By 

Giles Elmore (BSc Hons) MRSPH

When creatine is discussed among cyclists, it commonly elicits one of three responses: curiosity among those unfamiliar with its use, glowing reports from riders who report perceived benefits, or outright rejection, most frequently driven by concerns regarding weight gain. Given the emphasis placed on power-to-weight ratio and climbing performance in cycling, such scepticism is understandable.  

Yet creatine is also one of the most extensively researched supplements in sports science, with decades of data and a strong safety record. The reality, as with most areas of nutrition, sits in the nuance. Creatine is not a universal performance enhancer for cyclists, but it can be genuinely useful for the right rider, in the right context, and for the right type of effort.  

The purpose here isn’t to promote creatine or warn against it, but to answer a more useful question: what does creatine actually do for cycling performance, what doesn’t it do, and who is it most likely to help?  

Creatine’s primary role is well established. It increases the availability of phosphocreatine in muscle, allowing for faster regeneration of ATP during short, high-intensity efforts. This explains its consistent benefits for sprinting, resistance training, and repeated bursts of power. The debate in cycling isn’t whether creatine works, but whether the type of work it supports occurs often enough in cycling to matter. 

If cycling performance were defined purely by long, steady efforts, creatine’s relevance would be limited. But real-world cycling is rarely steady. Group rides surge, races accelerate out of corners, hills force repeated changes in intensity, and even endurance events are punctuated by short, decisive efforts.  

These are precisely the scenarios where creatine’s physiology makes sense. A recent review examining creatine in endurance contexts concluded that benefits are more likely when endurance performance includes repeated high-intensity efforts or end-spurts, while results for steady time-trial performance remain mixed (Mujika et al., 2023).  

Cycling-specific studies reflect this pattern. Hickner and colleagues studied trained cyclists supplementing with creatine monohydrate (3 g per day for 28 days) before completing a prolonged cycling protocol resembling a road race. As expected, muscle creatine and phosphocreatine stores increased significantly. Interestingly, the study also reported a reduced oxygen cost during submaximal cycling, suggesting improved metabolic efficiency. However, this did not translate into a clear improvement in sprint performance at the end of the ride (Hickner et al., 2010). 

That finding neatly captures the complexity of creatine in cycling: meaningful physiological changes without guaranteed performance gains, depending on the task. 

When the focus shifts toward repeated high-intensity efforts, the evidence becomes more favourable. Crisafulli et al. (2018) examined a creatine–electrolyte supplement in  

recreational cyclists and reported improvements in overall peak and mean power during repeated sprint cycling, particularly when sprints were separated by sufficient recovery. In other words, creatine appeared most useful when cyclists had to produce repeated hard efforts rather than sustain a single prolonged one. 

More recent sprint-focused cycling research continues to support this idea. A 2025 intervention study reported improvements in short-duration sprint work output alongside increases in fat-free mass following creatine supplementation, again reinforcing its relevance in powerdominant cycling tasks rather than pure endurance (RamosCampos et al., 2025). 

However, the evidence remains two-sided. Time-trial performance, long, steady efforts at high but constant output, is where cyclists often hope for a clear answer. Meta-analytic work and narrative reviews generally show little consistent benefit of creatine for traditional endurance outcomes such as prolonged steady cycling (Trexler et al., 2024). This does not mean creatine is ineffective, but rather that it should not be viewed as an endurance supplement in the same way as carbohydrate availability or caffeine.  

This leads to the first important conclusion: creatine may improve the capacity to perform and repeat high-intensity efforts, but it does not reliably enhance steady-state endurance performance. 

The second major concern is body mass. Creatine supplementation often leads to a small increase in body weight, particularly early on, largely due to increased intracellular water associated with higher muscle creatine content. For climbers or riders highly sensitive to power-to-weight ratio, this is a legitimate consideration. The relevant question is not simply whether weight increases, but whether any increase in mass is offset by improvements in power output, training quality, or repeatability.  

That balance is individual and discipline-specific.  

In applied settings, creatine may allow some cyclists to complete more high-quality work during training, recover more effectively between efforts, or sustain repeated surges with less fatigue. These benefits may not always appear in a single laboratory test but can influence training adaptation over time. The International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand notes that creatine supplementation can enhance high-intensity exercise capacity and training adaptations, while emphasising that context and individual response are critical (Kreider et al., 2017; updated 2022).  

Not all cyclists respond equally. Differences in baseline muscle creatine levels, habitual dietary intake, muscle fibre composition, and creatine transporter activity contribute to the existence of responders and non-responders. This partly explains why some cyclists report noticeable benefits while others experience little change.  

Practical considerations matter too. Gastrointestinal discomfort can occur, particularly with large loading doses. Modern protocols increasingly favour lower daily dosing strategies (around 3–5 g per day) without a loading phase, which research suggests can still achieve muscle creatine saturation over several weeks, with fewer side effects (Trexler et al., 2024).  

There are also off-the-bike considerations worth acknowledging, particularly regarding muscle mass and aging. Strong evidence shows that creatine supplementation combined with resistance training increases lean mass and strength in older adults, supporting its role in preserving muscle with age (Devries & Phillips, 2014). While cycling itself is not highly osteogenic or muscle-preserving, maintaining lean mass can support long-term health and resilience, even for endurance-focused athletes.  

So where does this leave cyclists? Creatine is neither a magic bullet nor a supplement to dismiss outright. If your cycling is defined by repeated accelerations, criteriums, road races with frequent surges, punchy group rides, track cycling, or interval-heavy training, creatine has a plausible physiological basis and growing cycling-specific evidence to support its use. If your riding is dominated by long, steady endurance or pure time-trial efforts, benefits are less consistent and may be minimal. 

The most sensible way to view creatine is as a tool for the “burst” side of cycling, not the “diesel” side. Used appropriately, it may improve the ability to produce and repeat hard efforts and support training quality. But it does not replace carbohydrate availability, sleep, recovery, or the fundamentals of training.  

Carbohydrates still fuel the work. Hydration still supports performance. Creatine, for some cyclists, may help in the moments that decide whether you stay with the group when the pace changes.  

Weekly fun Fact: The Donut Derby is a 36-mile cycling race located in Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania where riders receive a 3 minute time credit for each donut eaten at various stops around the course: The record time credit received by a single rider stands at 2hrs 45mins, (55 donuts). He finished the 36 mile course in -9mins and 3 seconds

If you’re unsure whether you’re fuelling correctly on a daily basis or want expert help optimising your day-to-day nutrition, G2 Nutrition offers personalised diet analysis and practical guidance. Get in touch at giles@g2nutrition.com, or ask in MDV next time you drop in. 

Reference list: 

Crisafulli A. et al. (2018). Creatine–electrolyte supplementation and repeated sprint cycling. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 

Devries M.C., Phillips S.M. (2014). Creatine supplementation and resistance training in older adults: meta-analysis. Med  

Sci Sports Exerc. 

Hickner R.C. et al. (2010). Creatine supplementation in a simulated cycling road race. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 

Kreider R.B. et al. (2017; 2022). ISSN position stand: creatine supplementation. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 

Lopez R.M. et al. (2009). Creatine supplementation, hydration and heat tolerance. J Athl Train. 

Mujika I. et al. (2023). Creatine supplementation and endurance performance. Sports Med. 

Ramos-Campos D.J. et al. (2025). Creatine supplementation and sprint cycling performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 

Trexler E.T. et al. (2024). Creatine supplementation: performance, dosing and safety. Nutrients.