Creatine does nothing for endurance in trained athletes

Creatine monohydrate is one of the best-evidenced supplements in sport, with robust evidence that it enhances short-term, high-intensity exercise in athletes. But plenty of endurance athletes take it too, and whether it does anything for aerobic performance has remained genuinely controversial. Because creatine works through the phosphocreatine energy system, which dominates brief maximal efforts rather than sustained aerobic work, the question of whether its benefits carry over to endurance events needed a systematic answer rather than assumption. This review set out to provide one, focusing specifically on trained populations.

Following PRISMA guidelines, the authors searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus from inception until 19 May 2022. They included only human experimental trials that were placebo-controlled and that evaluated creatine monohydrate supplementation's effects on endurance performance in trained people. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the PEDro scale, and the protocol was pre-registered on PROSPERO. Thirteen studies met all eligibility criteria and were pooled in the meta-analysis.

The pooled analysis showed no significant change in endurance performance after creatine monohydrate supplementation in trained people (p = 0.47), with a trivial negative effect: a standardised mean difference of -0.07 (95% CI -0.32 to 0.18) and moderate heterogeneity (I² = 34.75%). As a robustness check, the authors re-ran the analysis after excluding studies unevenly distributed around the funnel plot, and the result barely moved: SMD -0.07 (95% CI -0.27 to 0.13), with heterogeneity dropping to 0% (p = 0.49). The conclusion was that creatine monohydrate was ineffective for endurance performance in this population.

This meta-analysis brings clarity to a genuinely disputed corner of sports nutrition. It does not challenge creatine's standing for strength, sprint and other short high-intensity work, where the authors note the evidence is robust — it draws a boundary around where those benefits stop. The consistency of the null result across the main and sensitivity analyses strengthens the case. What it leaves open is whether the picture differs in untrained people, since only trained populations were analysed, and whether specific endurance formats or protocols might behave differently from the pooled average.

If you train for endurance and take creatine expecting faster times, this is a reason to recalibrate: across the placebo-controlled evidence in trained people, it delivered no endurance benefit whatsoever. That said, the finding is about endurance performance specifically — creatine's evidence base for short, high-intensity efforts remains intact, so athletes whose sport mixes both may still find it relevant for the explosive side. The takeaway is about matching the supplement to the demand, not about whether creatine works at all.