Here you go bub: http://www.sportsci.org/traintech/creatine/rbk.html , and that's just one. Look at the bottom to ALL of the studies it refers to..


Please find another website to get your research from.

this has been published in "Sportscience Training & Technology". I never heard of it so far as listed in the impact factor list of scientific reviews ( http://www.sciencegateway.org/impact/ ).

And apparently you did not check how many studies were listed as reference in the papers I gave the link earlier.

By the way I am not going to change the site I am using to provide info since it is the one that indexes the most scientific reviews, sorry if you have to pay to get the best info, that's life (or just go to a library that as a subscription).

It's pretty much a waste of time with you, hopefully you'll realize your faults later on.

It doesn't even sound like you read any of the replies.

What's funnier, some of the links, the one source you must always use, completely contradicts the illegitimate points you try to make.

And did any of you read the papers I pointed out? tougher than reading any of the messages written in this thread...

I am sorry you guys don't know pubmed more, it is not only one source . Here are the journals recorded in pubmeb ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/pubmed/J_Medline.txt
It is the most used tools used by people doing research when they need to go through the literature.

The illegitimitate point of view I am trying to make is just based on rational study critics: double blind studies? what kind of supplemantation, for how long? what kind of training along with? technique of data recording? Any study on directly on tissue and not global body, any biomolecular analyses?... and so forth


I am open to criticics but with people that are able to give valuable arguments, not just what they think.

good bye

and once again, you click on "related articles" in those links and find many more studies about its benefits.

if i remember correctly, creatine is banned in france over a dense study linking it to cancer. but that "study" didnt even look at creatine

Then how did you see it?


One link I found