Creatine and DHT

[drkelp]

Has it ever really been verified that creatine raises dht? Would've never thought so but seems like my prostate pings me after use now.

 

[BigTex]

Has it ever really been verified that creatine raises dht? Would've never thought so but seems like my prostate pings me after use now.

van der Merwe J, Brooks NE, Myburgh KH. Three weeks of creatine monohydrate supplementation affects dihydrotestosterone to testosterone ratio in college-aged rugby players. Clin J Sport Med. 2009 Sep;19(5):399-404. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e3181b8b52f. PMID: 19741313.

Results: After 7 days of creatine loading, or a further 14 days of creatine maintenance dose, serum T levels did not change. However, levels of DHT increased by 56% after 7 days of creatine loading and remained 40% above baseline after 14 days maintenance (P < 0.001). The ratio of DHT:T also increased by 36% after 7 days creatine supplementation and remained elevated by 22% after the maintenance dose (P < 0.01).

 

[BigTex]

Now, here is the caveat to this study:

Anecdotally there are whole lot of people, myself included, who have using creatine for years and never heard anything about people losing hair or getting prostate cancer. My hair loss is exactly the same pattern as my father's hair loss, no more or less. I have been using creatine since 1992 when it first came out as an injectable.

Second, a high DHT to testosterone ratio do not always mean that you will get prostate cancer. Like all cancers, the cause of prostate cancer is multi factorial and cannot be pinned down to one factor. Genetics, age and race seem to be the biggest factors. While this study reported in increase in DHT, it did not report any hair loss or PSA increases.

Third, in research, controversial findings like these need to be replicated before it can be taken too seriously. This is the only study existing, finding this outcome. Eye opening for sure.

Since 1992, creatine has probably been studied more than caffeine and no negative side effects have ever been shown. So I would not toss out the creatine just yet.

 

[madman]

Has it ever really been verified that creatine raises dht? Would've never thought so but seems like my prostate pings me after use now.

post #6

Natural 21M Very Low E2 Relative to T With Symptoms

Hello all, I'm at my wits end regarding low E2 symptoms which have been going on for at least 3 years, but have worsened: frequent urination (feels like I can't empty my bladder; underwear is always soaked), constipation, dry mouth, achy joints, complete loss of libido, ED. The blood test I took...

www.excelmale.com

 

[PapiChulo]

Now, here is the caveat to this study:

Anecdotally there are whole lot of people, myself included, who have using creatine for years and never heard anything about people losing hair or getting prostate cancer. My hair loss is exactly the same pattern as my father's hair loss, no more or less. I have been using creatine since 1992 when it first came out as an injectable.

Second, a high DHT to testosterone ratio do not always mean that you will get prostate cancer. Like all cancers, the cause of prostate cancer is multi factorial and cannot be pinned down to one factor. Genetics, age and race seem to be the biggest factors. While this study reported in increase in DHT, it did not report any hair loss or PSA increases.

Third, in research, controversial findings like these need to be replicated before it can be taken too seriously. This is the only study existing, finding this outcome. Eye opening for sure.

Since 1992, creatine has probably been studied more than caffeine and no negative side effects have ever been shown. So I would not toss out the creatine just yet.

I have noticed for decades bodybuilders, gym trainers, gym rats, etc quoting "studies" to support certain claims. While it is commendable people are reading scientific material, most scientific studies are false. People should be very suspicious of any scientific author making any claim whatsoever about anything. Demand excellence and, as already stated by others, the conclusions need to "reliable" (reproducible) and "accurate" (valid) before being considered as plausible. A thermometer is said to be reliable if it records the temperature of the inside of a refrigerator when it is running at the same time of day, day after day. However, the thermometer can be reflecting the incorrect temperature, which is to say it is not a valid reading. Thus the thermometer is reliable but it is not an accurate tool. For a study to be worthy of your consideration, it has to be accurate (valid) and reliable (reproducible).

One of the most published and most cited scientific research authors is Dr John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, at Stanford U. He wrote a piece years ago on this very subject:

Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

NB: the article has been cited almost 2000 times, which is astounding. Apparently thousands of scientists thought it valid and reliable.

 

[BigTex]

post #6

Natural 21M Very Low E2 Relative to T With Symptoms

Hello all, I'm at my wits end regarding low E2 symptoms which have been going on for at least 3 years, but have worsened: frequent urination (feels like I can't empty my bladder; underwear is always soaked), constipation, dry mouth, achy joints, complete loss of libido, ED. The blood test I took...

www.excelmale.com

Literally doing a search, it is amazing how many hair replacement clinics etc jumped all of this sinngle study that never showed DHT caused hair loss or prostate problems. But that one study is where all of this bro science came from.

 

[BigTex]

I have noticed for decades bodybuilders, gym trainers, gym rats, etc quoting "studies" to support certain claims. While it is commendable people are reading scientific material, most scientific studies are false. People should be very suspicious of any scientific author making any claim whatsoever about anything. Demand excellence and, as already stated by others, the conclusions need to "reliable" (reproducible) and "accurate" (valid) before being considered as plausible. A thermometer is said to be reliable if it records the temperature of the inside of a refrigerator when it is running at the same time of day, day after day. However, the thermometer can be reflecting the incorrect temperature, which is to say it is not a valid reading. Thus the thermometer is reliable but it is not an accurate tool. For a study to be worthy of your consideration, it has to be accurate (valid) and reliable (reproducible).

One of the most published and most cited scientific research authors is Dr John Ioannidis, MD, PhD, at Stanford U. He wrote a piece years ago on this very subject:

Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

NB: the article has been cited almost 2000 times, which is astounding. Apparently thousands of scientists thought it valid and reliable.


View attachment 25420
View attachment 25421

Always amazing how many use studies done on hypertrophy and strength and take it to heart when it was done on untrained subjects. That is no way means it is going to apply to highly trained or even competitive athletes.