Dr. Darren Candow

I think the main force is the driver of weight training.

So if you're in line for a bisphosphonate, there's no way that creatine or weight training will come close.

So a drug effect will always be superior.

The effects we're seeing even from a significant perspective with creatine are so small, we don't even get to a clinical perspective.

But let's talk about weight training.

I 100% agree.

If I had to choose one for bone, it's weight training or plyometrics or anything that you feel to the body.

And then consider creatine in your treatment program.

Creatine would never replace a pharmaceutical intervention from a bone perspective.

And the effects we're seeing are so small or even over two years.

At best, it's preserving.

Now, this begs the question, maybe the adults we chose were too healthy.

None had diagnosed osteoporosis or osteopenia or frailty.

What if we took a population with severe osteoporosis?

Maybe creatine could come to the rescue there.

That's another thing we're starting to hopefully get governmental funding for down the road.

But a lot of young females, a lot of young males, and of course, older females, even postmenopausal, their skeleton is still very beneficial and strong.

They may not have incidences of osteopenia or fracture risk.

But until we do a study and diagnose osteoporotic males and females, we just don't know if it's the disease or maybe they were just healthy enough.

Yeah, and that's 100% correct.