# Creatine might help fight depression, but let's stay cautious > Introduction: a gym supplement now intriguing psychiatry - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Commentary - Published: 2026-07-04 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/la-creatine-pourrait-aider-contre-la-depression-mais-restons-prudents ## Introduction: a gym supplement now intriguing psychiatry ### A scientific review that revives an unexpected debate **Creatine**, known for decades mainly as a supplement for bodybuilders, is now the subject of fresh scientific attention: could it help treat **depression**? A systematic review published in the journal **Brain Medicine**, led by researcher **Bassam Jeryous Fares** of the **University of Ottawa** and reported by **ScienceDaily** on **June 30, 2026**, examined this exact question. This review did not conduct any new clinical experiment: it analyzed six published reports, corresponding to **five randomized clinical trials**, in an attempt to draw a clear trend from data already available on the subject. ### Why this topic deserves careful popularization Faced with a headline as catchy as "**creatine** could fight **depression**," the temptation to oversimplify is strong. This commentary aims precisely to avoid that trap: to explain what this data actually shows, without giving in to either sensationalism or excessive skepticism. The hope raised by this research is real, but it must be measured against the still-modest size of the available studies and the methodological caution displayed by the **researchers** themselves. *Nothing irritates a serious scientist more than a headline that turns an interesting preliminary signal into a definitive therapeutic promise. Let's try to do better here.* ## What the review actually examined ### Five trials, two hundred thirty-eight participants, five countries The review analyzed **five randomized clinical trials** conducted in **South Korea**, the **United States**, **Brazil**, **Israel**, and **India**, totaling **238 participants**, of whom **126** received **creatine** and **112** received a placebo, according to data detailed by **ScienceDaily**. The average age of participants was **36**, and most were women. Four of these trials focused on **major depressive disorder**, while a fifth concerned a depressive episode within **bipolar disorder**, an important clinical distinction for understanding the true scope of the results obtained. ### Why the **researchers** did not statistically pool the data An important methodological fact: the **researchers** did not pool all the data into a single overall statistical analysis, due to substantial differences in design and method between the studies, a choice that reflects commendable scientific rigor rather than an awkward limitation to hide. This methodological decision means, in practice, that each trial must be examined individually rather than seeking a single simplified conclusion, an essential nuance for understanding why the overall results are described as "mixed" by the authors themselves. *This refusal to artificially merge data that are too different is exactly the kind of rigor that sets a good scientific review apart from a communications exercise disguised as research.* ## The two trials that show a real benefit ### A marked improvement among women on antidepressants The first positive trial found that women with **major depressive disorder** taking **5 grams of creatine** per day alongside **escitalopram**, a common antidepressant, showed a more pronounced reduction in their **symptoms** after **eight weeks**, compared to those receiving the antidepressant alone with a placebo. This improvement corresponded to a notable effect size, measured by a **Cohen's d of 1.13** on the **Hamilton** **depression** scale, a statistically solid result that also coincided with a higher number of participants achieving **full remission** of their **symptoms**. ### A second trial combining **creatine** and cognitive behavioral therapy The second positive trial tested combining **creatine** with **cognitive behavioral therapy**, a recognized mental health treatment approach, and likewise showed a greater reduction in depressive **symptoms** on a standard rating scale, compared to therapy alone plus a placebo. These two positive results, though limited in number, suggest a potentially real mechanism of action rather than a simple statistical fluke, which justifies the growing scientific interest in this line of research. *Two positive trials out of five is not nothing, but it's not definitive proof either: it is exactly the kind of signal that deserves further investigation without being ignored or overinterpreted.* ## The three trials that showed no benefit ### No improvement among treatment-resistant **patients** One trial tested doses of **5 and 10 grams** of **creatine** per day in **patients** whose **depression** had not responded to standard **antidepressant** medications, finding no significant improvement in **symptoms** at either dose. This negative result is a reminder of an important reality in psychiatry: a complementary **treatment** that shows promise in some clinical contexts does not necessarily work in the most treatment-resistant **patients**, a population that remains one of the field's greatest clinical challenges. ### No benefit in adolescent girls or in bipolar **patients** Another trial conducted among **adolescent girls** showed no benefit of **creatine** over placebo, even when testing different doses, while a trial involving **patients** with **bipolar disorder** likewise revealed no measurable improvement in depressive **symptoms**. More concerning still, two participants with **bipolar disorder** who received **creatine** developed episodes of **hypomania** or **mania**, a safety signal that calls for particular caution with this specific population of **patients**. *This detail about hypomania in bipolar **patients** is exactly the kind of crucial information a sensationalist article might have glossed over, but an honest commentary must clearly highlight.* ## What the review's lead researcher says, precisely ### An interesting signal, not a clinical verdict Researcher **Bassam Jeryous Fares**, quoted by **ScienceDaily**, sums up the current state of knowledge with commendable clarity: "The signal is interesting, but it's not a verdict. Two trials pointed one way and three pointed another. This isn't the kind of evidence you change clinical practice on. It's the kind that says the question deserves more exploration." This cautious phrasing, typical of responsible scientific communication, contrasts with the sometimes more assertive headlines carried by certain media outlets, a gap that illustrates the importance of always tracing back to the primary source of a **study** before drawing hasty conclusions. ### A generally reassuring safety profile, with nuances Co-author **Nicholas Fabiano** specifies that "**creatine** appears to be a safe intervention. The adverse effects we observed were limited to mild gastrointestinal discomfort. We cannot yet reliably say that **creatine** helps with depressive **symptoms**, nor whether the results are generalizable to everyone." This dual nuance, reassuring safety on one hand and persistent uncertainty about effectiveness on the other, perfectly sums up the current, still provisional, state of scientific knowledge on this precise topic. *A researcher who so clearly admits the limits of his own work deserves to be listened to far more than any wellness influencer promising miracles without nuance.* ## The theoretical biological mechanism behind this lead ### Brain **energy**, a stimulating field of hypotheses On the biological front, **researchers** point to several theoretical mechanisms that could explain a potential effect of **creatine** on mood: its role in regenerating **adenosine triphosphate**, the brain's main cellular **energy** source, as well as possible interactions with the **dopamine** and **serotonin** systems, two neurotransmitters directly involved in mood regulation. These biological hypotheses remain, in the **researchers**' own words, purely theoretical at this stage, meaning they offer a plausible line of explanation without constituting proof of **creatine**'s actual mechanism of action on the human **brain**. ### Why scientific caution is essential here Research into the brain metabolism of **creatine** remains a relatively young scientific field, and the changes observed in some studies do not yet allow for a clear, definitive causal link to be established between **supplementation** and an actual improvement in depressive **symptoms** among affected **patients**. This methodological caution, far from being a discouraging obstacle, is precisely the driving force that justifies pursuing deeper research into this still largely misunderstood biological mechanism. *The biology behind this hypothesis is fascinating, but fascinating does not mean proven: that is a distinction that science popularization must always scrupulously respect.* ## The methodological limits holding back hasty conclusions ### Trials too small to reach a definitive verdict One of the main limitations highlighted by the review's authors concerns the relatively modest size of the **clinical trials** analyzed, a factor that increases the risk that certain positive or negative results reflect random statistical fluctuations rather than a real, reproducible biological effect of **creatine**. This limitation, common in psychiatric research on new interventions, does not invalidate the results obtained, but calls for a cautious reading that avoids generalizing too quickly from still-limited samples. ### A gender-imbalanced population and a limited duration The studies analyzed included a disproportionate share of women compared to men, which limits the ability to generalize the results to the broader population, while the trial duration, generally limited to **eight weeks**, does not allow for evaluating the potential effects of prolonged **treatment** over several months or years. These methodological limitations, clearly identified by the **researchers** themselves, explain why the review explicitly calls for larger, longer-duration **clinical trials** before more definitive clinical conclusions can be drawn. *Openly acknowledging the gender imbalance in a research sample is an exercise in scientific honesty that is too rare, and one that deserves praise rather than being downplayed.* ## What this concretely means for **patients** today ### Not yet a broad clinical recommendation Despite the interest sparked by these preliminary results, the review's authors are clear: current evidence remains too limited to justify widespread use of **creatine** as a **treatment** for **depression** in routine clinical practice, an essential nuance that any patient interested in this option should keep in mind. This caution does not mean the lead should be abandoned — quite the opposite — but it is a reminder that no supplement, however promising on paper, should replace rigorous, personalized medical follow-up for a condition as serious as **depression**. ### The importance of consulting before any self-medication Anyone considering adding **creatine** to their **treatment** for **depression** should absolutely discuss it beforehand with a healthcare professional, particularly given the safety signal observed in **patients** with **bipolar disorder** who developed hypomanic **symptoms**. This recommendation for caution is not a mere defensive reflex: it directly reflects the limitations and nuances identified by the **researchers** themselves in their own review of the available scientific literature. *The hope raised by this research is legitimate, but it must never replace the essential reflex of consulting a professional before any self-medication, especially for a condition as serious as **depression**.* ## The broader context of research on supplements and mental health ### A growing trend toward exploring non-standard pharmaceutical options This review on **creatine** fits into a broader scientific trend that has, for several years, explored the potential of various dietary supplements and non-standard pharmaceutical interventions, such as certain **omega-3s** or **vitamin D**, to complement existing treatments for **depression**, generally with similarly mixed results requiring further research. This broader research momentum reflects a legitimate desire to diversify the therapeutic options available to **patients**, particularly those whose response to standard pharmaceutical treatments remains insufficient or comes with side effects that are difficult to tolerate. ### Why science popularization must resist media hype Every new promising lead in this field risks being quickly seized upon by enthusiastic commercial messaging, whether from dietary supplement manufacturers or wellness content platforms, which calls for particular vigilance from journalists and science communicators tasked with relaying this information to the general public. This editorial vigilance, deliberately applied here, aims to convey the measured hope that these results deserve, without ever turning an uncertain preliminary signal into a definitive, premature therapeutic promise. *Resisting the temptation of a sensationalist headline is probably the most honest service a commentator can offer readers seeking real hope rather than false promises.* ## What future research will need to clarify ### Larger, longer-duration trials are needed The review's authors explicitly call for larger-scale randomized **clinical trials**, including more participants and extending beyond the usual eight weeks, to determine whether the benefits observed in some trials persist, or even grow, over a longer **treatment** period. This clear methodological recommendation lays out a precise roadmap for **researchers** wishing to explore this lead further, rather than settling for the currently available data, which remains too fragmented to definitively settle the question. ### Exploring the combination with physical exercise **Researchers** also suggest studying **creatine** in combination with **physical exercise**, a particularly interesting avenue given the already well-established benefits of regular physical activity on mental health, and one that could potentially reveal synergistic effects not yet explored to date. This future research direction, if it materializes, could offer particularly accessible and inexpensive combined therapeutic options for **patients**, a significant public health issue in a context where access to mental health care often remains limited. *Combining **creatine** with physical exercise is clearly a lead worth pursuing, given how solidly established the mood benefits of physical activity already are in existing research.* ## A dose that doesn't necessarily guarantee a better result ### The myth that a higher dose is automatically more effective Current data suggests that a higher dose of **creatine** does not necessarily lead to a better clinical outcome, as illustrated by the trial that unsuccessfully tested doses of 5 and 10 grams per day in **patients** resistant to standard **antidepressant** treatments. This observation contradicts the widespread intuition that "more is better" when it comes to supplements, a useful reminder that human biology rarely follows a simple linear, proportional dosing logic. ### The importance of standardizing future dosing protocols Given this uncertainty about the optimal dose, **researchers** are calling for more rigorous standardization of the protocols used in future **clinical trials**, to allow for more reliable comparisons between studies and to identify, if applicable, the dose most likely to produce a real, reproducible clinical benefit. This methodological requirement, though technical, directly determines the quality and reliability of the scientific knowledge that will emerge from future research on this precise topic. *Seeing that "more **creatine**" does not automatically mean "more effect" should reassure those who fear a rush toward excessive self-medication based on this still-preliminary research.* ## What this research teaches us about modern psychiatry ### A discipline increasingly open to complementary approaches This review on **creatine** illustrates a broader evolution in modern psychiatry, increasingly willing to seriously explore approaches that complement standard pharmaceutical treatments, without abandoning the methodological rigor that must frame any serious clinical evaluation. This disciplinary openness, far from being a concession to skepticism toward conventional medicine, instead reflects growing scientific maturity, capable of objectively evaluating unconventional leads with the same standards of evidence as any standard medication. ### Why this rigor ultimately benefits **patients** This methodological rigor, while it may seem frustrating for **patients** seeking quick solutions to a condition as grueling as **depression**, is in reality the best protection against false promises and unproven treatments that could, in the worst case, delay access to genuinely effective care. It is precisely this rigorous scientific discipline that will, in time, allow us to determine with greater certainty whether **creatine** deserves a legitimate place in the therapeutic arsenal against **depression**. *A psychiatry that takes complementary leads seriously while maintaining strict scientific rigor is exactly the kind of balance **patients** need, between legitimate hope and necessary caution.* ## The economic and practical stakes of an already widely available supplement ### An inexpensive product already accessible over the counter Unlike many experimental psychiatric treatments, **creatine** has the practical advantage of already being widely available over the counter at a relatively modest cost, which, if its effectiveness were to be confirmed by larger trials, could make it a particularly accessible complementary therapeutic option for many **patients** around the world. This economic accessibility is a significant argument in favor of continuing research on this topic, in a context where the cost of some newer psychiatric treatments often remains prohibitive for a large part of the world's population. ### A risk of premature marketing to watch closely This accessibility and low cost also create a real risk of premature commercial exploitation by certain dietary supplement manufacturers, who might be tempted to promote **creatine** as an established **treatment** for **depression** before science has definitively settled the question. This commercial vigilance is a necessary complement to the scientific vigilance already exercised by the **researchers** themselves, in order to protect **patients** from marketing claims that would go well beyond what current data can actually support. *The day we see advertisements claiming **creatine** "cures" **depression**, we'll know marketing has outrun science, and it will be time to remember what the **researchers** themselves actually say.* ## What **patient** associations recommend in the meantime ### Never stop an ongoing **treatment** without medical advice Mental health associations consistently remind patients that no one should stop or change their regular antidepressant **treatment** based solely on preliminary results like those presented in this review, an essential precaution to avoid any avoidable relapse linked to prematurely stopping an effective **treatment**. This recommendation for caution, valid for any new emerging therapeutic lead in mental health, applies with particular relevance to **creatine**, whose real effectiveness has yet to be confirmed by more extensive, larger-scale research. ### The importance of dialogue with one's treating physician For **patients** interested in this option, the most responsible approach is to discuss it openly with their doctor or treating psychiatrist, who can assess, on a case-by-case basis, the relevance of a supervised trial of **creatine** alongside existing **treatment**, taking into account each patient's specific medical profile. This individualized approach, rather than a hasty generalization from still-preliminary results, remains the safest and most responsible way to explore this promising but still uncertain therapeutic lead. *The best practical takeaway from this research isn't "take **creatine**," but "talk to your doctor about it": a simple nuance, but one that changes everything in **patients**' real lives.* ## Conclusion: measured hope, not a miracle cure ### A real lead worth following closely This review on **creatine** and **depression** perfectly illustrates what responsible scientific communication should look like: neither blind enthusiasm for a miracle cure, nor categorical rejection of a promising research lead, but an honest acknowledgment of mixed results, methodological limitations, and the work that remains before definitive clinical conclusions can be drawn. The two positive trials, encouraging as they are, are not yet enough on their own to transform current clinical practice, but they amply justify pursuing larger, more rigorous research into this still-emerging therapeutic lead. ### What to watch in the coming years The larger-scale **clinical trials** called for by **researchers** will be the most reliable indicator of whether **creatine** truly deserves a place in the therapeutic arsenal against **depression**, or whether the positive results seen so far ultimately amount to statistical coincidence rather than a real, reproducible biological effect. Until then, measured hope remains the only scientifically honest stance in the face of this still-young research, promising but decidedly incomplete. *Measured hope is not a lack of enthusiasm: it is the only form of hope that truly withstands the test of time and the scientific data yet to come.* **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - [ScienceDaily, scientists say creatine may help fight depression — June 30, 2026](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/06/260630020231.htm) - [PubMed Central, systematic review on creatine and depression](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12823350/) - [PubMed, scientific publication on creatine supplementation and depressive symptoms](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41189312/) ### Secondary sources - [Healthline, creatine shows promise treating depression symptoms](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/creatine-shows-promise-treating-depression-symptoms) - [News-Medical, can creatine help with depression, new review says results are inconclusive](https://www.news-medical.net/news/20251106/Can-creatine-help-with-depression-New-review-says-results-are-inconclusive.aspx) - [ScienceDaily, health and medicine section](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/health_medicine/) --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/la-creatine-pourrait-aider-contre-la-depression-mais-restons-prudents