Creatine is sold as a muscle supplement. The 2026 evidence in older adults extends the use case to the aging brain. A new systematic review in Nutrition Reviews pooled six studies on creatine and cognition in adults over 55. Five of the six reported a positive link, with the strongest signals in memory and attention (Marshall et al., 2026). The review is small, the quality is mixed, and a UK regulator has not endorsed a cognitive health claim at low doses. The signal is still worth understanding because the safety record for creatine monohydrate remains strong.
Below: the published evidence, the mechanism, the dose-response gap, the safety picture, and a workable plan for adults in their 50s, 60s, and 70s.
Why the aging brain benefits from extra creatine
Creatine works as a high-speed energy buffer. Cells store it as phosphocreatine and use it to regenerate ATP, the molecule powering every active process. The brain is one of the most energy-hungry organs in the body. Neurons fire constantly and need fast ATP turnover. The phosphocreatine-creatine kinase system supplies it.
Brain creatine accounts for about 5 percent of total body creatine, with the remaining 95 percent stored in skeletal muscle (Kreider 2017, International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand). Total body creatine declines with age, per three converging routes: older adults eat less meat and fish (the main dietary sources of creatine); the kidney and liver lose synthesis capacity; and muscle mass shrinks, taking the main creatine reservoir with it (Marshall 2026, Nutrition Reviews).
If brain creatine is the substrate for fast ATP regeneration, and creatine stores fall with age, supplementation becomes a plausible buffer. The 2026 systematic review tested the hypothesis.
What the 2026 review found
Marshall and colleagues at Western University searched eight databases and identified six original studies meeting the inclusion criteria: adults aged 55 and over, creatine measured by supplementation or dietary recall, and at least one cognitive outcome (Marshall et al., 2026, PMID 40971619). The combined sample reached 1,542 participants, 55.7 percent female per the published author counts.
Five of the six studies reported a positive relationship between creatine intake and cognition. The strongest signals appeared in memory and attention. The one null finding was the Alves 2013 randomised trial, which used a 5 g/day maintenance dose for 24 weeks after a short load in women aged 60 to 80 (Alves 2013, PLOS ONE).
Two of the six studies were interventional. McMorris (2007) gave 32 older adults 20 g/day for one week and measured executive function, short-term memory and long-term recall. The creatine group improved on every domain except number recall. Alves (2013) loaded 56 older women with 20 g/day for five days then 5 g/day for 24 weeks and saw no cognitive change. The remaining four studies were cross-sectional and tied higher dietary creatine intake (recalled from food diaries) to better cognitive scores.
The reviewers rated the methodological quality as one study good, two fair, and three poor. They concluded the evidence is suggestive but limited, and called for high-quality randomised trials in older adults.
The dose-response question most guides skip
Most consumer creatine guidance lands on 3 to 5 g/day. The dose saturates skeletal muscle. The brain is a different story. Creatine crosses the blood-brain barrier slowly via a dedicated transporter. Raising brain creatine takes more.
Magnetic resonance spectroscopy work in healthy adults shows 20 g/day for 4 weeks raises total brain creatine by about 8 to 9 percent (Dechent et al., 1999, American Journal of Physiology). Both positive interventional studies in the Marshall review used 20 g/day loading. The Alves null trial moved to a 5 g/day maintenance dose for the bulk of its 24-week protocol, a dose more relevant to muscle saturation than to sustained brain creatine elevation.
The pattern explains the gap in the UK regulatory picture. The UK Nutrition and Health Claims Committee reviewed an industry application in 2024 for a claim about creatine supplementation contributing to improved cognitive function at 3 g/day. The committee assessed 10 randomised trials. Eight used doses above 3 g/day and were ruled outside the proposed conditions of use. One trial in elite female athletes was excluded for population reasons. The single trial pertinent to the proposed claim, Rawson et al., 2008, used 2.2 g/day and reported no cognitive effect. The committee concluded a cause-and-effect relationship has not been established at doses of 3 g/day or less (UKNHCC scientific opinion, August 2024).
In plain terms, the doses with the best cognitive evidence are higher than the doses currently approved for a UK health claim. The gap matters when you read marketing copy.
Safety, side effects, and who should check first
Creatine monohydrate has one of the longest safety records of any supplement. The 2017 ISSN position stand reviewed studies up to 30 g/day for 5 years in healthy adults and found no clinically significant adverse events (Kreider et al., 2017, Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition). The reported issues across the published trials are gastrointestinal complaints from large single doses (over 5 g taken at once), with no consistent link to kidney damage in healthy adults.
Two practical points. First, small frequent doses (under 5 g at a time, taken with food and fluid) reduce the risk of bloating or stomach upset. Second, anyone with established kidney disease, anyone on medications affecting renal function, and pregnant or breastfeeding women should speak with their GP before starting. The safety record applies to healthy adults using recommended doses.
A workable plan for adults in their 50s, 60s, or 70s
The Marshall 2026 review does not prove creatine sharpens memory. It points to a likely benefit at adequate doses in older adults, with the strongest signal in memory and attention. Four steps make the signal testable for an individual.
What the evidence does not say
Three limits keep the story from being clean. The review pooled only six studies, two interventional and four cross-sectional. Cross-sectional data show association, not causation. The methodological quality was rated as poor in three of the six studies. The single negative trial used a low maintenance dose, leaving open the question of whether higher chronic dosing would have moved cognition. The reviewers themselves call for high-quality randomised trials in older clinical populations.
The UK regulator has not approved a cognitive health claim, even at 3 g/day. Anyone marketing creatine for brain function in the UK is going beyond what the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities has accepted.
The fair summary: a low-cost, low-risk supplement with a plausible mechanism, an encouraging signal in older adults, and an unfinished evidence base.
Common mistakes
Three patterns trip up first-time users. Taking too little: many products list 1 to 2 g per serving, well below the muscle-saturation range and well below the doses tied to brain creatine increases. Skipping the load: the maintenance-only route works for muscle saturation but takes about 28 days, and to reach the higher brain creatine level seen in the positive cognitive studies a 5 to 7 day load is the studied path. Stopping after 2 weeks: the cognitive trials in older adults ran for 7 days at the shortest and 24 weeks at the longest, so two weeks is too short a window to draw a conclusion.
Frequently asked questions
Bottom line
The 2026 systematic review is the clearest summary of the older-adult cognitive evidence to date. Five of six studies pointed in the same direction, the mechanism is well understood, and the safety record at the relevant doses is strong. The current limits are study quality and dose-response clarity. For adults in their 50s, 60s, and 70s who already train and eat well, a 5 to 7 day load at around 20 g/day followed by 5 g/day for 8 to 12 weeks is a defensible personal test, paired with resistance training and a simple cognitive check at the start and end.
Sources
- Marshall S, Kitzan A, Wright J, Bocicariu L, Nagamatsu LS. Creatine and Cognition in Aging, A Systematic Review of Evidence in Older Adults. Nutrition Reviews 2026, vol 84(2), pages 333-344. PubMed 40971619. Full text.
- 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. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2017, vol 14, article 18. PubMed 28615996.
- UK Nutrition and Health Claims Committee (UKNHCC). Scientific opinion on creatine supplementation and improved cognitive function. Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, 14 August 2024. GOV.UK.
- Smith-Ryan AE, Cabre HE, Eckerson JM, Candow DG. Creatine Supplementation in Women's Health, A Lifespan Perspective. Nutrients 2021, vol 13(3), article 877. PubMed 33800439.
- McMorris T, Harris RC, Howard AN, et al. Creatine supplementation, sleep deprivation, cortisol, melatonin and behavior. Physiology and Behavior 2007, vol 90(1), pages 21-28. PubMed 17046034.
- Alves CRR, Merege Filho CAA, Benatti FB, et al. Creatine Supplementation Associated or Not with Strength Training upon Emotional and Cognitive Measures in Older Women, A Randomized Double-Blind Study. PLOS ONE 2013, vol 8(10), article e76301. PubMed 24146854.
- Dechent P, Pouwels PJ, Wilken B, Hanefeld F, Frahm J. Increase of total creatine in human brain after oral supplementation of creatine-monohydrate. American Journal of Physiology 1999, vol 277(3), pages R698-704. PubMed 10484486.
- Ostojic SM, Stea TH, Engeset D. Creatine as a promising component of paternal preconception diet. Nutrients 2021, vol 13(2), article 586. PubMed 33572226.