Primary Research · 1996
Muscle creatine loading in men
Hultman et al. · Journal of Applied Physiology, 1996
Key finding
Showed that 3g/day for 28 days reaches the same muscle creatine saturation as the classical 20g × 6 day loading protocol.
Abstract
PubMed · PMID 8828669 →The effect of dietary creatine and supplementation on skeletal muscle creatine accumulation and subsequent degradation and on urinary creatinine excretion was investigated in 31 male subjects who ingested creatine in different quantities over varying time periods. Muscle total creatine concentration increased by approximately 20% after 6 days of creatine supplementation at a rate of 20 g/day. This elevated concentration was maintained when supplementation was continued at a rate of 2 g/day for a further 30 days. In the absence of 2 g/day supplementation, total creatine concentration gradually declined, such that 30 days after the cessation of supplementation the concentration was no different from the presupplementation value. During this period, urinary creatinine excretion was correspondingly increased. A similar, but more gradual, 20% increase in muscle total creatine concentration was observed over a period of 28 days when supplementation was undertaken at a rate of 3 g/day. In conclusion, a rapid way to "creatine load" human skeletal muscle is to ingest 20 g of creatine for 6 days. This elevated tissue concentration can then be maintained by ingestion of 2 g/day thereafter. The ingestion of 3 g creatine/day is in the long term likely to be as effective at raising tissue levels as this higher dose.
Abstract sourced from PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Displayed in the authors’ own words for context; our critique is in the sections below.
Read the full paper
Cited in 1 guide
How to read a study like this
The same questions worth asking about any research paper, not just this one. Worth a minute even if you trust the grade.
Who was studied, and do you resemble them?
Supplement effects often depend on baseline status. Vitamin D helps people who are deficient; iron helps people who are anemic. A result in people unlike you may not apply to you.
What was measured, and does it matter in daily life?
A study that shows a blood marker moved isn't the same as a study that shows people felt or functioned better. Ask what the outcome means in practice.
How large was the effect — not just whether it was significant.
'Statistically significant' only means the effect is unlikely to be zero. It doesn't tell you the effect is large enough to notice. Look for effect sizes, not just p-values.
Who paid for the trial, and what did they stand to gain?
Industry-funded trials are several times more likely to report positive results than independent ones. It's not usually fraud — it's subtle design and reporting choices. Weight accordingly.
Has anyone else replicated this?
Single positive trials are hypotheses. Replication by independent groups is what turns a hypothesis into reliable evidence. If the only positive trial is the one you're reading, wait.
Does the dose in the trial match what's being sold?
Supplement marketing routinely cites trials that used 5–10× the dose in the product. If the effective dose was 2 g/day and the capsule has 200 mg, expect roughly no effect.
About this page
Formulate maintains a registry of clinical studies cited across its guides and evidence grades. This page links the study metadata to the content that cites it — one canonical entry per landmark study.
The full citation chain is public so readers can verify claims without hunting through individual guide pages. Browse all cited studies →
Note: Study summaries on this page are editorial interpretations of the research. Always consult the primary source before drawing clinical conclusions.