This research is one of the important studies in my own understanding of the world. I think it's the type of thing people are cautious to talk about too much because it might drive a certain type of person crazy and lead them to overcompensate in weird/destructive ways.
I also remember there's a study on how hormonal birth control (which causes the body to perceive itself as pregnant) affects these preferences too. In some ways we really are "experimenting on production." I also think there's some hesitation to talk about that a lot and come-across as anti-choice.
But beliefs must come from the research, not vice-versa.
I love evolutionary psychology trivia but for me it's kind of hard to meaningfully fit 0.13 standard deviation shift in preferences into my world model.
In the end we’re just improvements on the worm/tube plan, and we run things based on chemical soup that is mostly inside our bodies these days, but whose composition has a significant influence on our behavior. Thats why it’s great to have a neocortex, so we con at least be marginally in control of our decisions if we maintain a consistent effort to do so.
But yeah, in my empirical experience, moon phases, ovolatory cycles, hormone manipulation therapies… all have a gigantic impact on our base physiological and psychological state. I live in a place where the insects operate on a lunar phase, and the plants proactively change their operations in that rhythm to match. You can taste and see the difference in tree sap here based on the lunar phase, it becomes thicker, darker, and more bitter days in advance of the insect hatching.
Why would we think we are somehow a special exception from the web of life that created us?
Not as bad as "considered harmful" imo but still mildly toxic. I think the point is taking one rando's personal preferences (I'd prefer we swap the order of A and B) and trying to make it sound like something more than it is.
> Not as bad as "considered harmful" imo but still mildly toxic. I think the point is taking one rando's personal preferences (I'd prefer we swap the order of A and B) and trying to make it sound like something more than it is.
Mildly toxic was the same but worse in my opinion.
If so creatine is supposed to help people push themselves harder and thus build more muscle. As a side-effect of intense exercises you'll create more testosterone. Increased testosterone leads to balding.
increased testosterone from working out is probably around 10-30% long time, which is a far lower variance than natural level variance in healthy adults. i think i heard from several (claimed natural) strength and bodybuilding athletes that their total testosterone is at the lower end of the scale.
that said, natural free test levels are at a fraction of what enhanced pro bodybuilders tend to supplement, and there are mass monsters with hair. cutler, yates, ferrigno and golden era bodybuilders like schwarzenegger, zane, columbu all had full heads of hair.
Yeah, wanted to point this out. I have mid-range natural test levels, more than my dad, and don't have any signs of balding. My dad lost half of his hair by the time i was born.
Steroid consumers have al least ten times my leves, and while this is a factor indeed, in is not necessarily decisive.
The comments here are unfortunately reddit-level of (in)correctness, but if you really want to know: testosterone doesn't affect your hair in any way, what does affect it is DHT which is synthesized from testosterone by your body with 5α-Reductase and the way to significantly dial down that process is to take 5α-Reductase inhibitors (widely available and affordable medications).
That means maybe the people with great muscles and good hair have a genetic mutation that reduces the efficiency of DHT synthesis? I am assuming DHT doesn't affect muscle growth.
Firstly, "working out increases your T bro" is reddit-tier simplified. For example, if you are shredded, your testosterone (especially free testosterone due to higher SHBG) can be lower than normal. Just because someone is muscular doesn't mean they have a naturally high T.
Secondly, yes, someone might have just won a genetic lottery but 5α-Reductase inhibitors are quite popular these days.
Yeah I think that is the biggest factor. I got family members that are built like brick shithouse from a life since childhood of physical labor that still have their hair into their 70s, there is no way they weren't maintaining high levels of testosterone their entire life but it didn't seem to matter.
Not sure about the "kind", but minoxidil works by increasing blood flow to hair follicles. So if massages can have a similar effect, I don't see why it couldn't help.
I've also read that maybe massaging the muscles around the scalp to loosen it might help. E.g., a scalp that's too tight can have detrimental effects on the hair follicles.
That being said, I don't know what kind of evidence there is to support either of those things. Seems like a safe enough thing to try though.
It’s not increased testosterone in general that causes balding, it’s increased concentrations/sensitivity of testosterone byproducts in the hair follicles. There is no correlation between testosterone itself and baldness.
The loading phase frankly was designed for studies. Studies are often short-term, say 6 weeks. You've got to get everyone's creatine supplies "loaded up" quickly in an effort to make sure the bulk of the study is on folks with relatively comparable creatine stores. The easiest way to do this is to have everyone do a loading phase to reach max intramuscular creatine concentration. It is not for the benefit of the study participants; it's for the benefit of the study.
We humans not in studies are generally looking for a health benefit, not max intramuscular creatine concentration as fast as possible at the price of side effects. We are optimizing for something different than study authors. 5 g is fine.
This sounds intense... I'm a small female and I recently started at 5g a day and now I've dropped down to 2g a day because even at just 5g I was getting signs of dehydration, despite tripling my water intake. It does seem to make a difference in my physical performance so I'm overall happy with it.
Also the NIH fact sheet for creatine specifically recommends against higher starting doses.
I did the 25g a day loading phase and I could not tell any sort of effect at all one way or another. I do lift either more weight or do more reps pretty much every time I work out now. What was repping to failure a month or two ago is not even a working set now.
I don't think you can even do 30g at once in terms of mixing it. Even 5g in water it seems like theres some that will just stay crashed out of solution no matter what. I have done 25g over the course of a day though for a week long loading phase, and didn't notice any ill effects.
I think a lot of the anecdata on creatine is probably from people misplacing confounding issues to the creatine use. People in this thread are talking about heart palpitations or trouble sleeping. Stressful days at work are enough to trigger that.
Creatine isn't water soluble. I just take a 5g scoop daily and wash it down with water. I could do 6 scoops in a row without problem, but not sure what the point would be. The latest research fits with the 5g/day no need to load.
When I first started taking creatine in the late 90s (it had already been heavily studied then as one of the only supplements that improved athletic performance), I would mix it with juice. There were some studies that sugar would help the uptake.
If you're too lazy to read the literature, then just don't take it.
Going to something that frequently hallucinates or misstates things to the point where it's "trust, but verify by reading the source" means you may as well just read the literature you'd have to verify the summary against anyway.
>> Recently, a pilot study (single-arm) by Smith et al., recruited 20 patients (73 years of age) with AD and provided them with 20 grams/day of CrM for 8 weeks [20]. Serum creatine levels were increased at weeks 4 and 8 (p < 0.001), and total brain creatine levels (as measured by H-MRS) increased by 11% (p < 0.001). Clinically, there were demonstrated improvements in cognition on global (p = 0.02) and fluid composites (p = 0.004), as well as List Sorting (p = 0.001), Oral Reading (p < 0.001) and Flanker tests (p = 0.05).
Yeah 20 patients is not a lot. I'm inferring this is a pre-post test. However some of those p-values are pretty good (.001 on reading and and sorting). Very promising pilot study but not conclusive imo.
And List Sorting, Oral reading, and Flanker only? The first and last are part of global and fluid composites, so those have to be excluded from comparison. That leaves us with 3 improved scores out of 12 tests. So 9 did not improve, or got worse. Figure 3 (of the original article) shows that the changes aren't big. Just "significant". Since the participants were in the early stages of dementia, this seems well within expectations.
Interesting that you are hearing "dismissal" in the antecedent response. I read it as the poster "studying more" the data, and finding a lot of flaws in both the experimental design and the data analysis.Typically things a reviewer would do when a publication was submitted (or in our case posted here). The author, then goes back and answers the questions raised to show that the effect they are suggesting is durable in face of the flaws. Or perhaps they run an additional experiment and augment their data. After a bunch of back and forths either the effect is sufficiently well expressed in the data or the paper is withdrawn for more work.
When I go through the process of reading the entire paper, analyzing the data myself, and the experimental design. That is the opposite of dismissing the claim. That is me, positing that the claim as stated is 'true,' and then asking the questions if the claim is supported by the provided evidence. If it isn't, then doing the work to express what evidence would be needed to support the claim is the feedback needed to help prove the science.
Don't waste your time responding to people like this. Their post is not much more than a passing thought where they take the headline fully at face value, and therefore are convinced it must be worth something and we should continue to study it. They will never read the paper or have a critical thought of their own.
I don’t really leave thank you notes as they don’t add anything but just to balance out the opinions here:
Thank you for taking the time for that wonderful explanation, may it teach some of us/me to think before we shoot. I found it very enlightening and am sure many other drive by casuals do as well.
I wouldn't even call it "promising but inconclusive" so much as "not conclusively a dead-end for further research". In a single-arm open-label study, with no blinding, both the participants and the researchers know who's getting what. You need a placebo and double-blinding for comparison against the active group and to adjust for any ways in which the researchers may have unwittingly influenced the results. (Or perhaps even wittingly, when there are conflicts of interest. I spent half a minute looking up this study and didn't see any statement attesting that there were none.)
Worse: go look at the MMSE. I bet that, at least for patients with reasonably functional memory, taking the MMSE and then taking it again a few weeks later from the same examiner will tend to improve the score the second time.
.001 for creatine levels isn't surprising; that's a lot of creatine. I'd explain the cognitive tests with the practice effect, because it is unlikely that creatine had such a massive effect and we only discover it now.
I hear about tech bros taking creatine these days with the tone of voice that they use to talk about microdosing. So I can’t imagine it having zero effect.
What I worry about more is that it has more to do with fixing a deficiency. That being deficient in creatine causes a cognitive loss more than supplementing causes a boost.
As someone who's microdosed (though mostly normal-dosed and occasionally megadosed) in the distant past, the whole microdosing fad was equal parts entertaining and baffling. Anecdotal, but from all people I know that has taken psychedelics, only one doesn't find it to be a waste.
Maybe a better analogy would have been the Balmer curve. I wasn’t trying to imply psychedelics are unhelpful, just that we should be careful of suggesting coding productivity gains while on them.
Also IMO, the Balmer peak is a stronger effect than creatine.
1) It annoys me whenever anybody mentions literally anything (whatever baking soda, potassium, any vitamin) you get a million unhinged comments about how this was a personal panacea.
2) Creatine definitely does stuff, that's scientifically been established by numerous studies for decades. It's been recommended as a supplement for vegetarians for mental reasons and for people trying to build muscle-mass (sort of niche). I'm actually a bit surprised how few people talk about it when it's a standard blood test thing (possibly because it can't be patented).
3) It's dirt cheap and made by tons of difference places. I don't think there's a "big creatine." It's probably like < 25 cents a serving.
I mean I get it hits you in the feels... but at the same time... DO talk to your friends, but then use AI too?
Like I don't want to say it's a strawman exactly, because some people probably do use AI too much. But it's a really emotional (and not exactly logical) play to emotions that sort of implies don't use AI at all, which I don't agree with.
Like if you're writing a speech for my wedding, please do a sanity check against AI before saying a really crass or risky joke. Because some of us have those maybe-on-the-spectrum acquaintances and AI actually can be a great sanity check for those people.
I definitely got this sense with Zuckerberg/meta (and probably Musk too) -- it should be ironic disturbing to have people who aren't really social people building our social networks....
Some of the least-mentally-healthy people I know see human dynamics as fundamentally 0-sum competitions, and I feel like some of these platforms are modeled on that, but not all of them (youtube is a mixed bag, reddit used to be pretty harmless).
I mean that's true but I don't think that's realistically what's going on when one model gives an unqualified "Yes" and the other gives an unqualified "no."
You can argue the study isn't as case-closed-decisive as we'd ideally like, but it's certainly evidence. It's probably hard to design a better study.
What are you talking about? The models were not ALLOWED to have confidence (or the lack thereof). They were explicitly told to give a single label, and in most cases, all of them were correct depending on additional context they would surely have provided, especially with access to the internet (which some didn't have). This is just silly.
I also remember there's a study on how hormonal birth control (which causes the body to perceive itself as pregnant) affects these preferences too. In some ways we really are "experimenting on production." I also think there's some hesitation to talk about that a lot and come-across as anti-choice.
But beliefs must come from the research, not vice-versa.
reply