Peter Attia

There aren't that many things that show up where the consistency of the studies is always in the same direction.

And really what you're basically looking at is the magnitude or the effect size, but you're always on the same side of the tornado plot.

Let's talk about some of the measurements.

I think one of the advantages of studying the effects of creatine on physical performance is we have really good objective measurements that you can demonstrate in a short period of time.

You can do a 12-week study, and in just 12 weeks, you could objectively, unambiguously determine if there was hypertrophy and if there was an increase in performance.

How do we do that on the cognitive side?

What are the data that you've been looking at that have given you an increasing level of confidence?

Creatine is crossing the blood-brain barrier.

That's established?

Ah, those lovely greedy muscles.

Especially if you're training.

Naive question.

Are they using an isotope?

Are they labeling the creatine?

They're not using CSF levels or anything?

You need more creatine.

Was not rate limited.

Does that mean that you're going to get mixed results if you look at the cognition literature because you're going to have some studies that were underdosed?

And if you have a study that was done at five and it shows no effect, you're going to come to the wrong conclusion potentially.

Anybody listening, if you're not under stress, I'd like to hear from you.