Supplementing training with Creatine (Page 2)

...and so I lead us back to my initial opening post in this thread: TRAINING with creatine.

I'm in my initial stages of training, with all my workouts, swimming, biking and running, not lasting much more than an hour, which I believe creatine would have some positive effects.
I understand the feelings about "endurance athletes" using it with the same benefits, but I am not really in that category.

If I was doing an Ironman, I see where creatine before/during/after the event will serve little benefit.

BUT

If I'm doing a weight training session for 45-60 min, creatine will benefit me.
If I'm swimming sprints for 30-60 min, creatine will benefit me.
If I'm running for 60 minute sessions, creatine will benefit me.
A hour long bike ride over hiils? Creatine!

Er...no.

Maybe it would help if we talked a little bit about how creatine works.

Okay, to get everyone on the same page:

Your cells take whatever fuel they are using and convert the energy into something called ATP. Basically, it is a small chemical with 3 phosphate groups tacked on. Your cells get energy to do work by splitting off one or two phosphates. It is sort of like the way you process oil to get gas for your car...you refine it. Same sort of idea here.

When you exercise, your cells ramp up production of ATP. Now, suppose you needed to do A LOT of work RIGHT NOW. Like, you needed to sprint 100 yards to escape an axe murderer. Your cells don't have the ability to ramp up ATP production that fast. However, what they DO have is a storage form of those phosphates I talked about. It is creatine, specifically creatine phosphate. So, as your cells very quickly break down the ATP so you can outrun the axe murderer, and the creatine very quickly puts the ATP right back together for re-use. This works over a period on the order of tens of seconds, and then you run down the creatine, and then you are dependant on the usual ways your cells make energy. That is why you can run the hundred flat out in about 15 seconds, but the next hundred is slower, and the next slower than that, no matter how hard you try to push yourself.

By loading up on creatine, you increase the amount in your cells, and can thus gain a few extra seconds of energy, or can perhaps work a little harder over the same period. This is why it makes sprinters faster, or allows a weight lifter to get extra reps. It makes sense for someone like Scuba, for instance, who is training for the ability to do a near maximal effort (like lifting a tank while in a less than optimal position without help, or hauling himself and his gear over the side of a boat).

In terms of what you mentioned, it would probably allow you to really put the hammer down for the last 25 yards of a 100 yard interval, but that is it. It most likely isn't going to be a huge benefit over an hour long session in the pool, or going over hills on a bike for that matter, unless you are planning on an ABSOLUTE SPRINT over the top, which is exactly the sort of thing you probably don't want to do if you want your legs to keep working the rest of the race. However, if you were in a sprint for the finish with someone, the creatine might put you over the top.

But, the downside is this: creatine supplementation has been shown to increase weight from 2-5 kg (betwen about 5 and 10 pounds). Thus, it is still worse for an athlete who is exercising any longer than tens of seconds, because your performance is dependant upon how much work you can do *per amount of body weight*. So, if I saddle you with ten more pounds, but only give you the ability to make extra energy for ten seconds of a 60 minute run, I have not done you any favors. Put another way, the creatine might give you the ability to outsprint someone for the line, however, you won't be able to stay with them until that sprint finish because you have been lugging around extra weight.

So I would have to recommend against training with creatine. If you were primarily a weight lifter, yes. If you were a 100 meter specialist, yes. If you are doing any exercise longer than a minute or so, then no. The chemical itself just doesn't work like that.

Please know I am not trying to bash your training techniques or anything, I just want to make sure you hear the whole story before you spend a lot of money on something that won't benefit you, and might actually be counterproductive to you getting your best performance, in training or on race day.

Phil

Edited by PhysFarm 2005-01-09 8:33 PM

Hey,

Okay, definitely don't put it in your camelback. Some of the literature has associated it with post-exercise syncope ("passing out") when taken during exercise. The last thing you need to do is pass out on your bike and get hit by a truck or something. I can gaurantee *that* will make you slower

In terms of a quick burst of energy, the problems are that 1) your muscles can only store a limited amount of creatine, and 2) it takes a while to get into your cells. You are looking at a period of a couple of days to tank up your muscles, so it isn't really a "quick process", so to speak.

In terms of the water weight gain, you retain the water for as long as you take the creatine. Without getting too far into the chemistry, basically water follows it in when it enters the cells. It's not that you end up with extra fluid in your blood vessels (which could conceiveably be a benefit...if you increase the fluid in your vessels, depending on your training status you could increase your cardiac output and thus be able to do more exercise). But I am getting off topic.

Phil


Edited by PhysFarm 2005-01-10 9:27 AM

Oh yeah, I forgot about this:

http://www.gssiweb.com/reflib/refs/626/sse91.cfm?pid=38

This has great information on creatine. How it works, dosages, what it is good for, etc.

I really am glad I asked!

Thanks for all the replies, input and thoughts about supplementing with creatine, especially from PhysFarm. I mean, who can argue with his reasoning and obviously educated responses.

I have a question about this... specifically about increasing power output beyond a plateau. My understanding is that while most "strength" is in fact neuromuscular and not directly related to muscle mass. But isn't there a point at which your power output can't be increased without increasing your muscle mass? Boiled down... the question is this: After you've achieved your maximum neuromuscular performance, isn't additional muscle mass *required* to achieve any statistically significant increases in power output?

Also, concerning "crossover" benefits... Even if you don't see any crossover benefits to weight training initially, have any studies been done to determine the effects of weight training on adaptation? Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that if two equally aerobically fit people started swimming, the one with greater muscular "capacity" would see more improvement, more quickly than the other individual who has to both increase his muscle mass and train his muscles?

That is a great question. Yes and no. If we were talking just about weight training, you are right. There will be a requirement for increased mass ("hypertrophy"). However, when you are talking about endurance exercise, the answer is no. The reason is that it is not muscular strength that is limiting power output in endurance exercise. For example, most everyone has the *ability* to run, say a quarter mile at 6 or 7 minute per mile pace. They are able to generate the power to cover that particular distance in that particular amount of time. They just cannot *maintain* that power output for say, a 5k, and that is because they do not have the 1) VO2max primarly but also 2) high enough LT to allow their muscles to *maintain* that power output.



Another good question. Actually, the *only* time you see the crossover is when the person is relatively untrained. so yes, if you take two untrained swimmers, the person who was lifting weights might do better, provided all other factors (body type, etc) were identical. This is because the weightlifing has probably increased their cardiac performance enough that you can detect it in other aeras. However, as soon as the specific adaptation to swimming began, assuming identical technique, you would find that the person with the greater LT and/or VO2 would begin to outperform the other. Again, because in general, muscle strength is not what is limiting power output.

Also, remember that just because the muscle mass is there, doesn't mean the person is able to use it. Thus, even if the person has a lot of hypertrophy, it has not been "wired" to be taken advantage of. For example, ever see that guy Sven something-or-other on the world strongest man competition? He is smaller and lighter than most of the other competitors, but does better, often winning. I *suspect* that if we could lean how he trained, we'd find that he trained *specifically* for the events...pulling a car or whatever exactly how he needs to in the race, rather than going to the gym and just lifing weights and looking for crossover.

Did that help?

Phil

Yessir. Thanks

Just to add the the comments , scientific studies have been performed with mice lacking the creatine kinase enzyme , which converts creatine into creatine phophate the high energy phosphate store in muscle. these animal have normal physiology and only lack burst kinetics within the muscle, ie they can not sprint as quick as normal mice but can run the same distance before becoming tired. Again evidence for the value in short burst activity sports such as sprinting, or field disiplines.
The only role for creatine in endurance is that of cardiac tissue, a sub form of creatine kinase CK MB is found in cardiac tissue and help maintain aerobic metabolism in the heart, it may be that creatine stacking may help to improve cardiac work function but there is as yet no evidence to support this hypothesis
Hope this help and does add fuel to the arguement.