Creatine, Genomic Screening, & More

In this week’s health news…

Creatine: no difference vs control at 5g/day

A study found, as the title suggests, no difference between creatine and placebo, at the usual dose of 5g/day, while doing a supervised resistance training program.

This was a 12-week trial, and in the first week, the creatine group put on an average of 0.5kg more lean (i.e. not fat) body mass than the control group, however, as this quickly equalized after the first week, it is assumed that the brief extra weight gain was water weight (creatine promotes water retention, especially in the initial phase).

However, it is still possible that it may promote weight gain at higher doses.

This study was done with adult participants under the age of 50; we’ve noted before that it is generally young people who use creatine for bodybuilding, so in principle, this should have been ideal for that, but it wasn’t.

Read in full: Sports supplement creatine makes no difference to muscle gains, trial finds

Related: Creatine’s Brain Benefits Increase With Age ← this, on the other hand, does work—but only for older adults.

Genomics & disease risk: what to know

In a recent study evaluation, 175,500 participants were screened, and 1 in 30 received medically important genetic results. More than 90% of those found to have a genetic risk were previously unaware of it.

This is important, because most current genetic risk assessment for patients is based on personal and family history, which often misses a lot of data due to barriers to care or lack of family history.

Genomic screening helps close these gaps:

Read in full: Genomic screening is important in identifying disease risk, study finds

Related: Do You Have A Personalized Health Plan? (Here’s How)

FDA-Approved Antivirals (Not Vaccines) Ineffective Against H5N1

The H5N1 avian influenza outbreak is now rife amongst dairy farms, with the virus found in cows’ milk and infecting farmworkers. Researchers studied potential treatments, revealing two FDA-approved antivirals (baloxavir and oseltamivir) were generally ineffective in treating severe H5N1 infections.

Oral infections per raw milk consumption, were the most severe and hardest to treat, and the virus spread quickly to the blood and brain (when the infection is respiratory, it is much slower to spread from the respiratory tract).

It wasn’t a complete loss, though:

• Eye infections were better controlled with baloxavir, achieving a 100% survival rate compared to 25% with oseltamivir.
• For nasal infections, baloxavir reduced viral levels better but still allowed the virus to reach the brain. Survival rates were 75% for baloxavir and 50% for oseltamivir.

The researchers in question are urging preventative measures as being of critical importance, given the difficulty of treatment:

Read in full: Current antivirals likely less effective against severe infection caused by bird flu virus in cows’ milk

Related: Bird Flu: Children At High Risk; Older Adults Not So Much

Take care!