Question for the workout people

[xwalker]

I have patients with liver disease who have no other discernible etiology besides their histories of creatine use in power lifting. Kidney disease has also been shown, including acute tubular necrosis and chronic glomerulonephritis.

As one poster stated earlier, a daily low dose is not likely to cause pathology, but the levels achieved by that are also not likely to be significantly higher than the body's own physiologic production. If the levels used by lifters (30 - 50mg once or twice daily) are sustained for 2-5 years or more, the likelihood of consequences is high. It may take 20 - 30 years before the pathology starts to become apparent, and at this point there is lack of clarity on the additive effects of other agents that have been used concurrently.

The message is simply that there is evidence of damage with creatine and other such substances, and insufficient time has passed to conclude that there is any safe level above physiologic. It took several generations before tobacco was found to be so significantly destructive. Vitamins were thought to be key additives to the diet for more than 50 years, but have now been found to be deleterious when taken in excess.

I don't have any disrespect for anyone's opinions on this issue of health and nutrition, but my daily involvement, liability, and recommendations can not include advice that has shown any increased risk.

I would guess there is a high probability that "power lifters" have used something stronger than creatine at some point but are unlikely to admit to it.

 

[fffiasco]

They are burning high amounts of calories likely 4000+ per day. They are eating healthy and working out harder than most possibly can. They are going to add fat, muscle and store carbs which are exhausted quickly. More fat will be used to make carbs as the body is using them faster than they can be made from fat. If you ingest more calories than used it has to become fat or protein stored mostly as skeletal muscle.

So you get leaner and more muscled with that regimen. You can put on 20 lbs of muscle in 3 months with that regimen. I did that in basic training a very very very long time ago.

Nope. You can't gain muscle and lose fat at the same time.

 

[AbeBeta]

I would guess there is a high probability that "power lifters" have used something stronger than creatine at some point but are unlikely to admit to it.

I would guess someone facing such an illness would be pretty straight with their doctors knowing that such information might be important to their treatment.

 

[AbeBeta]

Some men's bodies converts testosterone supplementation into a high percentage of estrogen. If that happens you will need a bra.

It is called a Bro or a Manzier when men wear them. Geez, get the terminology right

 

[AbeBeta]

Isn't that the definition of causation vs. correlation? At best, that is anecdotal.

Strictly speaking, there is very little about human illnesses that can be truly defined as causal. Consistently observed correlations are the best we have (along in some cases with animal studies as supporting evidence).

 

[Doc50]

Zero percent chance of that happening.

Actually a high percentage of that happening on androgenic steroids.

And the gonads shrink.
It's an appropriate paradox for someone who thinks he will be more masculine with more testosterone.
Decadurabolin is a commonly used 'roid that is referred to as D-bol - and that's just what it's likely to do.

 

[Doc50]

Strictly speaking, there is very little about human illnesses that can be truly defined as causal. Consistently observed correlations are the best we have (along in some cases with animal studies as supporting evidence).

Would taking creatine make a blood test look like you had kidney failure or is that different?

There have been acute illness episodes due to renal failure, associated with high serum levels of creatine in young healthy adults, usually by acute tubular necrosis.

 

[Aven8]

He's been in Nebraska eating that corn fed beef for years. Now he's in TX and will eat the grass fed beef! Yum!

 

[AbeBeta]

There have been acute illness episodes due to renal failure, associated with high serum levels of creatine in young healthy adults, usually by acute tubular necrosis.

I don't dispute that. I was addressing the rather generic correlation vs. Causality meme that folks trot out

 

[Jenky]

Nope. You can't gain muscle and lose fat at the same time.

Actually you can, but it's very hard to do.

 

[Jenky]

Gregory is trying to add bulk this offseason. I assume muscle and not fat??

Isn't it impossible to add 10 or 20 pounds of muscle in such a short time without PEDs?

I started working out a few years ago and it took me a year to add 20 pounds of muscle.

No.

Curious as to why you are saying "no." For a natural lifter, beginner gains is probably your best shot at ever putting on the most amount of pure muscle in a short amount of time. It gets harder as you age and we know Gregory is anything but a beginner. He had to be on some sort of weight lifting program in high school and college.

I would answer yes. It's impossible for him to add 10 to 20 lbs of pure muscle, ESPECIALLY in that time frame. This is without the use of PEDs.

Assuming he's still 235 lbs, I don't care if he bulks to 300 lbs in attempt to put on as much muscle mass + fat as he can, and cuts back down to 245-255 in hopes of preserving all of his muscle. He just doesn't have the time frame for it.

This is reminiscent of what an ifbb pro bodybuilder would do, and we all know they are on a cocktail of drugs.

 

[LittleLexodus]

Your mocking posts towards me and others are uncivil. A few are amusing after that not much.

If you are going to quote one article as the end all be all definitive work on a scientific topic than I won't take that seriously esp if you are too adversarial. Get the proper training and do an exhaustive study on the subject matter, then be authoritative.

Observation is the bedrock of science. Watching an apple fall to the ground or measuring the time it takes different objects to fall from height is just as valid as years of study looking at the orbital velocities of stars around an apparent massive object.

If you wish to know the weather look out the damn window. If you want to know how you look peer into a mirror. You can tell the difference between someone morbidly obese at 6-2 230 and one with a lean body mass at 6-2 and 230 who is muscular and fit. I don't need a chart, measurements or calculations to know what my experienced eyeballs are viewing.

Don't expect a warm response if you walk up to the Chairman of Mathematics and tell him he's wrong because you read an article.

I apologize for getting rather annoyed with you but it wasn't entirely unreasonable.

Exit stage left.

Your observations are incorrect, though. If you're claiming they are then where are the pics. You sound like every old guy in the gym who "used" to be jacked 250 pound lifter who held WRs.

You didn't put on 30 pounds of muscle in a few months (naturally). End of story. This isn't possible.

Why even disseminate these absurd claims?

 

[fffiasco]

Actually you can, but it's very hard to do.

Actually you can't unless you're a complete beginner. You have to be in a calorie surplus to gain mass. You have to be in a calorie deficient to lose mass. There's not such thing as doing both.

 

[JBell]

Gregory can add 20 pounds of weight this off-season, but it won't be all muscle. Not going to regurgitate info already posted in this thread, but it's just too short of a timeframe.

However, Gregory's so lean that he could gain 20 pounds and it would LOOK like that 20 pounds was all muscle. Wouldn't shock me if he still looked really lean at 255.

 

[jobberone]

Your observations are incorrect, though. If you're claiming they are then where are the pics. You sound like every old guy in the gym who "used" to be jacked 250 pound lifter who held WRs.

You didn't put on 30 pounds of muscle in a few months (naturally). End of story. This isn't possible.

Why even disseminate these absurd claims?

As a member why are you asking me why questions? What evidence do you have other than you believe its impossible? You're calling me a liar and while I might choose to be annoyed with you over that I'll just consider the source and ignore your offensive opinion. Others here will find that most unpleasing and those kind of remarks lead to fights which require moderation and distract from the topic.

Perhaps saying I find it difficult to believe all that was muscle is what you truly meant to say.

As a moderator I'm going to nicely ask again that all of you stop with this bickering and personal insults.

Last warning.

 

[jobberone]

Actually you can, but it's very hard to do.

Yes it's very possible to do but requires attn to diet that is very difficult to do and even more so to stay on. If you cut your carbs to a minimum which is 20gms a day for a normal adult with normal activities then you will stay in ketosis and preferentially burn fat to convert to glucose to fuel the body. It takes at least a few days for the body to adjust to that diet and not grab calories from protein and fat sources.

Anyone who is consuming high calories due to exercise requires high carb ingestion and to keep someone in ketosis with that kind of activity requires a special dietician to monitor.

So you are correct. I just wanted to answer how.

 

[gmoney112]

Curious as to why you are saying "no." For a natural lifter, beginner gains is probably your best shot at ever putting on the most amount of pure muscle in a short amount of time. It gets harder as you age and we know Gregory is anything but a beginner. He had to be on some sort of weight lifting program in high school and college.

I would answer yes. It's impossible for him to add 10 to 20 lbs of pure muscle, ESPECIALLY in that time frame. This is without the use of PEDs.

Assuming he's still 235 lbs, I don't care if he bulks to 300 lbs in attempt to put on as much muscle mass + fat as he can, and cuts back down to 245-255 in hopes of preserving all of his muscle. He just doesn't have the time frame for it.

This is reminiscent of what an ifbb pro bodybuilder would do, and we all know they are on a cocktail of drugs.

Oh, sorry. I misread. I thought you asked if it was possible. I agree with you.

 

[gmoney112]

Actually a high percentage of that happening on androgenic steroids.

And the gonads shrink.
It's an appropriate paradox for someone who thinks he will be more masculine with more testosterone.
Decadurabolin is a commonly used 'roid that is referred to as D-bol - and that's just what it's likely to do.

You lose a lot of credibility on the subject when you don't even know Dbol is actually Dianabol, and is a completely different compound than Deca.

Now back to the regular scheduled programming.

 

[jobberone]

You lose a lot of credibility on the subject when you don't even know Dbol is actually Dianabol, and is a completely different compound than Deca.

Now back to the regular scheduled programming.

The street name for Methandrostenolone is Dbol. I don't know the street name of Deca. The chemical structure is different than nandrolone but it isn't by much. It is enough that the latter has much less side effects.

I don't see that simple mistake as taking away from all the other 'correct' things he's had to say. JMO.

 

[DandyDon1722]

I have patients with liver disease who have no other discernible etiology besides their histories of creatine use in power lifting. Kidney disease has also been shown, including acute tubular necrosis and chronic glomerulonephritis.

As one poster stated earlier, a daily low dose is not likely to cause pathology, but the levels achieved by that are also not likely to be significantly higher than the body's own physiologic production. If the levels used by lifters (30 - 50mg once or twice daily) are sustained for 2-5 years or more, the likelihood of consequences is high. It may take 20 - 30 years before the pathology starts to become apparent, and at this point there is lack of clarity on the additive effects of other agents that have been used concurrently.

The message is simply that there is evidence of damage with creatine and other such substances, and insufficient time has passed to conclude that there is any safe level above physiologic. It took several generations before tobacco was found to be so significantly destructive. Vitamins were thought to be key additives to the diet for more than 50 years, but have now been found to be deleterious when taken in excess.

I don't have any disrespect for anyone's opinions on this issue of health and nutrition, but my daily involvement, liability, and recommendations can not include advice that has shown any increased risk.

Doc - thanks so much for taking the time to explain this. I completely understand your stance, especially where liability is concerned. Easy for me to state an opinion on a message board with no consequences.

I am at a loss to explain the wide range of opinions, both from long standing and respected research to somebody like yourself who is on the front lines. I think this is an excellent case for the future of medicine with Watson MD, OEA (Oncology Expert Advisor) and healthcare data analytics - where you will have at your disposal literally thousands of research articles on new treatment options, results, and opinions updated on almost a daily basis to help with a diagnosis or opinion as the passage of time reveals more compelling data.

Since I have only recently started using Creatine (I don't love going to the gym anymore but I hate not going and I must admit it really helps me) I feel by keeping the doses as prescribed and since it would not be considered long term use, I will continue using it. My doctor is aware and I will take all the precautions. I also listen to my body and if I don't feel right or new research suggests it's dangerous I would immediately stop.

Thank you again.