ZERO WORLD RESEARCHアミノ酸・有機酸の学術文献データベース

Bioavailability, Efficacy, Safety, and Regulatory Status of Creatine and Related Compounds: A Critical Review.

クレアチンおよび関連化合物の生体利用能、有効性、安全性、規制状況:批判的レビュー (機械翻訳の邦題)

Nutrients2022Kreider RB, Jäger R, Purpura M
研究デザインレビュー
対象未確定

記録の確認項目

研究デザイン
レビュー
対象
未確定
出版年
2022
出典
doi.org
抄録の表示
表示あり
出版状態
有効な記録
状態確認日
2026/08/17
収集日
2026/08/13
鮮度
確認期限内
確認段階
自動処理
記録状態
公開

日本語要約(機械生成)

本レビューは、クレアチン一水和物(CrM)と他のクレアチン形態の生体利用能、有効性、安全性、規制状況を批判的に検討した。2011年の論文以降も、CrMより優れた有効性や安全性を主張する根拠のない販売が続いていることを指摘し、そのような主張を検証するために必要なデータを整理した。その結果、CrMのみが生体利用能、有効性、安全性に関して十分なエビデンスを有し、専門機関が推奨し、世界的に食品添加物として承認されている唯一のクレアチン源であると結論づけた。他の形態は、証拠が乏しいか、CrMより劣るか、高価であると分類された。

この要約は公開抄録のみを根拠にAIが機械的に生成したものです。正確な内容は原文を確認してください。

抄録

In 2011, we published a paper providing an overview about the bioavailability, efficacy, and regulatory status of creatine monohydrate (CrM), as well as other "novel forms" of creatine that were being marketed at the time. This paper concluded that no other purported form of creatine had been shown to be a more effective source of creatine than CrM, and that CrM was recognized by international regulatory authorities as safe for use in dietary supplements. Moreover, that most purported "forms" of creatine that were being marketed at the time were either less bioavailable, less effective, more expensive, and/or not sufficiently studied in terms of safety and/or efficacy. We also provided examples of several "forms" of creatine that were being marketed that were not bioavailable sources of creatine or less effective than CrM in comparative effectiveness trials. We had hoped that this paper would encourage supplement manufacturers to use CrM in dietary supplements given the overwhelming efficacy and safety profile. Alternatively, encourage them to conduct research to show their purported "form" of creatine was a bioavailable, effective, and safe source of creatine before making unsubstantiated claims of greater efficacy and/or safety than CrM. Unfortunately, unsupported misrepresentations about the effectiveness and safety of various "forms" of creatine have continued. The purpose of this critical review is to: (1) provide an overview of the physiochemical properties, bioavailability, and safety of CrM; (2) describe the data needed to substantiate claims that a "novel form" of creatine is a bioavailable, effective, and safe source of creatine; (3) examine whether other marketed sources of creatine are more effective sources of creatine than CrM; (4) provide an update about the regulatory status of CrM and other purported sources of creatine sold as dietary supplements; and (5) provide guidance regarding the type of research needed to validate that a purported "new form" of creatine is a bioavailable, effective and safe source of creatine for dietary supplements. Based on this analysis, we categorized forms of creatine that are being sold as dietary supplements as either having strong, some, or no evidence of bioavailability and safety. As will be seen, CrM continues to be the only source of creatine that has substantial evidence to support bioavailability, efficacy, and safety. Additionally, CrM is the source of creatine recommended explicitly by professional societies and organizations and approved for use in global markets as a dietary ingredient or food additive.

MeSH

Biological AvailabilityCreatineDietary SupplementsFood Additives

DOI 10.3390/nu14051035

PMID 35268011

原文・出典を見る →