EFSA Journal (Nov 2024)

Creatine and improvement in cognitive function: Evaluation of a health claim pursuant to article 13(5) of regulation (EC) No 1924/2006

  • EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA),
  • Dominique Turck,
  • Torsten Bohn,
  • Montaña Cámara,
  • Jacqueline Castenmiller,
  • Stefaan deHenauw,
  • Karen‐Ildico Hirsch‐Ernst,
  • Ángeles Jos,
  • Alexandre Maciuk,
  • Inge Mangelsdorf,
  • Breige McNulty,
  • Androniki Naska,
  • Kristina Pentieva,
  • Frank Thies,
  • Ionut Craciun,
  • Thibault Fiolet,
  • Alfonso Siani

DOI
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9100
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 22, no. 11
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Following an application from Alzchem Trostberg GmbH, submitted for authorisation of a health claim pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Austria, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to creatine and improvement in cognitive function. The Panel considers that the food constituent, creatine, is sufficiently characterised. An improvement in cognitive function in one or more of its domains is a beneficial physiological effect. The applicant identified 21 human intervention studies on creatine supplementation and measures of cognitive function through a literature search. Two additional studies published after the search was conducted were identified through the reference list of a meta‐analysis. In weighing the evidence, the Panel took into account that the acute effect of creatine on working memory, observed in two studies at 20 g/day for 5–7 days, was not seen at lower doses (2.2–14 g/day), or with continuous consumption (5 g/day for 6 weeks following a 5‐day loading phase). Furthermore, the effect on response inhibition at 20 g/day for 7 days was an isolated finding among 10 intervention studies in healthy individuals, with no effects observed on other cognitive domains. The Panel also considered that the three intervention studies conducted in diseased individuals do not support an effect of creatine supplementation on cognition, and that the available evidence for a mechanism by which creatine could exert the claimed effect is weak. The Panel concludes that a cause‐and‐effect relationship has not been established between creatine supplementation and an improvement in cognitive function in one or more of its domains.

Keywords