CYCLINGFORUM.COM - Where Cyclists Talk Tech --- Return To Home

 

    Register FAQ'sSearchProfileLog In / Log Out

 

****

cyclingforum.com ****

HOMECLUBS | SPONSORS | FEATURESPHOTO GALLERYTTF DONORS | SHOP FOR GEAR

Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
          View posts since last visit

Creatinine and fitness/training
 

Author Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
ErikS
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 8337
Location: Slowing boiling over in the steamy south, Global Warming is real

8/23/17 3:26 PM

Creatinine and fitness/training

So as I mentioned in the eclipse thread.

I saw the docs at MUSC on Friday and told my creatinine level was a bit high at 1.7 (norm is below 1.3).

I had my labs looked at today by another provider (coworker) and he found my other numbers were fine. I was properly hydrated prior to the test as indicated by the sodium and potassium levels. (He worked in a .mil transplant ward as a PA and is a family med PA currently so he is experienced in the field)

His opinion matches the findings in the white paper that was linked in the other thread.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2579448/

i didn't know about the protocols that call for no heavy exercising 2 days prior to the test. http://www.emedicinehealth.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=129732

He offered to run the numbers on me Monday if I wanted but said not to worry about it all and It will take a year or so for me to truly recover.

My urine was fine, the only thing that was off at all was the creatinine level.

So, for the near future, I am going to run/train out of the heat to ensure I don't get dehydrated.

In the long term, I will get myself tested in three months and I will not train/run for around 3 days prior.

The nephrologist failed to ask just how hard I trained and if I had any muscle soreness when the labs were pulled. I ran hard around 24hrs prior and my leg muscles were pretty sore. I tend to think the provider at MUSC was not an athlete and really did not take into account just how hard we can train and not bat an eye.


About my missing adrenal gland, yep I have reason to be a bit more stoic but that will come back along with the kidney function.

My daughter said her creatinine level was .97. I guess she got the better one. I am sad to say, she is not exercising enough. The meds have contributed to a unhealthy weight gain on her part.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

ErikS
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 8337
Location: Slowing boiling over in the steamy south, Global Warming is real

8/24/17 6:02 PM

My coworker reviewed the NIH white paper with me and we both came to the same conclusion.

The paper is bunk.

Note the n size is very small and they are "pro" athletes.

We both feel the creatinine levels are most likely affected by the "program" the athletes are on.

Rugby players are going to hit the steroids hard and most likely supplement with a crap ton of protein and creatine to build mass.

The cyclist won't be hitting the creatine and 'roids nearly as much as they would use blood boosting and EPO type drugs along with HGH to bump VO2 and recovery.

For the paper to work, it needs to get a larger n and get known clean athletes. Higher level amateur athletes work just as hard and have less of a chance of being on a "program".

Also, the BMI number is junk except for a very rough estimate of skin area which is actually what the test is looking for. Even then it is going to be off based on the fact that BMI does not account for body fat percentages. As we all know, muscle weighs more than fat so a fat person would have more volume hence more surface area.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Rickk
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 528
Location: Montreal

8/25/17 6:08 AM

Dont throw bb out w bathwater


quote:
Note the n size is very small
Really?
"Before the start of the competitive season, serum creatinine was measured in 151 elite athletes from five different sports: rugby (n  =  44), soccer (n  =  27), alpine skiing (n  =  34), sailing (n  =  22), cycling (n  =  24).




quote:
The paper is bunk.
We both feel the creatinine levels are most likely affected by the "program" the athletes are on.
I thought BJSM was a pretty decent peer-reviewed journal (at least in the field of "sports medecine". although true, it certainly isn't ranked as high as the NEJM or Nature). http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=2732
One would figure the journal's reviewers werent born yesterday re. possibility of all subjects being on the "program" / juiced, hence confounding the results.




quote:
Rugby players are going to hit the steroids hard and most likely supplement with a crap ton of protein and creatine to build mass.
From the paper: "...creatine supplementation has a minimal effect on creatinine concentrations and renal function in young healthy adults, as reported in a review of the literature from 1966 to 2004." (ref. 13. Pline K A, Smith C L. The effect of creatine intake on renal function. Ann Pharmacother 2005)
Like any other human study - there's always going to be potential co-variables which are hard to control/eliminate and which may confound the results (vs. when using caged, laboratory animals for example). Doesnt necessarily mean the paper's 100% bunk...



Even some marathoners / ultra marathoners can shown temporarily raised serum creatinine (although smaller "n"s). One would think they dont hit 'roids hard, nor have significant built muscle mass...
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00365513.2016.1225122
http://journals.lww.com/cjsportsmed/Abstract/2015/01000/Effects_of_100_km_Ultramarathon_on_Acute_Kidney.7.aspx
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1440-1797.2010.01354.x/full

 Reply to topic    

Rickk
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 528
Location: Montreal

8/25/17 6:27 AM

Amateur athletes aren't always "clean"


quote:
For the paper to work, it needs to get a larger n and get known clean athletes. Higher level amateur athletes work just as hard and have less of a chance of being on a "program".
Good luck with that. Like any other human study - there's always going to be potential co-variables which are hard to control/eliminate and which may confound the results (vs. when using caged, laboratory animals for example).

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian-amateur-denies-using-mechanical-doping/

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jun/01/dope-and-glory-the-rise-of-cheating-in-amateur-sport

 Reply to topic    

ErikS
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 8337
Location: Slowing boiling over in the steamy south, Global Warming is real

8/25/17 5:28 PM

Yes, the N needs to larger. If it was 150 of each group and controlled better it would have been more viable. When you have a large number of uncontrollable variables you need a larger group.

Yes, amateur athletes are less likely to be on a program. They don't often have the money or the means. Just like there are portions of the common population that do drugs and the majority don't. The same goes for athletes.

Just because it is peer reviewed does not mean we can't question it even if we are laymen to the field of study.

With regards to creatine supplementation and the effect on creatinine levels, that testing would have to be done in a separate controlled population and their exercise levels also would need to be very controlled.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail


Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
           View New Threads Since My Last Visit VIEW THREADS SINCE MY LAST VISIT
           Start a New Thread

 Display posts from previous:   


  
Last Thread | Next Thread  >  

  
  

 


If you enjoy this site, please consider pledging your support

cyclingforum.com - where cyclists talk tech
Cycling TTF Rides Throughout The World

Cyclingforum is powered by SYNCRONICITY.NET in Denver, Colorado -

Powered by phpBB: Copyright 2006 phpBB Group | Custom phpCF Template by Syncronicity