Does creatine actually help for over 50s, or is it marketing?

[NormasArse]

I keep seeing adverts for creatine for the over 50s, but I see adverts for a load of other guff too, so I’m naturally sceptical.

Does taking creatine work?

I've been taking creatine for a few months on the recommendation of a friend as I had awful brain fog - the effects were felt within days. My head felt clearer and muscle aches were gone too. I have recently started with collagen glow up too from nutrition geeks which my DD had in a bundle from NG. I'm yet to see any results from this yet - I'm literally hoping for a glow up!! Big wish for a 65 year old!! 😆

I don't know, I already take WellWoman and collagen and feel good on that. If it ain't broke don't fix it, I don't want to rattle with supplements.

https://www.drstacysims.com/newsletters/articles/posts/creatine-guide-for-active-women

Worth checking out the above.

Stacy Sims is a sports nutritionist who specialises in supporting older / middle aged female athletes. She suggests there is a good evidence base for taking creatine and specifically the formulation Creapure, which is a not brand, but rather a specific type of creatine that is found is various commercial formulations.

I use Reflex personally.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40371844/

That is a direct link to a peer reviewed paper on creatine supplementation in active women, although you should note the conflict of interest statement.

Stacey Sims claims for creatine supplement benefits:
...can increase muscle creatine stores by ~20%
...consistent benefits for women when it comes to muscle strength, ...performance, and
...body composition, particularly when combined with resistance training.
.... Emerging evidence also suggests benefits for mood and cognitive function

I may get a chance to come back to address each one, but some ground rules for my next efforts.

I am going to interpret "emerging evidence" or "can increase" = at least one study found advantage to supplemented group, but not lots of studies found that. So I'm ignoring those claims.

I'm struggling with the word "performance" but may as well go for what most people most confidently say creatine does, which is increase sprint performance, so I'll look for faster short-distance running in a female group around age 50.

Dunno what body composition means, but let's assume it means "lower fat %" and "higher skeletal muscle" (or both)

For "consistent" I want 95% CI in a conventional meta-analysis, that favours the supplement; I don't know enough about network analysis or RVE or other "multiple effect pooling/double counting the trial participants" to understand them.

Evidence has to come from RCTs; I won't worry about Risk of bias, though.

For "particularly" I assume that means = no effect found without the resistance training, but also the comparator needs to be resistance training without creatine to show the creatine is what got tested.

Busy now, back later I hope.

Heard something on radio 4 recently that almost all supplements are marketing and waste of money especially those aimed at women especially menopause
Industry worth billions. Ingredients can cause as little as 6p. Might have been on those 2 GP brothers show

Okay @MedSchoolRat I'm not clear how you're arriving at those interpretations - on the face of it they seem fairly arbitrary. But anyone can read the papers and draw their own conclusions!

Personally I am not "sold" on creatine. I'm trying it out myself. But it is a well established supplement and as for having particular efficacy in sprint performance, that's not a claim I've seen before, but fine.

I don't believe it's snake oil.... there's a ton of research about the benefits, and virtually no "cons".

As others have said, you need to take it for a couple of weeks consistently before you see the benefits, as that's how long it takes for the stores to build up in your muscles (correspondingly, if you miss the odd day it doesn't have a huge impact as it also takes a while for it to deplete!).

Any brand will do, but ideally buy "micronised" because it dissolves better. Boots £10 Tuesday is a good source!

I'm 59, and take a 5g scoop every day, either stirred into yogurt or dissolved in tea/coffee. I use gummies if I am travelling, as they are easier to transport (I don't fancy being stopped at an airport with a bag of white powder in my suitcase), but I don't think they are as good.

I really think it has improved my endurance in the gym, and I don't ache as much the day after. Not sure about brain clarity, but that seems to depend on lots of factors.

I'm not clear how you're arriving at those interpretations - on the face of it they seem fairly arbitrary

Pyarmid of evidence, I didn't invent this evidence hierarchy. It's not arbitrary. Convincing evidence needs to be (*good quality which can be hard to identify) systematic reviews drawing from RCT evidence and describing specific populations, specific dosages, and specific outcomes, with specific comparators that isolate the tested substance (creatine).

Can't evaluate evidence without specifics.

2025 systematic review, "Does Creatine Supplementation Enhance Performance in Active Females? A Systematic Review"

Findings: Compared to placebo, 3/11 studies showed an improvement in strength/power outcomes, 4/17 showed an improvement in anaerobic outcomes, and 1/5 showed an improvement in aerobic outcomes.

Not arbitrary for me to say that in a large majority of the studies they included, creatine did not lead to "performance" improvements.

Creatine supplements in female soccer players, published this month, syst-review
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15502783.2026.2735569#abstract

Conclusions:
The soccer-specific evidence for creatine supplementation remains suggestive rather than conclusive. Favourable findings have been reported for some repeated-sprint, anaerobic-power, and strength outcomes, but the comparative evidence is heterogeneous, often limited by unclear or nonsignificant between-group effects, and of very low certainty. Firm conclusions about efficacy are therefore not possible. Body mass commonly increased, especially after loading protocols, while effects on lean mass, endurance, change-of-direction ability, and recovery/fatigue-related outcomes remain uncertain.

Doesn’t matter when you take it, just as long as you take it daily. It builds up in your body so no benefit taking it at any specific point

Syst review out last month
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2026.1921827/full

Conclusions=
Available female-specific evidence suggests possible small effects on selected strength, power, high-intensity performance and lean-mass-related measures. Substantial heterogeneity, methodological limitations and low or very-low certainty prevent firm sport-specific or outcome-specific conclusions.

Remember what I said about words like "possilbe" or "may" actually mean = not at all consistent or proven but we can't prove the opposite, either.

So yeah, my prejudice to declare creatine is Snake Oil remains unshaken.

We use creatine HCl which you take at lower doses and doesn't have the same water retention type issues. There's lots of research on creatine helping muscles, energy production and mental clarity. It completely removed DH's suicide ideation.

It can increase need for glycine (found in collagen)

Are you sure it wasn’t creatinine in your blood test? Different thing totally.

I wouldn’t take any supplements which weren’t advised by my doctor, and I assume that at least half of threads started about them are advertising.

What did it do that you couldn't tolerate?