Cyclist and Creatine

Tonymufc

After a short spell in the gym ( I'd forgotten about my bike ) I started to use creatine. Whilst widely popular amongst weightlifters/bodybuilders, I also found out that creatine was becoming more popular with endurance athletes, I.E. cyclist's, runners etc. Does anybody use it on here? Was there a marked improvement in you're performance? Would it benefit a non-competetive cyclist? Or is it a load of tosh.

phreak

I used some towards the back end of last year but it's hard to tell if it made any difference. I have definately improved but I've done a lot more miles so I don't know that it can be down to creatine. Hard to isolate one particular part of your training/diet isn't it?

GavH

I'm not sure Creatine is much use for endurance athletes. It helps increase Power and strength due to the enhanced ATP retained in the muscles (or something like that) but it also increases the muscles water retention and hence makes the muscles heavier which is no good for endurance athletes (again, this is off years ago memory so someone please correct me if I'm wrong). I used it some years ago and it DEFINATELY helped improve my strength but I certainly felt no benefit on runs etc.

teagar

I've been told that after you've taken a lot of creatine and a lot of water, you muscles fill up with water, thus bulking your muscle up (and making them look a bit like baloons). Then when you do some serious exercise, deplete the water, and chug a lot of protein, the gaps inbetween the muscle fibres created by the water get filled up with more muscle mass.

According to wikipedia track sprinters use it.

You need to take an awful lot more than the recomended dose for it to be very noticable though.

Just stick to riding lots and eating healthily.

ugo.santalucia

I wouldn't use it.

It is widely accepted that creatine causes increase in body mass, which is not ideal for a cyclist, but even more importantly, why taking pills if, as you say, you are an amateur rider?

Creatine, together with similar substances, is the gateway to doping. Tomorrow is caffeine, then Salbutamol, why not... if it's good for asthma is good for me...

Why are you all obsessed about performance? Can you not just train, eat good food and accept the performance you achieve? I have no desire of improving by means of pills...

Chaz.Harding

Ugo, you say creatine is the gateway to other, cycling-illeagle substances, and, moreover, the abuse of them. I consider myself a keen cyclist, runner, weightlifter and mountaineer. I take muscle builing products - no creatine though, as I found it doesn't work for me personally, so am I effectively 'doping' myself?

I use a fair amount of protein powders and protein bars, amino acids, and eat a hell of alot of chicken, tuna, beans and steak ect. You say you have no desire to improve by means of pills, but as you know (if you researched) creatine is formed naturally in the body. I want to improve every part of my body, in all aspects - I want to become stronger, fitter and leaner. If that means boosting my diet with additional products, it simply makes it easier to maintain my training, and maximise my results - it's MUCH easier to drink a protein shake than to eat a steak in a break at work, ect).

But I guess equal to that is I am no top-flight cyclist - I am simply too strong in my upper body - therefore heavier!! All round, rugged fitness is what I'm aiming for - no noodle arms for me thanks

Infamous

bigchazrocks wrote:

...but as you know (if you researched) creatine is formed naturally in the body.

Testosterone is formed naturally in the body, does this make steroids ok?

Creatine has it's uses, but not in cycling.

Chaz.Harding

Ok, so there are clearly limits. I haven't properly reasearched testosterone, steroids, or anything even remotely like that, becuase I have no desire to ever use them. I know a little though. All I was pointing out was that it's easier for me to include dietry supplements, to enhance my recovery and performance.

Some folks prefer not to even conider anything like that, some take steroids. Just seems how hell-bent you are on getting stronger / fitter / whatever...

rapid_uphill

creatine causes stress in the body, i suffered with nose bleeds because of it.

gandhi

rapid_uphill wrote:

creatine causes stress in the body, i suffered with nose bleeds because of it.

Were you snorting it?

rapid_uphill

no i was injecting it you clown

gandhi wrote:

rapid_uphill wrote:

creatine causes stress in the body, i suffered with nose bleeds because of it.

Were you snorting it?

ugo.santalucia

bigchazrocks wrote:

Ugo, you say creatine is the gateway to other, cycling-illeagle substances, and, moreover, the abuse of them. I consider myself a keen cyclist, runner, weightlifter and mountaineer. I take muscle builing products - no creatine though, as I found it doesn't work for me personally, so am I effectively 'doping' myself?

I use a fair amount of protein powders and protein bars, amino acids, and eat a hell of alot of chicken, tuna, beans and steak ect. You say you have no desire to improve by means of pills, but as you know (if you researched) creatine is formed naturally in the body. I want to improve every part of my body, in all aspects - I want to become stronger, fitter and leaner. If that means boosting my diet with additional products, it simply makes it easier to maintain my training, and maximise my results - it's MUCH easier to drink a protein shake than to eat a steak in a break at work, ect).

But I guess equal to that is I am no top-flight cyclist - I am simply too strong in my upper body - therefore heavier!! All round, rugged fitness is what I'm aiming for - no noodle arms for me thanks

The use of creatine is not doping because creatine it's not on the list, if it was, it would be doping. However, an excessive use of creatine (10 g a day or more) is considered doping (from sentence in the Trial to Juventus' doctor M. Agricola).
Philosophically any substance taken with the aim of improving the performance in a competition is doping, so even creatine. Then one might argue that also some foods improve the performance over eating for instance pork scratchings... It's where you draw the line. If you think creatine is fine, then it's not doping for you. For me it is, but I don't compete, so I don't care what other people take. If I was competing, I wouldn't like to compete against athletes who improve their performance taking drugs (banned or not). The fact that phosphocreatine naturally occurs in the body doesn't mean it's not a drug, EPO and testosterone are present in the body too and I'm sure you agree these are performance enhancing drugs.

morxy

I researched creatine recently and decided it wouldn't really benefit me. I'm lean and I fare better in hill climbs than sprints.

A study on its benefits for endurance athletes mentions that subjects taking it put on an average of 2kg weight after just 5 days! That's not music to a weight weenie's ears! (Weight gain was mostly due to water retention... and, admittedly, they were taking fairly high Creatine doses: 20g a day.)

The study mentions the athletes then raced several 300m reps and several 1000m reps and that creatine showed a significant performance boost. But hang on a minute! Those distances are practically sprint distances! That's playing to Creatine's strengths isn't it? Now if the effects of creatine were measured over 5-10km of running then I'd sit up and listen. Anything below that isn't endurance.

If you're a sprinter or racing short time trials, and you're powerful enough to absorb an extra kilo or 2, Creatine's probably a good idea. But I wonder if it's still a good idea if, in order to get to that final sprint, you had to drag your butt through 50+ miles of endurance? Will Creatine still make you shine in the sprint at the end of a 100km stage?

mclarent

morxy wrote:

I researched creatine recently and decided it wouldn't really benefit me. I'm lean and I fare better in hill climbs than sprints.

A study on its benefits for endurance athletes mentions that subjects taking it put on an average of 2kg weight after just 5 days! That's not music to a weight weenie's ears! (Weight gain was mostly due to water retention... and, admittedly, they were taking fairly high Creatine doses: 20g a day.)

The study mentions the athletes then raced several 300m reps and several 1000m reps and that creatine showed a significant performance boost. But hang on a minute! Those distances are practically sprint distances! That's playing to Creatine's strengths isn't it? Now if the effects of creatine were measured over 5-10km of running then I'd sit up and listen. Anything below that isn't endurance.

If you're a sprinter or racing short time trials, and you're powerful enough to absorb an extra kilo or 2, Creatine's probably a good idea. But I wonder if it's still a good idea if, in order to get to that final sprint, you had to drag your butt through 50+ miles of endurance? Will Creatine still make you shine in the sprint at the end of a 100km stage?

+1

Headhuunter

I also thought that creatine improves short term power and strength rather than endurance. The principal is that it allows you to lift and push heavier weights in the short term which allows you to "rip up" your muscles more than your would be able to without creatine, which in turn means you gain weight and build muscle. Creatine is necessary in supplying your muscles with energy for short term bursts of power and taking supplements allows you to increase the power used in those bursts.

It is created naturally in your body and the only side effect I have ever heard of is that some researchers think that taking creatine supplement may affect your body's ability to create its own. I have certainly never heard creatine causing nosebleeds, it has nothing to do with the nose, however weight lifting itself is known to cause nosebleeds and varicose veins so that may be the cause.

ugo.santalucia

I'm sure those "athletes" who take 20 grams of creatine a day don't have the healthiest kidneys of all.
Anyway, it is really sad to get to the point of taking creatine in NON professional sport, believe me, really sad.

I actually give more credit to a PRO cyclist who takes EPO or testosterone. He's got to live on his cycling, maybe a family and a mortgage, it's not easy.

But someone taking pills to post a better time in the Etape du Tour is only to be pitied

disgruntledgoat

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I'm sure those "athletes" who take 20 grams of creatine a day don't have the healthiest kidneys of all.
Anyway, it is really sad to get to the point of taking creatine in NON professional sport, believe me, really sad.

I actually give more credit to a PRO cyclist who takes EPO or testosterone. He's got to live on his cycling, maybe a family and a mortgage, it's not easy.

But someone taking pills to post a better time in the Etape du Tour is only to be pitied

Word.

chrisw12

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I'm sure those "athletes" who take 20 grams of creatine a day don't have the healthiest kidneys of all.
Anyway, it is really sad to get to the point of taking creatine in NON professional sport, believe me, really sad.

I actually give more credit to a PRO cyclist who takes EPO or testosterone. He's got to live on his cycling, maybe a family and a mortgage, it's not easy.

But someone taking pills to post a better time in the Etape du Tour is only to be pitied

Honestly, what are you on about? Why is it sad to be passionate and want to do your best. Getting paid has got f all to do with it. A lot of those NON professionals are working their buts off to achieve their goals, why shouldn't they take a legal substance to enhance their performance.

I (like a lot of others) put a lot of effort, suffering and time into this sport, maybe you should try it then you can pity us and comment on what's right or wrong.

ugo.santalucia

chrisw12 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I'm sure those "athletes" who take 20 grams of creatine a day don't have the healthiest kidneys of all.
Anyway, it is really sad to get to the point of taking creatine in NON professional sport, believe me, really sad.

I actually give more credit to a PRO cyclist who takes EPO or testosterone. He's got to live on his cycling, maybe a family and a mortgage, it's not easy.

But someone taking pills to post a better time in the Etape du Tour is only to be pitied

Honestly, what are you on about? Why is it sad to be passionate and want to do your best. Getting paid has got f all to do with it. A lot of those NON professionals are working their buts off to achieve their goals, why shouldn't they take a legal substance to enhance their performance.

I (like a lot of others) put a lot of effort, suffering and time into this sport, maybe you should try it then you can pity us and comment on what's right or wrong.

I do try, I do my 6000 miles per year... creatine free.

Want to take creatine? Take creatine, why should you care what I think? I have the right to have an opinion

Infamous

Taking creatine is in no way doping. If creatine did help cyclists, it'd be banned. It's no more immoral than taking protein powder or energy drinks, which will increase your performance far more than creatine.

I believe creatine is used when you do very anaerobic things, like weight lifting or sprints. Which is why body builders use it (and even body builders disagree on how helpful creatine is, some don't feel any effect from it, some do).

I actually give more credit to a PRO cyclist who takes EPO or testosterone. He's got to live on his cycling, maybe a family and a mortgage, it's not easy.

WALOFS. What if a Pro cyclist jumped on a moped and did half the race on it? would that be ok because he has a mortgage to pay? no it's cheating.

ugo.santalucia

Infamous wrote:

Taking creatine is in no way doping. If creatine did help cyclists, it'd be banned. It's no more immoral than taking protein powder or energy drinks, which will increase your performance far more than creatine.

I believe creatine is used when you do very anaerobic things, like weight lifting or sprints. Which is why body builders use it (and even body builders disagree on how helpful creatine is, some don't feel any effect from it, some do).

I actually give more credit to a PRO cyclist who takes EPO or testosterone. He's got to live on his cycling, maybe a family and a mortgage, it's not easy.

WALOFS. What if a Pro cyclist jumped on a moped and did half the race on it? would that be ok because he has a mortgage to pay? no it's cheating.

I don't think we're getting the point here.

Forget about the PRO stuff, taking creatine is not like using recovery drinks. it is aimed to boost a performance that otherwise wouldn't be there. This is morally doping. Then I acknowledge that creatine is not in the banned list, if I had to revise the list I would include it and you can't exclude that it won't be added to the list in the future.
That said there is (as already mentioned) a tribunal sentence for drugs abuse leading to a dopant effect involving creatine and other non banned substances in the trial against Juventus doctor M. Agricola.

To close the argument (and I won't come back to comment on the topic) it is very much to the individual to decide where to draw the line. I pity those who take creatine for recreational sport (no matter how competitive you are, it is still recreational sport) but this is MY point of view which can be shared or not.

Full stop

Alex_Simmons/RST

Like it or not (and I make no specific comment wrt creatine), doping is what the relevant authorities define it to be.

And this line covers not only prohibited substances but also banned methods. In the case of cycling as a sport, the relevant authorities are the National Federations, WADA and National ADAs, along with the relevant laws applicable in each jurisdiction.

The line in the sand, as far as cycling as a sport goes, has been drawn for us.

Creatine to my knowledge is not on the list, neither is caffeine (a well known ergogenic aid for endurance cycling performance) or carbohydrate/electrolyte drinks (also ergogenic). Pseudo-ephidrine is not on the list. Neither is tribasic sodium phosphate (also shown by scientific study to be an ergogenic aid for ECP). Some use mild OTC analgesics to help them train (pretty dumb if you ask me but some do it).

If performance enhancement was the sole (or a primary) criteria for what constituted doping, then training, eating and sleeping would be banned, since they are performance enhancing (and represent the most effective of all the substances and methods there is).

Performance enhancement is only one criteria used by WADA. Legality of substances is another (e.g. cannaboids) as well as associated health risks. In some instances, what's on the list might be considered strange and could potentially cause some people problems (e.g. HRT for older women).

Now while the authorities have drawn the line for us, that is not to say that we cannot also take a higher "personal standard" but that of course is a personal choice.

For example, is it ethical to promote substances that aren't prohibited but may cause health risks, or have not been appropriately tested. Or should one stop training/competing because their doctor has prescribed iron supplementation and some vitamin C (neither of which are banned substances), yet doing so will aid performance.

What about the use of altitude tents? Banned in Italy I think (?) but not a prohibited method as far as WADA is concerned. And if altering the environment in which we sleep becomes banned, then what about heaters, air-con, fan, blankets or even the roof over our head? Or methods to aid recovery like massage, cool/heat treatments, accupuncture? Drawing a line in the sand is actually pretty hard to do.

So while in everyone's mind, there are differences in what we might each consider to constitute doping, the fact is the matter is very much not a black and white one, so the best we can do is apply our own set of values, taking into account the line that has been drawn for us.


For the record, I wouldn't recommend creatine for endurance cycling performance, irrespective of its WADA status.

And I am firmly anti-doping and apply what I consider to be appropriate ethical standards wrt any advice given on supplements.

AntLockyer

there is no such thing as doping in sportives is there?

rapid_uphill

you kidding me, cyclists even cheat in charity bike rides.

AntLockyer wrote:

there is no such thing as doping in sportives is there?

AntLockyer

I'm trying to find it but there was one chap who took all sorts of stuff to see how good he could get. To him it wasn't cheating as he wasn't racing. I guess it's jsut the same as the gym monkeys that take shit jsut to get big.

Infamous

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I don't think we're getting the point here.

Forget about the PRO stuff, taking creatine is not like using recovery drinks. it is aimed to boost a performance that otherwise wouldn't be there. This is morally doping. Then I acknowledge that creatine is not in the banned list, if I had to revise the list I would include it and you can't exclude that it won't be added to the list in the future.
That said there is (as already mentioned) a tribunal sentence for drugs abuse leading to a dopant effect involving creatine and other non banned substances in the trial against Juventus doctor M. Agricola.

To close the argument (and I won't come back to comment on the topic) it is very much to the individual to decide where to draw the line. I pity those who take creatine for recreational sport (no matter how competitive you are, it is still recreational sport) but this is MY point of view which can be shared or not.

Full stop

I understand that you are anti doping (as we all are or at least should be) but all this over creatine??? Creatine has no performance enhancing qualites for a cyclist, at best it'll do nothing, at worst it'll make you bloated or damage your kidneys.

ugo.santalucia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2004 ... 031989.htm

AntLockyer

It is charged that, while the drugs in question were legal, they had been used in such a manner that essentially produced the same effects as illicit substances.

I think the issue here is the intravenous delivery of the substance not the substance itself.

ugo.santalucia

AntLockyer wrote:

It is charged that, while the drugs in question were legal, they had been used in such a manner that essentially produced the same effects as illicit substances.

I think the issue here is the intravenous delivery of the substance not the substance itself.

No, I've read a book about the all trial, written by one of the experts called to help the jury decide on the case. It was not the way the drugs were administered but the amounts, well above the recommended doses, aimed not at recovery but aimed at building muscle mass in the case of creatine. 1-2 grams of creatine during hard training are aimed at helping to recover the ATP levels within the muscle cells. 10-20 Grams a day were amied at building extra muscle mass. This was the accusation.

R. Agricola was found guilty in court for administering drugs with the aim of boosting the athletes performance. In the appeal he was absolved, although the judge pointed out that his conduct was unprofessional and that drugs should not administered to boost perfomance. FACT

AntLockyer

So the outcome was not guilty for both the doctor and the football player?

ugo.santalucia

AntLockyer wrote:

So the outcome was not guilty for both the doctor and the football player?

The football players were only witnesses, under accusations were the team doctor (Agricola) and the Chairman (Giraudo).
The doctor was found guilty in the first trial and condemned to 1 or 2 years in prison, can't remember exactly, but he was absolved in the following appeal trial, although the judge pointed out the unprofessional behaviour.
The chairman was absolved as he claimed he wasn't aware (obviously).
Since then Agricola hasn't been team doctor at Juventus or anywhere, although he has not been radiated and I assume he still works as physician somewhere