Creatine used to live in a corner of the supplement aisle, sold in tubs to people who counted sets and reps. Increasingly it arrives as a gummy, a stick pack or an ingredient in a canned drink, positioned around focus, mood and “brain fuel” rather than the gym — a shift the authors of one 2026 trial describe plainly, noting that gummy formats have “recently gained popularity, particularly among younger athletic populations.”
The shift is worth taking seriously, because creatine is one of the few supplements with a long, largely consistent record behind it — and also one where the newest claims are the least settled. Three things published this year make that split unusually clear: a large new meta-analysis of creatine plus resistance training, a small trial that tested the gummy format directly, and a European regulatory verdict on the cognitive claim.
What the training evidence looks like now
The strongest recent addition is a three-level meta-analysis published in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, covering 63 randomised trials and 1,489 adults. Compared with resistance training alone, training plus creatine produced meaningfully better upper-body strength (Hedges’ g = 0.54) and lower-body strength (g = 0.55), a smaller gain in lean mass (g = 0.30) and body mass (g = 0.12), and a slight reduction in body-fat percentage (g = −0.14). Fat mass on its own did not change significantly.
That is a familiar picture, and it is not a small one: the effect sizes sit in the moderate range for strength. The authors also found that age appeared to matter — gains were larger in younger participants — though they explicitly label that finding exploratory, since the age subgroups were unevenly represented and no correction was made for the number of moderator analyses.
Earlier guidance lands in the same place. The International Society of Sports Nutrition’s position stand describes creatine monohydrate as the most effective ergogenic supplement available for high-intensity capacity and lean mass during training, with high-intensity performance typically improving 10–20% after loading.
Its dosing detail is worth repeating because the internet version often omits it. Saturation is reached fastest with roughly 5 g four times a day (about 0.3 g/kg) for five to seven days, then 3–5 g a day to maintain stores. Taking 3 g a day from the start works too, but takes about four weeks to reach the same point.
The brain claim is where the marketing runs ahead
Cognitive benefit is the fastest-growing pitch, and the evidence behind it is thinner than the training evidence — by a wide margin.
A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis pooled 16 randomised trials with 492 participants and found improvements in memory (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.18–0.44), attention time and processing speed, but not in overall cognitive function or executive function. Its GRADE assessment put certainty at moderate for memory and low for everything else.
Then the reviewers weighed in. A 2026 commentary in Frontiers in Nutrition argues that the meta-analysis counted multiple correlated subtests from the same participants as independent results, inflating precision and the apparent sample size. It notes that the European Food Safety Authority flagged the same problem, and that a separate 2023 memory meta-analysis lost statistical significance after a corrected re-analysis, except in older adults.
EFSA’s own 2024 opinion is the bluntest statement available. Asked to assess a health claim filed by a creatine manufacturer for 3 g a day, its panel concluded that “a cause-and-effect relationship has not been established between creatine supplementation and an improvement in cognitive function.” The panel noted that an acute working-memory effect seen at 20 g a day for five to seven days did not appear at lower doses or with continuous use, and that a response-inhibition result was an isolated finding among ten studies in healthy people.
In other words: plausible biology, real but modest signals in some domains, and no regulator willing to call it a cognitive enhancer.
A gummy trial, with asterisks attached
The format question got its first direct test this year. A 10-week randomised trial in 32 female collegiate and professional beach volleyball players gave one group 5 g a day of creatine monohydrate in gummy form; the other group received nothing.
Jump height rose 2.1 cm in the creatine group while the control group fell 1.7 cm, and change-of-direction time improved by 0.34 seconds versus no change. Body fat held steady in the creatine group while it rose in controls. There were no differences in lean mass, skeletal muscle mass, total body mass or reaction time.
The caveats are substantial and the authors list most of them: there was no placebo, only an untreated control, so expectancy effects cannot be ruled out; the trial was not prospectively registered; body composition came from bioelectrical impedance, which is sensitive to shifts in body water; and the gummies were donated by their manufacturer, with two authors disclosing advisory roles for supplement companies. The authors also point out that testing of commercial gummy products has found creatine content and stability varying substantially between brands — a reminder that “5 g of creatine” on a label is a claim, not an assay.
One more trial, and a lab-test wrinkle
A four-week triple-blind placebo-controlled trial in 20 physically active adults eating vegan diets found small but significant changes with 0.1 g/kg a day: skeletal muscle mass up 0.3 kg, total body water up 1.4 kg, body fat down 1.4 kg, and better countermovement jump performance. Sprint and strength tests did not change.
Serum creatinine rose significantly in the creatine group, which is expected — creatinine is the breakdown product of creatine — but it matters practically. MedlinePlus explains that creatinine is filtered by the kidneys and that abnormal levels can be a sign of kidney disease; because the amount varies with muscle mass, diet, age and activity, testing alone is not the best measure of kidney function.
The position stand’s safety section is reassuring on the underlying question. Reviewing studies up to 30 g a day for as long as five years, it finds no compelling evidence that creatine harms kidney function in healthy or clinical populations, notes fluid retention of roughly 0.5–1.0 litres during loading, and suggests that people with existing kidney disease consult a physician first.
What the label does not tell you
In the United States, creatine is regulated as a dietary supplement, which is a lighter regime than most shoppers assume. As the FDA puts it, the agency “is not authorized to approve dietary supplements for safety and effectiveness before they are marketed,” and in many cases firms can introduce products without notifying the agency at all. The same page advises consumers to talk to a doctor, pharmacist or other healthcare professional before buying or using one — advice that applies with particular force to anyone managing kidney disease, taking prescription medication, pregnant or breastfeeding.
What we did not find
No trial showing that creatine substitutes for sleep, treats cognitive impairment or produces weight loss on its own; no head-to-head study proving gummies outperform powder; and no regulatory body anywhere that has accepted a general cognitive-enhancement claim for creatine.
What exists is narrower and still useful: a well-replicated strength and lean-mass effect that depends on training, a plausible but contested cognitive story, and a format shift that has outrun the testing. That is the shape of the story as the evidence stands in October 2026 — enough to report, not enough to promise anything.
None of this is medical advice. If you are considering creatine, or wondering whether a supplement is interacting with a health condition or a prescription, the appropriate next step is a conversation with a healthcare professional — the same standard our medical disclaimer sets for everything on this site. Readers comparing creatine with the rest of the supplement shelf may find our earlier checks on the probiotic aisle and on strength training in older adults useful context.