of metabolites that must be broken down further, and the Creatine requires the Enzymes I mentioned in my previous post. There are many issues that arise during the use of Creatine supplementation (originally studied for vegitarians actually, not knuckleheads ) including mild and transient proteinuria despite your example.

The issue isn't that you might be down a kidney for the purposes of filtration, but rather what the kidneys, liver, and pancreas need to produce by way of enzymes, and the resulting metabolites that are still an open question. Open Question vs. Questionable Bodybuilding... Hmmm which side of that health puzzle to fall on. Hmmmm...

 

[rhody]

This is some compelling new research...
"A study led by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, has identified critical biochemical pathways linked to the aging of human muscle. By manipulating these pathways, the researchers were able to turn back the clock on old human muscle, restoring its ability to repair and rebuild itself." http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-1/Scientists-discover-clues-to-what-makes-human-muscle-age-10175-1/"
"The research also found evidence that aging muscles need to be kept in shape, because long periods of atrophy are more challenging to overcome." http://www.livescience.com/health/090930-aging-muscles.html"

This research was led by scientists at http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/09/30_muscle.shtml" .
and recently published in the journal, http://www.embomolmed.org/details/journalArticle/368207/Molecular_aging_and_rejuvenation_of_human_muscle_stem_cells.html"

Dear Ouabache,

I read this on the news the other day:

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-jeffry-life18-2010jan18,0,187461.column"

He uses testosterone and human growth hormone since his mid 60's and sticks to a very rigorous exercise regime.

Quotes from his link:

Life's enthusiasm is undimmed by such skepticism. "The fact is that every male over 50 or 55 suffers from a slow, insidious fall in testosterone levels," he says. "You don't notice it for a long time until your 'T' levels cross a certain threshold. Then you suddenly find that you lose your enthusiasm, your sex drive and can't maintain muscle mass anymore -- even if you work out. It's even worse if your HGH levels are falling off the table. That's what happened to me."

Adult HGH levels decline by half from age 20 to 60, and the loss accelerates thereafter. Adult testosterone levels begin a steady fall-off by age 30 or 40 that continues throughout life, although symptoms may not show up for decades, if at all.

Noting that such declines are part of the natural aging process, many doctors are openly skeptical of the wisdom of replacing these hormones.

My personal approach to stay healthy is through sensible diet, vigorous exercise at the gym, hiking, bicycling, etc... get enough rest, and as best I can to manage the stress in life. It costs Dr Jeffry 1500 $ a month to get human growth hormone and testosterone injections, but he feels it is worth the risk, and so far at least, it appears to be working for him.

Rhody...

 

[Frame Dragger]

Dear Ouabache,

I read this on the news the other day:

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-jeffry-life18-2010jan18,0,187461.column"

He uses testosterone and human growth hormone since his mid 60's and sticks to a very rigorous exercise regime.

Quotes from his link:



My personal approach to stay healthy is through sensible diet, vigorous exercise at the gym, hiking, bicycling, etc... get enough rest, and as best I can to manage the stress in life. It costs Dr Jeffry 1500 $ a month to get human growth hormone and testosterone injections, but he feels it is worth the risk, and so far at least, it appears to be working for him.

Rhody...

Note that your approach to aging is likely to give you a longer, healthier life and as liver failure and/or cancer is always a painful way to go, probably a better death. Then again, some people want to live a certain way or not live at all. I simply wish these people were honest about that, lived by that, and didn't try to sell it as "healthy". It may be EFFECTIVE... but it's not going to make you HEALTHIER.

 

[Proton Soup]

seriously, you can stop with the trolling now. i know better. the test they do for heart damage measures a different form of creatine than what athletes use, and different than the kind of creatine you see released from skeletal muscle when it is damaged.

and there is a recent study about kidney damage in bodybuilders, but it is from steroid abuse.

In short, you see that protein passes in the urine, returns to pre-supplementation levels upon withdrawel, but there is no indication as to potential damage. Especially with a single kidney, this is hardly surprising in a 20 year old man. You won't see risk factors as quickly as you would in an older man, and you're ALREADY going to find protein in his urine that may mask the results of using Creatine. You are in fact the one who is flying blind. Given the role of CPK in predicting renal failure: (John W. McBride; Kingsley R. Labrosse; Harry G. McCoy; David H. Ahrenholz; Lynn D. Solem; Irvin F. Goldenberg JAMA, Feb 1986; 255: 764 - 768.) and myocardial issues: (JAMA Thomas Q. Kong Jr; Charles J. Davidson; Sheridan N. Meyers; Jason T. Tauke; Michele A. Parker; Robert O. Bonow Prognostic Implication of Creatine Kinase Elevation Following Elective Coronary Artery Interventions as well as Arthur J. Siegel; Lawrence M. Silverman; William J. Evans
Elevated Skeletal Muscle Creatine Kinase MB Isoenzyme Levels in Marathon Runners) and several dozen others.

The role of Creatine supplementation isn't well understood, because most of the studies are concerned with secondary effects of Creatine metabolism such as hightened levels of the afformentioned CPK, and longitudinal studies are inconclusive. You're burning through a lot of ADP and that dumps a lot of metabolites that must be broken down further, and the Creatine requires the Enzymes I mentioned in my previous post. There are many issues that arise during the use of Creatine supplementation (originally studied for vegitarians actually, not knuckleheads ) including mild and transient proteinuria despite your example.

The issue isn't that you might be down a kidney for the purposes of filtration, but rather what the kidneys, liver, and pancreas need to produce by way of enzymes, and the resulting metabolites that are still an open question. Open Question vs. Questionable Bodybuilding... Hmmm which side of that health puzzle to fall on. Hmmmm...

 

[Frame Dragger]

seriously, you can stop with the trolling now. i know better. the test they do for heart damage measures a different form of creatine than what athletes use, and different than the kind of creatine you see released from skeletal muscle when it is damaged.

and there is a recent study about kidney damage in bodybuilders, but it is from steroid abuse.

You don't seem to grasp the relationship between one form and another, and how one is produced as a result of the metabolic process. You don't seem to grasp the process that is set into motion from the kidneys, to the liver to the pancreas. That being the case, it's your life, just as it is with old men shooting up "T" and HGH. You get to find things out the hard way I suppose, just as most do. The majority of these studies outside of JAMA and The Lancet are funded exclusively by companies with an interest in pimping these supplements. The questions is: Does Creatine, which is of dubious value and possible harm, provide a worthwhile risk-benefit outcome? Well it certainly does if you're GMC, or a similar company.

 

[Proton Soup]

You don't seem to grasp the relationship between one form and another, and how one is produced as a result of the metabolic process. You don't seem to grasp the process that is set into motion from the kidneys, to the liver to the pancreas. That being the case, it's your life, just as it is with old men shooting up "T" and HGH. You get to find things out the hard way I suppose, just as most do. The majority of these studies outside of JAMA and The Lancet are funded exclusively by companies with an interest in pimping these supplements. The questions is: Does Creatine, which is of dubious value and possible harm, provide a worthwhile risk-benefit outcome? Well it certainly does if you're GMC, or a similar company.

look, "you don't get it man" is not an argument. when you have some proof, I'm all ears. but you haven't posted any, yet.

bye

 

[Frame Dragger]

look, "you don't get it man" is not an argument. when you have some proof, I'm all ears. but you haven't posted any, yet.

bye

There is no proof either way; a point I believe we BOTH started at. As for citations, I do have access to JAMA archives in the relevant areas, but I can't claim to care enough to bother. I suppose I will surrender the rhetorical ground in favour of not caring about your health, or that of others, along with a healthy dose of boredom. I'm not intersted in teaching you about the various metabolic pathways for ADP/ATP and how Creatine can be metabolized. You're the one taking the risk... best of luck to you. Let me know if you ever have a nasty bout of pancreatitis in your late 60's and be a dear hmmm?

 

[DanP]

Generally speaking, no "recreational athlete" has any real need for supplementation with creatine or any other supplements marketed today. Besides most of them being very expensive useless powders, most of the recreation althelthes are nowhere near the point where they can't progress or recover between application of training loads which do have a substantial training effect.

It's interesting but I see a tendency in gyms that weaklings who can barely squat 1xBW, instead of resorting to a common sense training program tailored for their ability to work / recover , they fill their shelves at home with expensive supplements, and expect those to solve their issues.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Generally speaking, no "recreational athlete" has any real need for supplementation with creatine or any other supplements marketed today. Besides most of them being very expensive useless powders, most of the recreation althelthes are nowhere near the point where they can't progress or recover between application of training loads which do have a substantial training effect.

It's interesting but I see a tendency in gyms that weaklings who can barely squat 1xBW, instead of resorting to a common sense training program tailored for their ability to work / recover , they fill their shelves at home with expensive supplements, and expect those to solve their issues.

That was very well said, and truer words have never been spoken. Bodybuilders accept that they're sacrificing some measure of their future (just as many other pro atheletes) for something extraordinary NOW. I choose not to judge that choice, but as you say... if you're just going the normal run of life and staying fit, there's no need to supplent with hormones like that 72 year old man in the article. Nor is there a need to supplement with protein that your body already creates in abundance and for which little proof of efficacy as supplementation exists.

Forget supplements or not... there is the argument that most people don't NEED a weight-training regimen. MOST people need cardio because they're overweight, and eat a terrible diet. Too often people just want to add things to their diet instead of addressing the basic issues first and foremost. Besides, while I can respect a guy who is utterly ripped, it's not necessarily the way we all should go through life. Healthy, strong, and flexible shouldn't require Creatine, or protein shakes, or even a damned Kashi bar. Just eat sensibly and do a LOT of cardio with some basic isometrics and freeweight (at home) or circuit (at a gym) training 3 or 4 times a week. If a TENTH of the (USA) population did that, we wouldn't be in such a mess. Billions are spent on bulking up in a nation that needs to LOSE the bulk and just get real.

That said, what I've said is personal opinion and not science related to Creatine. One might argue that it's also common sense, but I realize that the people here on the forum are likely in the rarer category that IS attempting to achieve something beyond the norm. That said, be reasonable and don't jam this **** down your throats until other far simpler options are exhausted. That IS common sense for anyone.

 

[Proton Soup]

That was very well said, and truer words have never been spoken. Bodybuilders accept that they're sacrificing some measure of their future (just as many other pro atheletes) for something extraordinary NOW. I choose not to judge that choice, but as you say... if you're just going the normal run of life and staying fit, there's no need to supplent with hormones like that 72 year old man in the article. Nor is there a need to supplement with protein that your body already creates in abundance and for which little proof of efficacy as supplementation exists.

Forget supplements or not... there is the argument that most people don't NEED a weight-training regimen. MOST people need cardio because they're overweight, and eat a terrible diet. Too often people just want to add things to their diet instead of addressing the basic issues first and foremost. Besides, while I can respect a guy who is utterly ripped, it's not necessarily the way we all should go through life. Healthy, strong, and flexible shouldn't require Creatine, or protein shakes, or even a damned Kashi bar. Just eat sensibly and do a LOT of cardio with some basic isometrics and freeweight (at home) or circuit (at a gym) training 3 or 4 times a week. If a TENTH of the (USA) population did that, we wouldn't be in such a mess. Billions are spent on bulking up in a nation that needs to LOSE the bulk and just get real.

That said, what I've said is personal opinion and not science related to Creatine. One might argue that it's also common sense, but I realize that the people here on the forum are likely in the rarer category that IS attempting to achieve something beyond the norm. That said, be reasonable and don't jam this **** down your throats until other far simpler options are exhausted. That IS common sense for anyone.

lol, I'm surprised no one has stopped you, yet. i would love to hear your explanation of this.

 

[Frame Dragger]

lol, I'm surprised no one has stopped you, yet. i would love to hear your explanation of this.

People lay on protein like they think it's going out of style. Did you think I was still talking about Creatine? While it certainly is produced by the body, depending on diet some people DO need it in supplement form (usually strict vegetarians) to boost levels. Creatine is a fairly simple organic acid, although I assume you know that, which is why it is so readily metabolized and stored in situ.

As for efficacy... let me clarify. If you need to lift weights for 5-10 seconds at a time... then yeah it will work if you're already at your limit without it. If you're working out as part of a general atheletic endevour and not just an attempt to become all-neck, then it's almost completely useless. Creatine is metabolized and expended in SECONDS, after which you're left with metabolites (waste) and ADP/ATP for remaining fuel. That's useful for weightlifting... and... weightlifting.

Oh, and don't get cute with the ad hominem attacks just because you don't have traction with part of your "audience". I would love to hear your response to DanP. :)

 

[DanP]

. Creatine is metabolized and expended in SECONDS, after which you're left with metabolites (waste) and ADP/ATP for remaining fuel. That's useful for weightlifting... and... weightlifting.

Id like to clarify one thing here. The creatine phosphate - creatine phosphokinase system is one of the systems used to buffer ATP in working muscles. IIRC, the most efficient ATP buffer. All muscular activity is powered by the high energy bonds in ATP. Creatine is not directly used as fuel.

The main benefit of creatine as a sport supplement appears to be up-regulation of creatine phosphate synthesis during the recovery phase between repeated bouts of high intensity exercise with duration of 6 to 30 seconds. Contrary to the popular belief , creatine supplementation appears not to be very useful in an event consisting of a single bout. Whatever effect it may have , it is too small to be quantified in this case.

In effect, it may be useful in training as well, enabling an athlete to better recover during subsequent training bouts taking place in the same session. For example when training max-strength , a better recovery **inter sets** of squats, presses, whatever. This can be very beneficial for some individuals.

However, more often than not stalling progress for months in lifts it is not a indicator of the need of supplementation with creatine or even more powerful substances such as steroids.
It is merely a consequence of inadequate training. There was a father in this thread who said he didnt yet allowed his son creatine use. Obviously, I am not familiar with the detail of the particular case, but I believe it was a good decision. If one is training alone in a gym without the benefit of a competent strength and conditioning coach (Im not talking about bodybuilding here), when progress stalls for many months, it is more often the not the case to revisit your training , training loads, and the recovery strategy used.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Id like to clarify one thing here. The creatine phosphate - creatine phosphokinase system is one of the systems used to buffer ATP in working muscles. IIRC, the most efficient ATP buffer. All muscular activity is powered by the high energy bonds in ATP. Creatine is not directly used as fuel.

The main benefit of creatine as a sport supplement appears to be up-regulation of creatine phosphate synthesis during the recovery phase between repeated bouts of high intensity exercise with duration of 6 to 30 seconds. Contrary to the popular belief , creatine supplementation appears not to be very useful in an event consisting of a single bout. Whatever effect it may have , it is too small to be quantified in this case.

In effect, it may be useful in training as well, enabling an athlete to better recover during subsequent training bouts taking place in the same session. For example when training max-strength , a better recovery **inter sets** of squats, presses, whatever. This can be very beneficial for some individuals.

However, more often than not stalling progress for months in lifts it is not a indicator of the need of supplementation with creatine or even more powerful substances such as steroids.
It is merely a consequence of inadequate training. There was a father in this thread who said he didnt yet allowed his son creatine use. Obviously, I am not familiar with the detail of the particular case, but I believe it was a good decision. If one is training alone in a gym without the benefit of a competent strength and conditioning coach (Im not talking about bodybuilding here), when progress stalls for many months, it is more often the not the case to revisit your training , training loads, and the recovery strategy used.

We're on the same page here. Metabolism doesn't have to = Creatine as fuel. Creatine is expended in about 3-5 seconds, which is rapid, and it leaves metabolites which require at least 2 more passes of enzymes to break down further (at that point it is no longer useful in the skeletal muscles). It delays the "burn" of ADP/ATP, which leaves you with about 8-10 seconds of peak activity instead of 5 max. While Creatine is not directly consumed as fuel, when it is broken down in its first pass what is left is the metabolites which are waste, and ADP and ATP as remaining fuel. That's not to imply you were not using ATP to begin with. That would be like saying adding Nitrous Oxide to a gasoline/air mixture somehow adds hydrocarbons to achieve its effect. It's a matter of boosting (in the latter) and retarding (in the former) reaction to achieve a desired result.



Also... For Proton Soup: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/creatine/NS_patient-creatine/DSECTION=safety

 

[Proton Soup]

People lay on protein like they think it's going out of style. Did you think I was still talking about Creatine? While it certainly is produced by the body, depending on diet some people DO need it in supplement form (usually strict vegetarians) to boost levels. Creatine is a fairly simple organic acid, although I assume you know that, which is why it is so readily metabolized and stored in situ.

As for efficacy... let me clarify. If you need to lift weights for 5-10 seconds at a time... then yeah it will work if you're already at your limit without it. If you're working out as part of a general atheletic endevour and not just an attempt to become all-neck, then it's almost completely useless. Creatine is metabolized and expended in SECONDS, after which you're left with metabolites (waste) and ADP/ATP for remaining fuel. That's useful for weightlifting... and... weightlifting.

Oh, and don't get cute with the ad hominem attacks just because you don't have traction with part of your "audience". I would love to hear your response to DanP. :)

i'm still waiting for your explanation of how the body creates protein in abundance. thanks.

 

[Proton Soup]

Also... For Proton Soup: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/creatine/NS_patient-creatine/DSECTION=safety

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/patient-creatine.html

Enhanced muscle mass / strength

Several high-quality studies have shown an increase in muscle mass with the use of creatine. However, some weaker studies have reported mixed results. Overall, the available evidence suggests that creatine does increase lean body mass, strength, and total work. Future studies should take into account the effect of different individual fitness levels of study subjects.

and perhaps you would find the following useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine#Cognitive_ability

 

[Frame Dragger]

i'm still waiting for your explanation of how the body creates protein in abundance. thanks.

Let me get this straight before you go any further... have you ever heard of a Ribosome? Anyway, you're clearly mistaking amino acids and proteins. We synthesize SOME amino acids and require others in our diet. Proteins are synthesized from those amino acids constantly. After all, take away the water and we're mostly protein, and some fatty acids, with phosphorous and calcium, sodium, pottassium and magnesium as well along with trace elements.

Do you think you eat a steak and little pieces are carried to your biceps for later use? You do you understand that Creatine helps to regulate the fundamental metabolic process which is the metabolism of ATP.

Oh, and as for your links, let me think... should we trust Wikipedia... or The Mayo Clinic. Ok, easy one there. Now how about the NIH? Well, they've done few studies, and the FDA still doesn't regulate supplements like Creatine well (if at all). This is a mostly political and financial decision that has been made over and over again by administrations on both sides of the partisan fence. I think I'll trust basic biology, JAMA, and the Mayo Clinic over the official NIH position and Wikipedia. Again, it's your body, have fun while it lasts. Who knows, we could all be hit by a truck tomorrow and this whole issue would be personally moot. :)

 

[Proton Soup]

Let me get this straight before you go any further... have you ever heard of a Ribosome? Anyway, you're clearly mistaking amino acids and proteins. We synthesize SOME amino acids and require others in our diet. Proteins are synthesized from those amino acids constantly. After all, take away the water and we're mostly protein, and some fatty acids, with phosphorous and calcium, sodium, pottassium and magnesium as well along with trace elements.

Do you think you eat a steak and little pieces are carried to your biceps for later use? You do you understand that Creatine helps to regulate the fundamental metabolic process which is the metabolism of ATP.

Oh, and as for your links, let me think... should we trust Wikipedia... or The Mayo Clinic. Ok, easy one there. Now how about the NIH? Well, they've done few studies, and the FDA still doesn't regulate supplements like Creatine well (if at all). This is a mostly political and financial decision that has been made over and over again by administrations on both sides of the partisan fence. I think I'll trust basic biology, JAMA, and the Mayo Clinic over the official NIH position and Wikipedia. Again, it's your body, have fun while it lasts. Who knows, we could all be hit by a truck tomorrow and this whole issue would be personally moot. :)

even the non-essential amino acids that our body synthesizes require that we eat protein to synthesize them. surely that's what you meant, right? surely you didn't mean to say what you said before, that we don't need to supplement our diet with protein? you understand that we can't fix nitrogen? anyhoo, I'm not going to jump through hoops for your trolling. you came in here making some outlandish statements to derail the thread, and every time i call you on it, you make another outlandish statement. not once have you backed up any of your claims or even addressed the topic of the thread, which is ways to address problems of aging muscle like sarcopenia. do you have anything to contribute, or do you just want to troll?

 

[Frame Dragger]

even the non-essential amino acids that our body synthesizes require that we eat protein to synthesize them. surely that's what you meant, right? surely you didn't mean to say what you said before, that we don't need to supplement our diet with protein? you understand that we can't fix nitrogen? anyhoo, I'm not going to jump through hoops for your trolling. you came in here making some outlandish statements to derail the thread, and every time i call you on it, you make another outlandish statement. not once have you backed up any of your claims or even addressed the topic of the thread, which is ways to address problems of aging muscle like sarcopenia. do you have anything to contribute, or do you just want to troll?

That's an absurdly reductonist argument. Yes, it's true that if we ate nothing, we'd produce none of the elements needed too live until catabolisis or worse killed us; that's not a germaine point in this argument. I'm not a troll, nor has this thread been "derailed" simply because opinions contrary to yours have been expressed. Now that I've answered your questions, how about you go back through my posts and answer all of mine, and the points DanP raised. Prove that you're more than someone flaming just because you're annoyed. You continue to hide behind ad hominem attacks and endlesslly reductionist demands; always the mark of an itellectual coward. That's not trolling, just a fact.