You have probably been told that creatine works, and that you need a loading phase, a precise dose and perfect timing to make it work. A new meta-analysis suggests the story is simpler, and the most surprising finding is about what didn't matter.
The paper, published in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition (Wang et al., DOI: 10.1080/15502783.2026.2718316; PubMed 42765482), pooled 63 studies and 1,489 participants. It asked how much creatine adds on top of resistance training.
The Big Finding: Strength Gets the Biggest Bump
The researchers searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase and EBSCO through April 21, 2025. They compared resistance training plus creatine (RT + CR) with resistance training alone (RT) using Hedges' g and a three-level random-effects model.
The strength results:
- Upper-body strength: g = 0.54 (p < 0.001)
- Lower-body strength: g = 0.55 (p < 0.001)
By common effect-size conventions, values around 0.5 are moderate. Creatine users did not just train; they pulled ahead of lifters who trained the same way without it. Upper- and lower-body benefits were almost identical, so this isn't a bench-only or squat-only effect.
What About Muscle? Lean Mass Rose, Fat Mass Didn't Budge
The body composition picture is more modest:
- Lean mass: g = 0.30 (p < 0.001), a significant increase
- Body mass: g = 0.12 (p = 0.04), a small increase
- Body-fat percentage: g = -0.14 (p = 0.02), a small decrease
- Fat mass: g = -0.10 (p = 0.14), not significant
The authors conclude that the slight rise in body weight came mainly from lean mass, not fat. Body-fat percentage dipped slightly because lean tissue went up while fat mass stayed statistically unchanged. Creatine is therefore not a fat-loss supplement. Its effect on body fat shows up as a change in proportions, not a measurable drop in fat mass.
The effect on lean mass (0.30) is also smaller than the effect on strength (about 0.55). If you want a reason to take creatine, the data back strength more strongly than size.
The Dosing Plot Twist: Loading vs. No Loading
The analysis tested whether intervention duration, weekly training frequency, dosing strategy, daily dose and supplementation protocol changed the results. The conclusion is plain: intervention-protocol variables did not significantly influence the outcomes.
In practice:
- The meta-analysis did not show that a loading phase beat a no-loading approach.
- It did not identify a daily dose that outperformed others.
- The other protocol features it examined, including duration and weekly frequency, also failed to emerge as significant moderators.
This does not prove that dose is irrelevant. It means that across these 63 trials, no protocol factor reliably explained differences in results. The paper doesn't recommend a specific dose. Outside this paper, common guidance cites roughly 3–5 g per day, but this analysis did not test that range against alternatives. Check the full text and a qualified professional before settling on a number.
The abstract also doesn't say anything about timing relative to workouts, so there is no basis here for claiming that taking creatine before or after training matters.
Who Benefits Most? Age Looks Like the Main Clue
The researchers explored age, gender and training experience as moderators. Age was the participant characteristic that stood out for strength:
- Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant between-group differences for both upper- and lower-body strength.
- Meta-regression suggested an inverse association between age and strength effects, with larger effects in studies of younger participants.
The authors stress that this is exploratory. Many moderator analyses were run, and the age subgroups were unevenly represented. It is a hint, not a verdict. Older lifters should not read it as a reason to skip creatine, because the data show a difference in the size of the strength effect and don't say it disappears with age.
For body composition, neither subgroup nor meta-regression analyses found consistent moderators. The abstract doesn't highlight gender or training status as significant drivers, so claims that creatine works only for men or only for beginners aren't supported by this paper.
Practical Takeaways
Who it's likely for: Anyone doing resistance training who wants extra strength. The pooled benefit appeared in upper and lower body alike. Younger lifters showed larger strength effects in the exploratory analysis.
What to expect: A moderate boost in strength (g ≈ 0.55), a smaller gain in lean mass (g = 0.30), and a slight rise in body weight (g = 0.12), mostly from lean tissue.
What not to expect: A significant reduction in fat mass. Don't buy creatine as a fat burner.
Dosing: The paper found no significant advantage for any dosing strategy, daily dose or protocol. Loading is not shown to be necessary, but the paper doesn't prove it useless either.
Who should be cautious or skip it: The abstract doesn't address safety or medical contraindications. If you have kidney disease, take medications or are pregnant, talk to a doctor first. Anyone who needs to hold body weight steady, such as weight-class athletes, should note the small body mass increase the analysis found.
Caveats Worth Knowing
The authors say the conclusions should be read in the context of heterogeneous and incompletely reported nutritional intake and training backgrounds across trials. Diet and training programs varied and weren't always well documented, which adds noise. The age findings come from exploratory analyses with uneven subgroups.
Bottom Line
Adding creatine to resistance training delivers a reliable edge in strength and a smaller edge in lean mass, with no significant effect on fat mass. The surprise is that, in this dataset, the details people argue about most (loading, daily dose, protocol) didn't significantly change the outcome. Age is the one participant factor worth watching, with a cautious reading.
