Research shows increase in DHT with Creatine Monohydrate use

[Delt King]

ok so i had my Dad taking Creatine Monohydrate for the health benefits associated with it. He does his own research for it and shows me this study in 2009 that showed that Creatine Monohydrate use increased DHT levels. I automatically called bullshit on it but then looked into it and low and behold found it to a true published study. Well he stopped taking it because of the relation shown of DHT and prostate size increase..which he doesn't want.

Anyway this would be the only study i have found to show anything negative associated with Creatine usage. I wish another study was done for a longer period but it now makes me wonder a bit...not that i'm stopping my creatine use.

Here's the link to read...

http://www.sncsalvador.com.br/artigos/Crea-afeta-testosterona-em-jogadores-de-rugbi

[steve_d]

An interesting study, although like you said, it may be the only study to show this. How many studies out there were not published that did not show this finding. ie publication bias. With that said, let's just assume that this is the first study of its kind, and therefore we will assume the results are what they are. Now, the big flaw I see here is that they never really compare creatine to placebo directly in their statistical tests. What they seem to do is say "there is no difference in the placebo group, but there is a difference in the creatine group"....Now, I know this may sound funny, but that doesn't really mean there is a statistical difference between each other.

For example: if given the study parameters, you need to show an effect of "10" to reach statistical significance, and group A has an effect of 9, whereas group B has an effect of 11, you would show that group B had an effect, and group A didn't. But in reality, between each other there was only a small difference.

With that said, even though it is a flaw, I don't think that would apply to this study, as if you actually look down through the numbers, it actually looks like the placebo group might have even decreased a little. So in all likelihood, a proper test would have still shown statistical difference. However, there is what I would guess a little more at play here. Because the sample size was quite small, there was a little imbalance in baseline values. And what I would argue here is that there is a bit of 'regression to the mean'. Meaning, small DHT values to start with could have been slight outliers, and larger values same thing. By chance, the creatine group seemed to have by luck gotten the individuals with these lower values. In the end, this could be 100% responsible for the results.

Take the study results with a grain of salt. Not saying the results aren't true, just saying that statistically, researchers would need a little more evidence to say with confidence that this is a true effect.

[Praetorian]

Even if the study is accurate DHT is not necessarily bad and an increase of how much? Not to mention DHT and prostate is very misunderstood and an increase in an adult has not been proven to affect prostate size.
P

[JonnyO]

Even if the study is accurate DHT is not necessarily bad and an increase of how much? Not to mention DHT and prostate is very misunderstood and an increase in an adult has not been proven to affect prostate size.
P

The TRUTH.

[steve_d]

Even if the study is accurate DHT is not necessarily bad and an increase of how much? Not to mention DHT and prostate is very misunderstood and an increase in an adult has not been proven to affect prostate size.
P

The increase was about 40% (from 0.98 to 1.38 nmol/L). I am not any sort of expert on DHT, just a biostatistician...what you're saying here though could very well be a perfect example of statistical vs. clinical significance. If what you are saying is that this increase is not really that important, than it serves as a perfect example. Actually, one that I might use when giving talks about stats since I like to keep my talks as 'un-boring' as possible, and talking about this type of stuff seems to give a bigger spark in otherwise sleepy students. After looking up DHT, looks like normal range is 1.0 - 3.4...So as P says, the increase is not relevant whatsoever.

Not only that, as I mentioned above, regression to the mean is likely - seeing as how the creatine group actually had an AVERAGE which was lower than the low end of normal - implying a few of the people really had low DHT for sure. All and all, I am not stopping my creatine use, even if it had been proven to be related to prostate size.

[Delt King]

The increase was about 40% (from 0.98 to 1.38 nmol/L). I am not any sort of expert on DHT, just a biostatistician...what you're saying here though could very well be a perfect example of statistical vs. clinical significance. If what you are saying is that this increase is not really that important, than it serves as a perfect example. Actually, one that I might use when giving talks about stats since I like to keep my talks as 'un-boring' as possible, and talking about this type of stuff seems to give a bigger spark in otherwise sleepy students. After looking up DHT, looks like normal range is 1.0 - 3.4...So as P says, the increase is not relevant whatsoever.

Not only that, as I mentioned above, regression to the mean is likely - seeing as how the creatine group actually had an AVERAGE which was lower than the low end of normal - implying a few of the people really had low DHT for sure. All and all, I am not stopping my creatine use, even if it had been proven to be related to prostate size.

Great post Steve!

[Andre Gregoire]

Great post! I had never seen this link before between creatine and DHT and I like Steve and Prae input on the study.

From my perspective I have read that they have no frigging clue what causes prostate cancer, they used to think it was high test and they recommended anti-androgens and now they are considering that low test and high estrogen might be the cause, it seems like its still a mystery.

Oh and the fact that your Dad is looking up studies is really ****ing cool.