7/22/2026 at 4:01:58 PM
Good discussion, but this conclusion:> I don’t know. Maybe a little.
is not the right way to interpret the null result (insufficient evidence to reject null hypothesis that it has no effect) because the prior for supplements that people are trying to sell you is so low. In the absence of clear, strong evidence, you should assume the the whole thing is just an example of motivated reasoning. People want nootropics to be real, and other people really want to sell you readily available powders by claiming they have nootropic properties. In that environment, they were always going to trying to concoct a similar narrative about some supplement, and it just happened to be creatine. Those efforts were always going to result in a handful of "positive" studies that turn out to be non-reproducible, maybe because of p-hacking, maybe because of publication bias, maybe because of outright fraud. This is what the literature always looks like for stuff that just doesn't work. If it did work - if the effect size was large enough that you could personally detect it in your own life - then the papers would be trying to put error bars around the effect size, not trying (and failing) to barely distinguish it from a placebo.
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” - Ernest Rutherford
by olooney
7/22/2026 at 4:47:36 PM
I think this is quite different because (1) creatine has been proven to be completely harmless for people of all ages absent some rare thing like a kidney disorder and (2) it has a bunch of clearly measurable positive effects.So this is more like trying to determine whether ginseng is good at keeping away colds or whatever. Maybe it does (actually quickly searching this, it definitely does but let's pretend it's as folksy as it sounds for a minute) but even if it doesn't then it's harmless and has a bunch of other effects, so when one takes it - the whole possible cold prophylaxis can just be seen as an added perk.
by somenameforme
7/22/2026 at 7:57:35 PM
Issue being that if you took everything that's "probably harmless" at once, cramming your body full of supplements, you might just end up harming yourself with substances that are toxic above certain amounts (acute iron toxicity etc.). Also the more random stuff you take, the more likely it is that something you took actually does turn out to have been harmful later.So no, you should not take something merely because it's "probably harmless".
by chmod775
7/22/2026 at 8:48:29 PM
You are strawmanning what he said. What he said is much better summarized as if a substance has other beneficial effects and there is one that is potentially just placebo, then it is ok. That is completely different than your paraphrase.by wuliwong
7/22/2026 at 7:52:39 PM
Is there a particular rare kidney disorder that creatine is contraindicated for? Because kidney disease is not rare, something like 14% of US adults have kidney disease.by zardo
7/22/2026 at 5:01:29 PM
and the thing people seem to not understand: how exactly do you _expect_ to be able to notice this change? Its something that happens after you take it for a prolonged period of time (>7days) and only has a minor/medium effect.It doesn't make you a genius. I think a better view on it is that it may mitigate some of the adhs symptoms (at least for me).
I can keep on track for a significantly longer time since ive started supplementing with it at ~15g/day - and while i dont feel a difference, i can observe it when actually paying attention to what i do / how often i drift off etc.
by ffsm8
7/22/2026 at 4:37:35 PM
What I'm getting from all this is that we have an armchair expert explaining details about something they're not an expert in, and we have you reviewing the way they present this information, saying their very weak hedge wasn't strongly negative enough. Based on priors about the industry.Basically, HN doing HN things - having a good deep think about topics outside their realm of expertise, then debating the minutiae. I'd just rather trust someone who has spent their career researching this stuff, thanks (unless that's what you do - in which case please tell us more).
by switchbak
7/22/2026 at 8:22:22 PM
"HN doing HN things" over someone saying "good discussion, however, one point about the conclusion" and having that point be very rational and still open to debate.Is discussing such secondary but still highly relevant aspects verboten? Must every comment here be by a lead researcher in the specific field? Would a biomedical science researcher necessarily have any more expertise on these important secondary aspects?
"Trust me, I'm a scientitian". No thanks.
by dundarious
7/22/2026 at 4:50:11 PM
It may be minutiae, but olooney’s point is valid: the evidence doesn’t seem to support saying “maybe a little”. Remove that statement from the conclusion and it’s on the right track, aside from the arbitrary IQ point calculation which is nonsensical.by antonvs
7/22/2026 at 4:10:40 PM
If you're being academically rigorous about it, sure, but I think it's fine as an informal conclusion.by Retr0id
7/22/2026 at 4:20:03 PM
Even as an informal conclusion I think it's important to know who you're up against and what their motivations are. Waving that away is how we get people like known, obvious charlatans like RFK Jr in any sort of position of power. I know this is nitpicking word choice but the informal conclusion is "Not likely, and not enough to matter for anything."by jdiff
7/22/2026 at 4:25:05 PM
Personally I take creatine for entirely non-cognitive reasons, so it's reassuring to know it's probably not making me any dumber.by Retr0id
7/22/2026 at 4:37:43 PM
Though you also have to consider potentially adulterated powder (accidental or not) in the unregulated supplement industry.That's why I dropped creatine since I didn't notice any benefits when I tried it for a year.
by hombre_fatal
7/22/2026 at 8:28:52 PM
It's not unregulated.https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B...
by infinite_spin
7/22/2026 at 5:00:05 PM
With most industries companies live and die by their reputation. Find a bulk provider with a positive reputation and the creatine you buy is almost certainly going to be safer than e.g. eating at Taco Bell. And with creatine in particular it's so dirt cheap that a lot of motivation for dodgy stuff goes away unlike e.g. with protein powders where amino acid spiking can save a company a bunch of money. And incidentally creatine is one of the substances dodgy companies use for amino acid spiking, just because it's so cheap!That said it's obviously the right decision to drop it if you're not seeing any effects. The interesting thing about creatine is that people's bodies are very different in their natural levels of creatine, and if you're already at 'saturation' then more creatine isn't going to do anything. Same reason the typical benefits of creatine don't show much difference beyond 5g/day. That's enough to send the overwhelming majority of people towards 'saturation.'
by somenameforme
7/22/2026 at 6:03:05 PM
There is a brand of creatine manufactured in the US (con-cret) and a brand manufactured in Germany (Creapure). Either of those companies should address the concern around adulterated powder.> That's why I dropped creatine since I didn't notice any benefits when I tried it for a year.
Some percentage of people (~20%) are creatine non-responders [1]. It's pretty reasonable to try creatine and then drop it if you find no benefit. I personally find the gain very marginal.
by bhelkey
7/22/2026 at 8:05:56 PM
For me it has an insanely large effect. Roughly 30% more reps and endurance.by econ
7/22/2026 at 8:38:45 PM
When I stopped taking it, I went from 12 reps to 10, and slower recovery.My level at tennis dropped too, but bicycle endurance remained the same.
I stopped because of high blood creatinine, and wanted to see what baseline was
by zorobo
7/22/2026 at 4:31:59 PM
it might even be counteracting the negative effects of your frequent contact with airborne nitrogenby NopIdoN
7/22/2026 at 8:23:17 PM
what negative effects? N2 is inert under physiological conditions.by infinite_spin
7/22/2026 at 4:26:01 PM
What value is there to an informal conclusion when the topic is as important as intelligence? The downsides to creatine if taken without good scientific backing should not be disregarded, yet that’s exactly what many ordinary people are now doing because of “informal conclusions” like this.by ttul
7/22/2026 at 4:28:19 PM
Are there really downsides to creatine though? (Genuine question). All the advice I've seen makes it seem like it's basically just good for you even if it doesn't accomplish some specific thing. The only downside I've heard is maybe water retention?by overgard
7/22/2026 at 4:29:06 PM
What are the "downsides"? It is one of the most studied substances and except in special cases like kidney issues it is totally safe.by freehorse
7/22/2026 at 4:47:42 PM
The null is surely different in this case because we know that supplemented creatine goes to the brain and the brain uses it, which is definitely not a claim all supplements can make.The fact that there's a biologically plausible mechanism plus mixed statistical evidence makes "maybe" a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
by artrockalter
7/22/2026 at 7:28:05 PM
You are essentially trying to say that most studies regarding supplements are not validby Ker102
7/22/2026 at 7:37:19 PM
I think the way you interpret the null result is downstream of considering creatine as "a supplement". You can make the null result say anything by changing your prior about creatine or supplements. That's the issue with priors.You also seem to reject the possibility that some things help just a bit. The author has another article in the same vein about "things that can help maybe a bit but the evidence we have doesn't really help detecting small effects" https://dynomight.net/vitamin-d/
by Zababa
7/22/2026 at 4:27:55 PM
mandatory XKCD https://xkcd.com/882/ "Jellybeans cause acne"by abirch
7/22/2026 at 4:37:12 PM
I was visiting a friend’s lab at NASA Ames the other day. I smiled seeing this on the wall there. I sometimes daydream about what it’d be like if our primary education system devoted an hour a week to reading / discussing comics (well, XKCD specifically), or pages form What If…? Maybe it’d kill the magic of it, but I still feel plenty of seeds would get planted along the way for more critical thinking later in life.by mrexroad
7/22/2026 at 8:04:31 PM
Just the green ones. If they found a link, they found a linkI'm sure that the comic wants to be sarcastic but is missing the mark here. This is how science works. Trying and failing every color except green, does not mean that the green experiment has an invalid result.
The author is not understanding that each experiment is independent.
The correct cartoon should show researchers trying green jellybeans 100 times and finding that the experiment gives a positive result one and a negative result 99 times, and then the press keeping only the positive result (Or this comic, but saying that all jellybeans produce acne).
Mocking the scientific method, and showing scientists as lazy people that play video-games all day is funny, but people should not take this as god's speech without any critical thinking. This in your workplace says "I don't really understand statistics" to me.
There is an effect that is statistically rare just by chance, AND is consistently absent within a huge control group of "non-green jellybeans" (the author seems to think that this weakens the result, but in fact is reinforcing it). And it needs further research. Not less, not more.
by pvaldes
7/22/2026 at 4:05:32 PM
Heavily agreed. The supplement industry has such a low level of reliability that it has really soured me on so many practices people have. And I flat out do not understand how some of the supplement stores survive.by taeric
7/22/2026 at 4:16:18 PM
Hard sell. I remember the time I went to GNC and they gave me a free sample of the notorious Jack3D which had some kind of amphetamine-like stimulant in it and was associated with young soldiers in the US Army falling down dead.by PaulHoule
7/22/2026 at 4:57:45 PM
They survive because people want to believe. Look at the history: the phrase “snake oil” exists because people actually sold products by that name as a remedy. There were also tonics based on radium.“There's a sucker born every minute.”
by antonvs
7/22/2026 at 5:34:38 PM
The story of how the phrase snake oil came to be is a fascinating one. Clark Stanley, an American, ripped off a Chinese product which was actually a decent anti-inflammatory, and didn't put any snake oil in his snake oil, which is why it didn't work!by fragmede
7/22/2026 at 4:33:31 PM
>And I flat out do not understand how some of the supplement stores survive.I think mostly through placebo effect, people buy a supplement to treat condition X and they think it's getting better, so they keep buying.
I mean, just look at the wide variety of homeopathic "cures" that are often so diluted that there might not be any molecules of the active ingredient left. Yet people keep buying it.
by Johnny555
7/22/2026 at 4:10:23 PM
Okay, but it kind of sounds like you want to nanny-state the writer's language.Their conclusion seems like an absolutely fair interpretation of what they saw, and it also strikes me as dangerous -- perhaps more dangerous -- to suggest "writer genuinely believes, or doesn't believe, a thing, but they should say it differently from their own interpretation because..people are dumb?" Something like that.
by jrm4
7/22/2026 at 4:26:18 PM
One person is not a nation.by jdiff