Evidence Hub

Creatine supplementation in young men under resistance versus non-resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis of strength, performance, and lean mass

Jin-Fa Gu, Yan Li, Jialin Xiao, Yu Zhang

Frontiers in Nutrition, 2026

Abstract

Background Creatine is a highly marketed ergogenic aid that has strengthening and high-intensity training effects. However, past meta-analyses have often grouped together heterogeneous training modalities, and it was not known if the training context has a modifying effect on body composition and performance. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis pooled RCT evidence in healthy men aged 18–30 years old to quantify the effects of creatine supplementation in terms of body composition, maximal strength, and exercise performance. All the databases were searched up to 1 October 2025, and 37 eligible trials were discovered. The context of training was prespecified—RT vs. non-RT, and used as the main comparison. Pooled estimates were made using random effects models for FFM, LBM, and Wingate peak and mean power, CMJ, and 1RM outcomes. The exploratory subgroup analyses were done to investigate whether training condition and intervention duration moderated the effects. Results The number of trials that were considered according to the inclusion criteria was 37. When using RT, creatine supplementation led to significant gains in FFM (+3.39 kg) and LBM (+2.70 kg), but not to significant gains in non-RT conditions. Wingate peak and mean power both increased in both contexts (peak power +71.27 W; mean power +39.69 W), with no evidence that training context modified these results. CMJ showed a pooled improvement of 2.70 cm; however, this estimate should be interpreted with…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free