REF-060 · Antonio et al., 2021 (ISSN) · Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, Vol. 18, Art. 13 [note: the most full version is 2021; a 2025 version exists as a more concise ACSM Fit Journal shareable resource, DOI 10.1249/fit.0000000000001034] · Paper
ISSN Creatine Position Stand: Common Questions and Misconceptions
Main caveat: Position/review paper; the abstract lists the questions and the dosing, not the answers, so the endurance-specific statements above rest on the full text.
Key Findings (overview)
Antonio et al., for the ISSN, convened an international expert team to answer the recurring questions about creatine with an evidence-based review.
The abstract's framing: creatine is popular for muscle mass, performance and recovery, has accumulating evidence in older and patient populations, and is well tolerated at recommended doses (3-5 g/day or 0.1 g/kg body mass/day) across more than 500 peer-reviewed publications.
The twelve questions addressed are: water retention; whether creatine is an anabolic steroid; kidney damage; hair loss; dehydration and cramping; safety in children and adolescents; fat mass; whether a loading phase is required; benefit in older adults; whether it is only useful for resistance/power activities; whether it is only effective for males; and whether other forms beat monohydrate and whether creatine is stable in solution.
Key for Cycling
Recommended dose per the abstract: 3-5 g/day or 0.1 g/kg/day; well tolerated at these doses
Creatine beyond resistance/power: the paper answers its question 10 that other athletes may benefit too — more glycogen storage with carbohydrate, less muscle damage and faster recovery, fewer injuries, hyper-hydration for exercise in heat, neuroprotection (mostly animal data); it reports no direct effect on prolonged aerobic performance (full text, checked 2026-09-27)
Potential benefit for recovery from intense exercise (less muscle damage, inflammation and soreness) and neuroprotection (concussion, spinal cord injury; mostly animal data) (full text, checked 2026-09-27)
Water weight gain: Not from this paper: REF-352 (Kreider 2017 ISSN position stand) says only that a water-weight shift happens — its abstract gives no kg figure, and the base carries none; this review addresses the "does creatine cause water retention?" question as one of its twelve
Practical Application
The ISSN's expert answer sheet on creatine: safe and well tolerated at 3-5 g/day (or 0.1 g/kg/day), with the common fears — steroid-like action, kidney damage, hair loss, cramping, fat gain — addressed as misconceptions; for an endurance athlete the direct benefit is in the strength and cognitive-fatigue components of the program, not in prolonged aerobic work.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: for a cyclist prioritizing weight loss or a power-to-weight event, we do not recommend creatine — the water-weight gain (see REF-352) works against the goal; for a rider with a real strength block and no weight constraint, monohydrate at the abstract's 3-5 g/day is the sensible form and dose.
Inference, not tested here: any weight change in the first weeks of creatine use is water, not fat; read body-composition trends accordingly.
Limitations
Position/review paper; the abstract lists the questions and the dosing, not the answers, so the endurance-specific statements above rest on the full text.
Sport-specific data for cycling are thin; most of the underlying trials are resistance-training or clinical populations.
How this entry was checked and changed
Content correction 2026-09-27
Added a Practical Application section (the entry had no lead line) built on the abstract's dosing (3-5 g/day, 0.1 g/kg/day) and its twelve-question scope.
"Water weight 1-2 kg" now points to REF-352, which carries that figure; the endurance/cognition statements are labelled as full-text claims not checked against the abstract; "NOT recommended with weight loss priority" labelled as the base's own practice.
Lines labelled "full text; not checked" were read against the open-access full text (PMC7871530): 1 corrected to what the paper says; 1 not in the paper — removed or relabelled as the base's own practice.
2026-09-30: the "~1-2 kg" water-weight figure was pointed to REF-352, whose own 2026-09-27 correction removed it (not in its abstract); the number is gone here too — only the qualitative water-weight caveat remains.
Content correction 2026-11-03
Level or summary wording: praise of the authors that no source supports ("authoritative", "from the leading … group") removed; the level is unchanged.