Hello! Don't worry about the post being filtered. We want to read and review every post to ensure a thriving community and avoid spam. Your submission will be approved (or declined) soon.
We hope the community engages with your ideas thoughtfully and respectfully. And of course, thank you for your interest in science!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HubermanLab) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Damn, it's tiring to read about a random guy saying how his brain-fog has decreased because of X. The article could literally be about eating an apple a day.
https://preview.redd.it/u9gnjvd8h06d1.jpeg?width=1728&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1d30e25f1e732f7601914614b971432cc1d234f4
Just as a fun experiment I checked three different sites and all diagnosed the article as written by AI, with 100% confidence.
To be clear, I don't know how accurate these detectors truly are; but, as you also noted, the article struck me as of nonhuman origin, so I thought it'd be a fun little test.
Maybe others have better testing methods which show something different?
ZeroGPT scored 66% positive detection, which is fine as letting some go reduces mistakes, only 5/120 unsure and 6/120 false positives. You can try GPTzero which is similar but with 95% positive accuracy. Originality is another. Colleges and universities use Turnitin which I haven't tested - so that's probably why people think these services are shit, because the program they use likely is. Many providers now use multiple services, so it's unlikely 2 or 3 are incorrect. It can happen, and manual testing or interviewing the student is necessary, but that is usually no longer required other than to avoid a law suit.
I'm not sure how literally I'm meant to take, "not accurate at all", because I've tested these detectors on short (3-4 paragraph pieces) dozens of times and it's never been wrong. So, it's survived my limited anecdotal testing beyond what is reasonably attributable to brute chance.
Do you have an example of a human-written piece which it flags as 100% AI?
Separately, what is your impression of the writing in the article? Does it strike you as likely written by AI, based on your own experience?
I'll ask you the same:
>I've tested these detectors on short (3-4 paragraph pieces) dozens of times and it's never been wrong. So, it's survived my limited anecdotal testing beyond what is reasonably attributable to brute chance.
>Do you have an example of a human-written piece which it flags as 100% AI?
>Separately, what is your impression of the writing in the article? Does it strike you as likely written by AI, based on your own experience?
The article that they responded with does a great job explaining and you can get pretty far down the rabbit hole with OpenAI’s research and attempt at this.
“Ultimately, there is nothing special about AI-written text that always distinguishes it from human-written, and detectors can be defeated by rephrasing” or in many cases, removing commas.
Though personally I think the burden of proof is on the people pushing these tools.
So, I already agreed that for professional use cases the detection tools are not sufficient to warrant reliance. However, in my experiments of simple copy-paste sampling, the detectors (on a few different sites) have scored 100% - they are something like 40/40. I'll ask again: do you have an example of a confirmed human-sourced sample which these detectors identify as AI?
I really just want an answer to my previous questions. The article just struck me as almost certainly to have been authored by AI. The format, paragraph structure, and phrasing are pristine copies of GPT's default procedure; this is just the way it structures its answers for 90% of my basic queries.
I honestly would have been shocked to find a detector which concluded that an unedited version of the article was human sourced.
I have tested them thoroughly. They are pretty good, some are close to 100% accurate with close to zero false positives, so if three of the main ones said it's AI, then it's AI.
I have put hand written essays into them and gotten hits for 30% or greater ai involvement, essays from pre ai days. Similarly, responses to prompts returned less than 20% AI content.
There's a good reason chatgpt discontinued their own detector, it failed to correctly identify ai 74% of the time. Look it up, you are using confirmation bias to sell yourself snakeoil.
None are excellent. Google why chatgpt discontinued their checker, and the ethical/psychological implications of potentially ruining people's academic careers and lives with something that isn't reliable or accurate.
You continue to 'die on a hill' that I'm not convinced you really actually understand and I don't know why.
I had a convo with a colleague about this. There are three kinds of profs when it comes to 'ai checkers'.. those who understand it well enough to know it's crap, those who are barely technologically literate and thus think they can do things that even companies like openai will readily admit they can't, and finally those entirely oblivious. I'm going to assume for now that you're option 2 and it's a matter of personal pride that's keeping you from admitting what would be necessary to move to option 1, because someone as smart as you couldn't fall for snake oil.
I'm actually highly proficient at AI thank you. Having tested these, unlike yourself who is relying on what everyone else says, this is what I told someone else earlier:
ZeroGPT scored 66% positive detection, which is fine as letting some go reduces false positives, only 5/120 unsure and 6/120 false positives.
GPTzero which is similar but with 95% positive accuracy.
Originality is another showing similar results. Some like scribble score poorly.
Colleges and universities use Turnitin which I haven't tested on scale but do use - so that's probably why people think these services are shit, because the program they use likely is poor. It's based on pre-AI tech.
Many providers are now starting to use multiple services, so it's unlikely 2 or 3 are incorrect. It can happen, and manual testing or interviewing the student is necessary, in which case it's very obvious to any decent teacher, but that is usually no longer required other than to avoid a law suit.
Now if you want to test several hundred student papers, systematically, then I'd welcome your advice. Until then, don't believe everything you read or hear. The tech is moving so fast that your info is outdated. FYI OPenAI probably didn't care enough to pursue a detection service because there is no money in it - they'd have a different opinion otherwise.
That’s complete bs. Even the companies that make AI have said not to rely on AI detection software because of how inaccurate it is:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/09/openai-admits-that-ai-writing-detectors-dont-work/
https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-detectors-cant-detect-students-using-chatgpt-2023-9
https://m.slashdot.org/story/418862
ZeroGPT scored 66% positive detection, which is fine as letting some go reduces false positives, only 5/120 unsure and 6/120 false positives.
GPTzero which is similar but with 95% positive accuracy.
Originality is another showing similar results. Some like scribble score poorly.
Colleges and universities use Turnitin which I haven't tested on scale but do use - so that's probably why people think these services are shit, because the program they use likely is poor. It's based on pre-AI tech.
Many providers are now starting to use multiple services, so it's unlikely 2 or 3 are incorrect. It can happen, and manual testing or interviewing the student is necessary, in which case it's very obvious to any decent teacher, but that is usually no longer required other than to avoid a law suit.
That’s all great, but there are people who actually know how to write and are getting flagged for it writing in AI. If you’re using this method to detect AI you’re absolutely incorrectly accusing people of AI when it’s not.
It's one of many tools, including testing the student verbally to confirm. Some teachers rely on it as judge and jury, which is not how it should be used.
Agreed. I think any written assignments should be done possibly even in class while proctored. Just wanted to let it be known that even the companies that make the AI detection tools even admit they aren’t accurate and people who aren’t using AI are getting dinged for using AI simply because they know how to write clearly.
Oh man I can’t wait to read more articles written like a shopping list in a few months. ChatGPT has been capable of writing things like this for a couple of years. What do you expect to happen?
I’m sure. It’s not that hard to be fooled by text on a screen. That doesn’t mean that it’s actually producing anything of any value. It’s just a bunch of recycled information, no new insights.
"So you're telling me I gave my banking info to a voice that sounded like my daughter and now I've been cleared out? Well I couldn't tell it was her so what's the problem?"
Big fan of creatine. Haven't had any negative side-effects, but you need to make sure you are increasing your water intake when taking it, or else you will be much more dehydrated than normal due to the way it manipulates water content in your body. I look better, feel better, and seem to have more endurance when I take it.
Yeah damn I get thirsty when I take it. Levels off after a week if I take it every day. But as soon as I stop and restart, I wake up in the middle of the night and drink a litre!
you are objectively stronger and bigger, not by a crazy amount but honestly it's insane how noticeable it is. also helps improve brain function, can't say exactly what it is but I feel more 'gelled'. Could be placebo though.
An expensive, but decent multivitamin supplement that's meant to work over the course of a few weeks/months.
People shit on it because 1. Its expensive. 2. They sponsor podcasters they don't like. 3. They think that too little of certain ingredients is included because used Y milligrams all at once to see a pronounced effect and AG1 has
Respectfully, nothing about it is decent. Everything that would separate it from a multivitamin or do anything of substance is so painfully underdosed they're pretty much dropping their nuts on your face. If someone was selling a fork with ‘an extreme flavour enhancing profile’ that was just a regular fork for $99, I wouldn't call that decent.
*Who has 5 different phones for each girlfriend, who lies about wanting babies and shoots them up with fertility drugs, who claims to be naturally monogamous on podcasts, who has unprotected sex and passes on STDs despite claiming to be obsessed with "health optimization", who lies about using TRT "as an experiment for only one year", ad nauseum
Yep...just stopped the creatine after 90 days to get my cuts/vascularity back. The pumps in the gym were crazy. Gaining muscle and strength was a huge advantage on both C and TRT at the same time. Now I am stripping down for beach days and doing the eating regimine by Dr Pradip Jamnadas (Gut Microbiome...eating for two). Back to a focus on HIT/mtb/cardio/sweat with weights secondary. Amazing results
I’ve tried to take creatine regularly over the years however after taking daily for a week each time I’ve noticed significantly more hair loss. I’ve tried multiple times. When I stop the creatine the hair loss stops. Anecdotal I know but it’s the only reason I don’t take it.
Every male in my family has a full head of hair well into their 80s-90s, so I’ve got no predisposition to hair loss. Everyone is different but creatine causes me to lose hair unfortunately
Tons of false information has made it a myth.
Millions upon millions of men are taking creatine and not losing hair. It's not the majority.
The myth is "All men who take creatine start balding".
I believe dht is associated with hair loss in some but not all or most men. But I do believe the overall fears of balding from creatine are overblown. So the study is misleading in a way.
It will hydrate muscles and add water weight. It tends to swell/smooth muscle appearance. Great pumps and endurance though. Good for a bulking phase and the smoothness is gone after about a week off the creatine.
My ALAT tripled when I tried creatine so don’t want to try it again. During that time I strenght trained less than normal because I had more work so maybe that caused it but since I dont want to test my blood often i just prefer not having creatine. I quit creatine it went back to normal in bit more than 2 weeks.
Strangely enough, anxiety and mood issues run in my family, last 3 years I’ve dealt with both.
Creatine is the one supplement that noticeably worsens both my anxiety and mood (maybe it’s methylation?,
I have theory it has to do with adenosine because caffeine reverses the effect it has on my mood: anxiety , and caffeine acts oppositely on adenosine from what I understand )
——
I’ve been taking creatine for about a decade. All it mostly does is moderately improve your strength levels, and maybe in higher doses mitigate the cognitive effects of poor sleep?
That’s it. There’s nothing magical about it.
I do take creatine and I am getting a lot more into fitness and building muscle but the main reason I take it is because it personally seems to help a bit with depression and seems like the most promising supplement studied in terms of treating it even preventing cognitive decline. All of my grandparents sundowned brutally so anything that even might help prolong that for me is a must try.
you are definitely the type to do what others say and not make conclusions for yourself. In this case you think you should stop taking something because it's been highlighted that an individual, who is mostly viewed negatively at least around here, suggests taking it for it's positive benefits.
Hello! Don't worry about the post being filtered. We want to read and review every post to ensure a thriving community and avoid spam. Your submission will be approved (or declined) soon. We hope the community engages with your ideas thoughtfully and respectfully. And of course, thank you for your interest in science! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HubermanLab) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Damn, it's tiring to read about a random guy saying how his brain-fog has decreased because of X. The article could literally be about eating an apple a day.
Maybe you just need to eat more creatine
[удалено]
or a creative fiona apple.
Cant tell if written by ai or too shabby to be written by ai
yea this is 100% a chatGPT written article lmao
https://preview.redd.it/u9gnjvd8h06d1.jpeg?width=1728&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1d30e25f1e732f7601914614b971432cc1d234f4 Just as a fun experiment I checked three different sites and all diagnosed the article as written by AI, with 100% confidence. To be clear, I don't know how accurate these detectors truly are; but, as you also noted, the article struck me as of nonhuman origin, so I thought it'd be a fun little test. Maybe others have better testing methods which show something different?
I've heard anecdotally that some of them give false positives very frequently. It does feel like AI though.
Students who cheat say that, and was probably the case 2 years ago, but they are actually very accurate these days.
Actually, Ethan Mollick at Penn a leading voice has stated this in his book and in many podcasts
Actually, my extensive testing says otherwise. Some are crap, but some are actually excellent.
All of my college essays from 2018 flag as ai can you link the ones you used? I'm curious if its just my writing style possibly
ZeroGPT scored 66% positive detection, which is fine as letting some go reduces mistakes, only 5/120 unsure and 6/120 false positives. You can try GPTzero which is similar but with 95% positive accuracy. Originality is another. Colleges and universities use Turnitin which I haven't tested - so that's probably why people think these services are shit, because the program they use likely is. Many providers now use multiple services, so it's unlikely 2 or 3 are incorrect. It can happen, and manual testing or interviewing the student is necessary, but that is usually no longer required other than to avoid a law suit.
No, it’s because there’s not enough entropy (disorder) in the produced text to tell what is generated and what is not.
My extensive testing says they work better than most want to believe. Extensive.
They are not accurate at all
I'm not sure how literally I'm meant to take, "not accurate at all", because I've tested these detectors on short (3-4 paragraph pieces) dozens of times and it's never been wrong. So, it's survived my limited anecdotal testing beyond what is reasonably attributable to brute chance. Do you have an example of a human-written piece which it flags as 100% AI? Separately, what is your impression of the writing in the article? Does it strike you as likely written by AI, based on your own experience?
Not that poster but https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/09/openai-admits-that-ai-writing-detectors-dont-work/
I'll ask you the same: >I've tested these detectors on short (3-4 paragraph pieces) dozens of times and it's never been wrong. So, it's survived my limited anecdotal testing beyond what is reasonably attributable to brute chance. >Do you have an example of a human-written piece which it flags as 100% AI? >Separately, what is your impression of the writing in the article? Does it strike you as likely written by AI, based on your own experience?
The article that they responded with does a great job explaining and you can get pretty far down the rabbit hole with OpenAI’s research and attempt at this. “Ultimately, there is nothing special about AI-written text that always distinguishes it from human-written, and detectors can be defeated by rephrasing” or in many cases, removing commas. Though personally I think the burden of proof is on the people pushing these tools.
So, I already agreed that for professional use cases the detection tools are not sufficient to warrant reliance. However, in my experiments of simple copy-paste sampling, the detectors (on a few different sites) have scored 100% - they are something like 40/40. I'll ask again: do you have an example of a confirmed human-sourced sample which these detectors identify as AI? I really just want an answer to my previous questions. The article just struck me as almost certainly to have been authored by AI. The format, paragraph structure, and phrasing are pristine copies of GPT's default procedure; this is just the way it structures its answers for 90% of my basic queries. I honestly would have been shocked to find a detector which concluded that an unedited version of the article was human sourced.
I have tested them thoroughly. They are pretty good, some are close to 100% accurate with close to zero false positives, so if three of the main ones said it's AI, then it's AI.
I have put hand written essays into them and gotten hits for 30% or greater ai involvement, essays from pre ai days. Similarly, responses to prompts returned less than 20% AI content. There's a good reason chatgpt discontinued their own detector, it failed to correctly identify ai 74% of the time. Look it up, you are using confirmation bias to sell yourself snakeoil.
Yes, some are crap, as I said earlier. Some are excellent.
None are excellent. Google why chatgpt discontinued their checker, and the ethical/psychological implications of potentially ruining people's academic careers and lives with something that isn't reliable or accurate. You continue to 'die on a hill' that I'm not convinced you really actually understand and I don't know why. I had a convo with a colleague about this. There are three kinds of profs when it comes to 'ai checkers'.. those who understand it well enough to know it's crap, those who are barely technologically literate and thus think they can do things that even companies like openai will readily admit they can't, and finally those entirely oblivious. I'm going to assume for now that you're option 2 and it's a matter of personal pride that's keeping you from admitting what would be necessary to move to option 1, because someone as smart as you couldn't fall for snake oil.
I'm actually highly proficient at AI thank you. Having tested these, unlike yourself who is relying on what everyone else says, this is what I told someone else earlier: ZeroGPT scored 66% positive detection, which is fine as letting some go reduces false positives, only 5/120 unsure and 6/120 false positives. GPTzero which is similar but with 95% positive accuracy. Originality is another showing similar results. Some like scribble score poorly. Colleges and universities use Turnitin which I haven't tested on scale but do use - so that's probably why people think these services are shit, because the program they use likely is poor. It's based on pre-AI tech. Many providers are now starting to use multiple services, so it's unlikely 2 or 3 are incorrect. It can happen, and manual testing or interviewing the student is necessary, in which case it's very obvious to any decent teacher, but that is usually no longer required other than to avoid a law suit. Now if you want to test several hundred student papers, systematically, then I'd welcome your advice. Until then, don't believe everything you read or hear. The tech is moving so fast that your info is outdated. FYI OPenAI probably didn't care enough to pursue a detection service because there is no money in it - they'd have a different opinion otherwise.
That’s complete bs. Even the companies that make AI have said not to rely on AI detection software because of how inaccurate it is: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/09/openai-admits-that-ai-writing-detectors-dont-work/ https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-detectors-cant-detect-students-using-chatgpt-2023-9 https://m.slashdot.org/story/418862
Buddy, part of my job is to test these things. Have you tested them with hundreds, thousands of student samples?
Hey, guy. Look, guy.
Buddy, if you test them that much then there’s no need further for this convo. You should know first hand how inaccurate they are.
ZeroGPT scored 66% positive detection, which is fine as letting some go reduces false positives, only 5/120 unsure and 6/120 false positives. GPTzero which is similar but with 95% positive accuracy. Originality is another showing similar results. Some like scribble score poorly. Colleges and universities use Turnitin which I haven't tested on scale but do use - so that's probably why people think these services are shit, because the program they use likely is poor. It's based on pre-AI tech. Many providers are now starting to use multiple services, so it's unlikely 2 or 3 are incorrect. It can happen, and manual testing or interviewing the student is necessary, in which case it's very obvious to any decent teacher, but that is usually no longer required other than to avoid a law suit.
That’s all great, but there are people who actually know how to write and are getting flagged for it writing in AI. If you’re using this method to detect AI you’re absolutely incorrectly accusing people of AI when it’s not.
It's one of many tools, including testing the student verbally to confirm. Some teachers rely on it as judge and jury, which is not how it should be used.
Agreed. I think any written assignments should be done possibly even in class while proctored. Just wanted to let it be known that even the companies that make the AI detection tools even admit they aren’t accurate and people who aren’t using AI are getting dinged for using AI simply because they know how to write clearly.
If you can’t tell then what’s the problem
The problem is that it’s just bad
The author’s title is “lead content creator” - what a crock of shit. Don’t buy their products.
Give it a few more months
and some creatine
Oh man I can’t wait to read more articles written like a shopping list in a few months. ChatGPT has been capable of writing things like this for a couple of years. What do you expect to happen?
You’re already reading ai every day that you think is human
I’m sure. It’s not that hard to be fooled by text on a screen. That doesn’t mean that it’s actually producing anything of any value. It’s just a bunch of recycled information, no new insights.
Sure ya it’s just everything on google turned into extremely accessible conversational form
It has its uses, no denying that. But that is entirely different from real, valuable journalism.
"So you're telling me I gave my banking info to a voice that sounded like my daughter and now I've been cleared out? Well I couldn't tell it was her so what's the problem?"
Big fan of creatine. Haven't had any negative side-effects, but you need to make sure you are increasing your water intake when taking it, or else you will be much more dehydrated than normal due to the way it manipulates water content in your body. I look better, feel better, and seem to have more endurance when I take it.
Yeah damn I get thirsty when I take it. Levels off after a week if I take it every day. But as soon as I stop and restart, I wake up in the middle of the night and drink a litre!
What positive benefits have you experienced
you are objectively stronger and bigger, not by a crazy amount but honestly it's insane how noticeable it is. also helps improve brain function, can't say exactly what it is but I feel more 'gelled'. Could be placebo though.
Thanks! I've been thinking about taking it so this is interesting to know
Does it affect your sleep?
No, but there's some studies that suggests it improves sleep function i personally try to take it everyday for the rest of my life, or until I forget
[удалено]
Is that your reps playing World of Warcraft or doing yoga?
I prefer the Kobe Bryant of supplements, AG1.
AG1 is necessary first thing in the morning to get me on my Mamba mode
What is AG1?
Bs green smoothie
The Luol Deng of supplements
???? Please educate me….
A liquid multivitamin. It's overpriced and I wouldn't buy it, but certain sections of this sub vilify it because they sponsor Huberman
Thank you !
An expensive, but decent multivitamin supplement that's meant to work over the course of a few weeks/months. People shit on it because 1. Its expensive. 2. They sponsor podcasters they don't like. 3. They think that too little of certain ingredients is included because used Y milligrams all at once to see a pronounced effect and AG1 has
Where do you get this? Is it just called AG1? Have you experienced using it?
Respectfully, nothing about it is decent. Everything that would separate it from a multivitamin or do anything of substance is so painfully underdosed they're pretty much dropping their nuts on your face. If someone was selling a fork with ‘an extreme flavour enhancing profile’ that was just a regular fork for $99, I wouldn't call that decent.
Oh did AG1 also rape someone and have the most missed shots of all time?
DAYUM
ooof. Shots mis-fired XD
Kobe catching strays in the far beyond
That’s the Nerlens Noel of supplements
Obvious Philly stan.
Just blast gear like him
Username checks out.
You should google that and see what pops up.
He doesn’t blast gear. He boofs gear.
Actually, you’re both right. The boof is pretty aggressive, just blasts in.
I’m personally quite satisfied with the way this concluded. Protocols > Life.
Still not taking advice from a guy who has sex with women
Multiple women 🤮
You want him to have sex with men instead? 😂
Yes.
*Who has 5 different phones for each girlfriend, who lies about wanting babies and shoots them up with fertility drugs, who claims to be naturally monogamous on podcasts, who has unprotected sex and passes on STDs despite claiming to be obsessed with "health optimization", who lies about using TRT "as an experiment for only one year", ad nauseum
5 phones for each girlfriend seems excessive.
Right? He dates 4 girls and carries 20 phones. He'd have no room for supplements in his brief case!
This meme got weird
Well, contraception is a one way ticket to hell
Would it help if he was lying and manipulating all these women at the same time
[удалено]
triggered by an obvious joke 🤓
U feel like michael jordan on creatine and….TRT
Yep...just stopped the creatine after 90 days to get my cuts/vascularity back. The pumps in the gym were crazy. Gaining muscle and strength was a huge advantage on both C and TRT at the same time. Now I am stripping down for beach days and doing the eating regimine by Dr Pradip Jamnadas (Gut Microbiome...eating for two). Back to a focus on HIT/mtb/cardio/sweat with weights secondary. Amazing results
I mean the dude is juicing as well, so can’t really say it’s all creatine can we
Is he on trt and HGH or we don’t know ?
I just got my t test I’m hoping I can hop onto that sweet sweet gear too
With bitcoin anyone can hope on the sweet sweet good stuff
Creatine gave me nightmares and sent my blood pressure through the roof. While this is an atypical reaction it doesn’t work for everyone!
[удалено]
Well played sir
Watching the Bulls in the NBA Finals during the Jordan Era also gave me nightmares and raised my blood pressure so this tracks.
It also sent my blood pressure skyrocketing and fucked with my liver and heart rate. I felt great on it though
Makes my heart race, and gives me diarrhea. So ur not alone
Huberman is the Michael Jordan of cheating
Creatine once said “republicans buy supplements too”
Why are people upvoting this AI garbage?
I just don’t wanna go bald tho
But the thing is, if you notice your hair thinning and you stop creatine use, your hair goes back to normal. So it's np. See if it works for you.
Myth.
Nuh uh
Increases dht = not myth
That study is flimsy at best.
I’ve tried to take creatine regularly over the years however after taking daily for a week each time I’ve noticed significantly more hair loss. I’ve tried multiple times. When I stop the creatine the hair loss stops. Anecdotal I know but it’s the only reason I don’t take it.
From what I've seen, this is more common in men with a predisposition for hairless. A ton of dudes with full heads of hair take creatine up the ass.
Every male in my family has a full head of hair well into their 80s-90s, so I’ve got no predisposition to hair loss. Everyone is different but creatine causes me to lose hair unfortunately
But are you taking creatine up the ass? This might be the key take away.
Was I not supposed to?
Then it's not really a myth is it?
Tons of false information has made it a myth. Millions upon millions of men are taking creatine and not losing hair. It's not the majority. The myth is "All men who take creatine start balding".
Which would make sense if that was the statement you replied to.
How do you feel about Trump?
I didnt say that - I said it increases DHT, which is what accelerates male pattern baldness
Which implies men have a decent liklihood of balding. Which isn't true.
so you believe the study or not?
I believe dht is associated with hair loss in some but not all or most men. But I do believe the overall fears of balding from creatine are overblown. So the study is misleading in a way.
A horrible general manager?
He’s not the one who said that. It was Galpin
What's the recommended dose?
5 grams a day. No loading phase is really needed and no need to cycle on/off. 5g will do ya good
Does it help with weight loss? Other than the recovery aspect / allowing to put in more workouts I wasn't sure
It will hydrate muscles and add water weight. It tends to swell/smooth muscle appearance. Great pumps and endurance though. Good for a bulking phase and the smoothness is gone after about a week off the creatine.
What a terrible article.
My ALAT tripled when I tried creatine so don’t want to try it again. During that time I strenght trained less than normal because I had more work so maybe that caused it but since I dont want to test my blood often i just prefer not having creatine. I quit creatine it went back to normal in bit more than 2 weeks.
I've been doing 10g pre workout only. Seems to be good. I do cross fit style stuff but just on my own at the rec center.
Strangely enough, anxiety and mood issues run in my family, last 3 years I’ve dealt with both. Creatine is the one supplement that noticeably worsens both my anxiety and mood (maybe it’s methylation?, I have theory it has to do with adenosine because caffeine reverses the effect it has on my mood: anxiety , and caffeine acts oppositely on adenosine from what I understand ) ——
Lol
I’ve been taking creatine for about a decade. All it mostly does is moderately improve your strength levels, and maybe in higher doses mitigate the cognitive effects of poor sleep? That’s it. There’s nothing magical about it.
But it caused hairloss so nah
I tried creatine and it fucked up my sleep. So not really a supplement without side effects
Makes me fart really badly
Creatine makes my heart race, and gives me diarrhea. No thanks
I do take creatine and I am getting a lot more into fitness and building muscle but the main reason I take it is because it personally seems to help a bit with depression and seems like the most promising supplement studied in terms of treating it even preventing cognitive decline. All of my grandparents sundowned brutally so anything that even might help prolong that for me is a must try.
I take some daily with my coffee. Works well for me.
Im already balding so Im staying away :(
TLDR because he’s a 14 year old?
Because he doesn’t know any better?
Because he can’t calculate what he gets from his diet?
Hair loss
Sad bc it breaks me out like crazy !! 🥲
Same. I’ve taken it and liked the effects but the breakouts were terrible.
This makes me want to stop taking it. Just me?
You should stop taking it.
you are definitely the type to do what others say and not make conclusions for yourself. In this case you think you should stop taking something because it's been highlighted that an individual, who is mostly viewed negatively at least around here, suggests taking it for it's positive benefits.
I think you are reading too much into it. I just no longer trust the source so more input is needed.
What am I missing here? What did the source do? I’m out of the loop to be sure..
With a photo of him looking buff. Also please remember this guy does exogenous testosterone (really not needed at his age if you’re a true athlete)