What creatine actually is
A guanidino compound, synthesised endogenously at roughly 1 g/day, stored at about 95% in skeletal muscle, and used as a phosphoryl shuttle rather than a simple reservoir. The mechanism is not in dispute. What follows from it is.
Not all of this evidence weighs the same
Rotate the pyramid. Note where the widely-quoted professional position stand actually sits — at the base, with expert opinion, not at the apex. That single placement decides how most of the public conversation about creatine should be weighted.
What the meta-analyses actually found
Six syntheses, each opened up in full: the pooled estimates with confidence intervals, the heterogeneity, the publication-bias tests, the funding, the declared conflicts, and the weaknesses. Nothing is summarised away.
How this literature answers the standard questions
The nine questions a reviewer asks of any body of evidence — and, honestly, how creatine research answers each one. Three of the nine do not go well.
Sample size did not decide these verdicts
The older-adult synthesis and the depression synthesis pooled the same number of participants — 1,093. One is rated HIGH certainty, the other VERY LOW. Heterogeneity, publication bias and effect magnitude did that, not n.
The case against creatine for depression
This is the section that should decide whether you trust the rest of the site. A statistically significant result, 1,093 participants, published in a respected journal — and it still does not support the claim. Watch the scale.
Organ by organ, evidence and unknowns
Select an organ. Each entry separates what has been demonstrated, the mechanism that explains it, what remains genuinely unknown, and who should not take it.
Why phosphocreatine, and not simply more ATP
The thermodynamic answer, the bond that carries it, and the isoenzyme shuttle that most popular accounts leave out.
The argument, with receipts on each side
Click any claim to see the evidence behind it — including the claims against. Nothing here is hidden, and the conflicts of interest are flagged on the claims they affect, including the ones favourable to creatine.
Arguments for
Arguments against / limits
Set your own evidentiary bar
You do not have to accept this site's weighting. Impose your own. Discard industry-funded work, demand large samples, insist on low heterogeneity and no detected publication bias — the conclusions recompute live, and the site tells you honestly what survives.
What the organisations say — and where they diverge
Consensus statements are useful and are also the weakest tier of evidence. Each entry below carries the caveat that belongs with it.
What the evidence supports doing
Stated conservatively, at the level the evidence actually licenses.
Every source, with its DOI
Search and filter. Anything the site could not verify against the primary source is flagged rather than quietly presented as fact.