Nutrition
B · Reasonable confidenceNew this roundDoes creatine help with strength training after 60?
Original title: Creatine alongside strength training in adults over 60
What this means
A little: strength gains are somewhat larger with creatine (g = 0.31), but no demonstrable difference was found for muscle mass or everyday physical function.
Yao L, Yang D, Gao J · 2026 · Frontiers in Nutrition 13:1919884
What does this rating mean?
A solid systematic review with caveats, or consistent indications with a limited scope.
Findings
Eleven randomised trials compared strength training with creatine against strength training without it in adults aged 60 and over. Creatine produced a small but clear additional gain in muscle strength (g = 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.45), with moderate certainty of evidence under GRADE. The pooled effects on muscle mass (g = 0.35, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.78) and physical function (g = 0.47, 95% CI −0.08 to 1.03, p = 0.086) were not statistically significant, at low and very low certainty respectively.
Who this applies to
Generally healthy adults aged 60 and over who do strength training. Not studied in frail or sarcopenic older adults.
Size of the research
Eleven randomised trials, combined in a three-level meta-analysis.
What to keep in mind
The additional gain is small and applies to strength only. For muscle mass and physical function the certainty of evidence was low to very low.
Practical conclusion for REZA
This aligns with what the library already showed for younger trainees and sharpens the picture for people over 60: the gain sits in strength, and that gain is modest. The training itself remains the effective part; creatine is at most an addition to it.
View method and source
Methodology
Systematic review with three-level meta-analysis of randomised trials
Limitations
The authors state explicitly that the findings should not be extrapolated to frail, sarcopenic or functionally limited older adults. Dose, loading phase, intervention length, training frequency, training intensity, sex and testing site did not explain the variation between studies.
Original source
DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2026.1919884 · PMID: 42712402
View on PubMed →