The History of Creatine Research: From 1832 to Today

Creatine is one of the most extensively studied nutritional supplements in human history, with a research lineage stretching back nearly two centuries. What began as a French chemist's curiosity about meat extracts has evolved into a body of evidence encompassing thousands of peer-reviewed papers, multiple international position stands, and applications far beyond the athletic domain where creatine first gained popular attention. Tracing this history reveals how scientific understanding of creatine progressed through distinct eras, each building on the questions left unanswered by the last.

1832: Chevreul's Discovery

The story begins with Michel Eugene Chevreul, a French chemist already renowned for his work on fats and saponification. In 1832, Chevreul isolated a new organic substance from meat extract and named it "creatine" from the Greek word "kreas," meaning flesh. His identification was chemical rather than functional. He recognized creatine as a distinct nitrogenous organic compound present in skeletal muscle, but he could not yet assign it a biological role.

Chevreul's discovery did not immediately attract widespread scientific attention. The mid-nineteenth century was an era when basic organic chemistry was still being established, and the tools to investigate the functional significance of muscle constituents were primitive. Nevertheless, his isolation and naming of creatine laid the foundation for all subsequent work.

1847: Liebig's Observations on Meat and Activity

Justus von Liebig, one of the founders of organic chemistry, took an interest in creatine in the 1840s. Liebig confirmed Chevreul's finding and made a provocative observation: the muscles of wild foxes killed during a hunt contained more creatine than the muscles of captive, sedentary foxes. This was perhaps the first empirical hint that creatine content was related to muscular activity, though Liebig could not determine whether exercise increased creatine synthesis, decreased its degradation, or enhanced its accumulation.

Liebig went further, proposing that creatine was central to muscular function. While his specific mechanistic proposals were wrong by modern standards, his intuition that creatine was more than an inert metabolic byproduct proved prescient. He also developed the first commercial meat extract (later marketed as Liebig's Extract of Meat), in part motivated by his interest in the nutritive components of muscle tissue.

1920s-1930s: Early Biochemistry of Creatine and Phosphocreatine

The next major advances came in the 1920s, when biochemistry as a discipline was maturing rapidly. In 1926, Chanutin and Cuthbertson published a landmark study demonstrating that oral creatine administration increased the total creatine content of skeletal muscle. They fed creatine to cats and measured increases in muscle creatine stores, providing the first experimental evidence that exogenous creatine supplementation could augment intramuscular creatine content. This finding, seemingly straightforward, would not be replicated in humans with modern analytical techniques until 66 years later.

In 1927, Fiske and Subbarow discovered phosphocreatine (also called creatine phosphate) in muscle tissue. This was a transformative finding. Phosphocreatine was not merely creatine in a different chemical state; it was creatine bound to a high-energy phosphate group that could be transferred to ADP to regenerate ATP. The discovery of phosphocreatine established creatine's role as a key player in cellular energy metabolism, not just a structural component of muscle.

Shortly thereafter, in 1934, Karl Lohmann demonstrated that the enzyme creatine kinase catalyzed the reversible transfer of a phosphoryl group between phosphocreatine and ATP. The Lohmann reaction (PCr + ADP + H+ to creatine + ATP) became one of the most important equations in exercise biochemistry. It explained how muscles could maintain ATP concentrations during the first seconds of maximal contraction, before glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation could ramp up to meet demand.

1960s-1970s: The Phosphocreatine Shuttle Hypothesis

With the basic biochemistry of creatine established, researchers began exploring more nuanced questions about how creatine functioned within cells. In the 1960s and 1970s, the concept of the phosphocreatine shuttle (also called the creatine kinase shuttle or PCr circuit) emerged, primarily through the work of Samuel Bessman and later Theo Wallimann.

The shuttle hypothesis proposed that phosphocreatine served not only as a temporal energy buffer (storing energy when ATP supply exceeded demand and releasing it when demand spiked) but also as a spatial energy transport system. Mitochondrial creatine kinase, located in the mitochondrial intermembrane space, phosphorylated creatine using locally produced ATP. The resulting phosphocreatine diffused through the cytoplasm to sites of ATP utilization (myofibrils, ion pumps, the sarcolemma), where cytoplasmic creatine kinase regenerated ATP from PCr. The free creatine then diffused back to the mitochondria to be rephosphorylated.

This elegant model explained why phosphocreatine diffused through the cytoplasm approximately ten times faster than ATP itself, and why creatine kinase isoenzymes were specifically localized at both sites of ATP production and ATP consumption. The shuttle concept elevated creatine from a simple buffer to an integral component of intracellular energy logistics.

1992: The Harris Breakthrough

The modern era of creatine supplementation began with a single paper. In 1992, Roger Harris and colleagues at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm published a study in Clinical Science that demonstrated, using muscle biopsy and modern analytical techniques, that oral creatine supplementation in humans increased intramuscular total creatine content by approximately 20% over several days of dosing at 20 grams per day. Some subjects showed increases of up to 50%. Importantly, they observed that the increase included both free creatine and phosphocreatine, and that individuals with lower baseline levels showed the greatest absolute increases.

This study was the spark that ignited the creatine supplementation era. Harris et al. provided the first rigorous human evidence that exogenous creatine could meaningfully augment the intramuscular energy reserve. Prior to this, the Chanutin and Cuthbertson cat data from 1926 and scattered anecdotal reports were the only evidence for supplementation effects, and none had used the precision of modern muscle biopsy analysis combined with HPLC quantification.

Within a year, Greenhaff et al. (1993) showed that creatine supplementation improved performance in repeated bouts of maximal voluntary contraction, and the applied sports science community took notice. By 1994, media reports claimed that several gold medalists at the Barcelona Olympics had used creatine. By 1996, creatine monohydrate was a mainstream supplement.

1993-2000: The Performance Research Explosion

The decade following Harris et al. produced an enormous volume of performance research. Hundreds of studies examined creatine's effects on strength, power, sprint performance, body composition, and repeated-bout exercise. The collective findings, later synthesized in numerous meta-analyses, established several robust conclusions.

Creatine supplementation reliably increased upper and lower body strength (by approximately 5 to 10% above training alone), improved performance in repeated short-duration maximal efforts, and increased lean body mass (typically 1 to 2 kilograms over the first week, with continued lean mass gains over weeks to months of training). The strength and lean mass effects were most pronounced when creatine was combined with resistance training.

Not all findings were positive. Endurance performance, measured as time to exhaustion at submaximal intensities, was generally not improved by creatine supplementation. Activities lasting more than approximately 90 seconds with a dominant aerobic contribution showed inconsistent benefits. The weight gain associated with creatine loading was identified as potentially detrimental for weight-class athletes or endurance athletes where power-to-weight ratio was critical.

This era also established the standard supplementation protocols: a loading phase of 20 grams per day for 5 to 7 days, followed by a maintenance phase of 3 to 5 grams per day. Alternative protocols skipping the loading phase (starting directly at 3 to 5 grams per day) were shown to achieve the same steady-state intramuscular creatine levels, but required approximately 3 to 4 weeks rather than 1 week.

2000-2010: Beyond Muscle Performance

As the performance literature matured and the major questions about strength and power were largely settled, researchers began exploring creatine's effects outside the exercise domain. This period saw the emergence of clinical and translational research examining creatine in neurology, aging, and metabolic health.

Rae et al. (2003) demonstrated that creatine supplementation improved cognitive performance (working memory and processing speed) in healthy young adults, particularly under conditions of sleep deprivation or mental fatigue. This made physiological sense: the brain accounts for approximately 20% of resting metabolic rate and relies heavily on creatine kinase-mediated energy buffering, though it comprises only about 2% of body mass.

Research on creatine and aging gained momentum as studies demonstrated that older adults could benefit from creatine supplementation combined with resistance training. Sarcopenia, the age-related loss of muscle mass and function, was partially mitigated by creatine use, with improvements in lean mass, strength, and functional performance in elderly populations.

Clinical investigations explored creatine as a therapeutic agent for neurodegenerative diseases (Parkinson's, Huntington's, ALS), traumatic brain injury, and depression. While results were mixed, the rationale was sound: these conditions share features of cellular energy deficit, and creatine could theoretically support mitochondrial function and ATP buffering in compromised neurons.

2007-2017: Position Stands and Scientific Consensus

The International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) issued its first position stand on creatine in 2007 (Buford et al.), concluding that creatine monohydrate was the most effective ergogenic nutritional supplement available to athletes for increasing high-intensity exercise capacity and lean body mass. The position stand also affirmed that creatine supplementation was safe for healthy individuals when used at recommended doses.

A decade later, the ISSN published an updated and expanded position stand (Kreider et al. 2017), reflecting the enormous growth in creatine research. This updated document addressed not only exercise performance but also clinical applications, safety across the lifespan, and mechanisms of action. Among its key conclusions: creatine monohydrate is the most extensively studied and clinically effective form of creatine; no credible evidence supports claims that creatine causes kidney damage, hair loss, dehydration, or cramping in healthy populations; and creatine has potential therapeutic applications beyond sports nutrition.

The American College of Sports Medicine, the National Strength and Conditioning Association, and various international sporting organizations have all acknowledged creatine's safety and efficacy, though their specific recommendations vary in detail. By 2017, the scientific consensus was clear: creatine monohydrate was safe, effective, and remarkably well-studied.

2017-Present: Expanding Horizons

Current creatine research has expanded into areas that Chevreul could never have imagined. Active research frontiers include creatine's effects on bone health, with preliminary evidence suggesting that creatine combined with resistance training may improve bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. The anti-inflammatory properties of creatine are under investigation, with studies exploring its effects on cytokine profiles and inflammatory markers after exercise and in clinical populations.

The gut-brain axis and creatine's role in maintaining intestinal barrier function represent emerging areas. Research on creatine and pregnancy outcomes (particularly for fetal neuroprotection) is being conducted in animal models, with clinical trials in early stages. The immunological effects of creatine, including its influence on T-cell metabolism and immune function during intensive training, are generating new research questions.

Perhaps most notably, research into creatine and mental health has accelerated. Studies examining creatine as an adjunctive therapy for major depressive disorder have shown promising results, with the rationale that brain energy metabolism is often compromised in depression and creatine supplementation may support cerebral phosphocreatine reserves.

Timeline of Key Milestones

Lessons from the Historical Record

The history of creatine research illustrates several broader principles about scientific discovery. First, the gap between initial discovery and practical application can span generations. Chevreul's 1832 isolation preceded Harris's 1992 supplementation study by 160 years. The knowledge that creatine was present in muscle and involved in energy metabolism existed for decades before anyone systematically asked whether augmenting muscle creatine content would improve performance.

Second, the progression from basic chemistry to mechanistic understanding to applied research to clinical translation follows a predictable arc, but each transition requires researchers willing to ask questions outside the conventional boundaries of their field. Exercise physiologists had to venture into cell biology to understand cell volumization. Neuroscientists had to consider a molecule traditionally associated with muscle to explore cognitive enhancement.

Third, the safety narrative around creatine has been remarkably stable despite periodic media scares. Every major scientific review of the past two decades has concluded that creatine monohydrate, at recommended doses, is safe for healthy individuals. The persistence of unfounded safety concerns (kidney damage, dehydration, cramping) in popular culture, despite overwhelming contradictory evidence, highlights the challenge of translating scientific consensus to public understanding.

Nearly 200 years after Chevreul first named a curious substance extracted from meat, creatine remains one of the most active areas of nutritional and biomedical research. The full scope of its biological roles is still being mapped.

Bibliography

1. Chevreul ME. Sur la composition chimique du bouillon de viande. Journal de Pharmacie. 1832;18:485-498.
2. Chanutin A, Cuthbertson WFJ. The fate of creatine when administered to man. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1926;67(1):29-41.
3. Fiske CH, Subbarow Y. The nature of the "inorganic phosphate" in voluntary muscle. Science. 1927;65(1686):401-403. doi:10.1126/science.65.1686.401
4. Harris RC, Soderlund K, Hultman E. Elevation of creatine in resting and exercised muscle of normal subjects by creatine supplementation. Clinical Science. 1992;83(3):367-374. doi:10.1042/cs0830367
5. Greenhaff PL, Casey A, Short AH, Harris R, Soderlund K, Hultman E. Influence of oral creatine supplementation of muscle torque during repeated bouts of maximal voluntary exercise in man. Clinical Science. 1993;84(5):565-571. doi:10.1042/cs0840565
6. Buford TW, Kreider RB, Stout JR, et al. International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: creatine supplementation and exercise. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition. 2007;4:6. doi:10.1186/1550-2783-4-6
7. Kreider RB, Kalman DS, Antonio J, et al. International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: safety and efficacy of creatine supplementation in exercise, sport, and medicine. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition. 2017;14:18. doi:10.1186/s12970-017-0173-z
8. Rae C, Digney AL, McEwan SR, Bates TC. Oral creatine monohydrate supplementation improves brain performance: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2003;270(1529):2147-2150. doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2492
9. Wallimann T, Tokarska-Schlattner M, Schlattner U. The creatine kinase system and pleiotropic effects of creatine. Amino Acids. 2011;40(5):1271-1296. doi:10.1007/s00726-011-0877-3
10. Roschel H, Gualano B, Ostojic SM, Rawson ES. Creatine supplementation and brain health. Nutrients. 2021;13(2):586. doi:10.3390/nu13020586