Creatine in Women Who Train: 34 Studies, a Small Effect
Thirty four studies. 692 participants, every one of them female. One question most creatine research has never bothered to ask on its own: what happens when the person taking it is a woman?
A systematic review and multilevel meta analysis published in Frontiers in Nutrition in September 2026 went looking for every female specific creatine trial back to 1996. The answer it lands on is small, and the authors are careful to say how small.
THE STUDY
- Title: Effects of creatine supplementation on exercise performance, physiological outcomes, and body composition in females engaged in exercise or training: a systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis
- Journal: Frontiers in Nutrition, 2026
- Authors: Lin Y, Zhu W, Hong B
- Design: Systematic review and three level random effects meta analysis, retrospectively registered on OSF
- Read it: PubMed 42761190
WHO WAS IN IT
PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus and CINAHL were searched for studies published between 1 January 1996 and 5 March 2026. That turned up 13,244 records. 160 were read in full text. 34 studies made it in, covering 692 female or female eligible participants.
Not all of them could be pooled. 21 studies contributed 170 model compatible effects from 424 analyzable participants, and that smaller number is what the headline results actually rest on.
The women in them were swimmers, soccer and futsal players, volleyball and beach volleyball athletes, wrestlers, dancers, rowers, resistance trained women, and recreationally active women.
They were also young. Reading the review's own table of study characteristics, no group in any of the 34 studies reports a mean age above 29.6 years, and the oldest age range stated anywhere in it is 18 to 35. That is our reading of their table, not a line the authors wrote, and it matters more than anything else on this page.
WHAT THEY TOOK
Oral creatine, compared against placebo or a non creatine control. The review says "creatine monohydrate the most commonly reported form when the supplement type was specified."
Beyond that, the protocols were all over the map, which the authors treat as a limitation rather than a detail. Participants in these trials were given anything from 2 grams a day for six weeks, to 0.3 grams per kilogram per day across a preseason, to classic loading blocks of 5 grams four times daily. Durations ran from a few days to thirteen weeks.
One of the 34 is worth naming for our readers specifically. Pereira and colleagues gave 32 collegiate and professional beach volleyball athletes creatine monohydrate gummies at 5 grams a day for 10 weeks. It is the only gummy trial in the set, and it was a randomized controlled trial run without a placebo.
WHAT THEY FOUND
- Overall: a small positive estimate, Hedges g = 0.23 (robust 95% CI 0.09 to 0.37)
- Performance: g = 0.30 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.54), covering strength, power and high intensity work
- Body composition: g = 0.24 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.43)
- Physiological outcomes: g = 0.10 (95% CI -0.17 to 0.38). That interval crosses zero, and the authors call the estimate "uncertain"
- Certainty: GRADE was rated low for performance and body composition, and very low for the overall and physiological evidence
Their own conclusion, in full: the evidence "suggests possible small effects on selected strength, power, high-intensity performance and lean-mass-related measures," while "substantial heterogeneity, methodological limitations and low or very-low certainty prevent firm sport-specific or outcome-specific conclusions."
WHAT IT DOES NOT SHOW
The authors built this to go past the previous effort, which they say "included 27 studies and provided a narrative synthesis" without pooling the numbers. They got to 34 studies and a pooled estimate, and it still cannot answer the question most of the women reading this page are actually asking.
- It was not studied on women over 35. Every group mean sits under 30. If you are 42 or 55 and wondering whether this applies to you, this paper does not say. It is a study of young athletes, and we are not going to stretch it past that
- Small is small. A g of 0.23 is a modest average effect, not a transformation. The authors call it "possible small effects" and that phrasing is theirs, not a hedge we added
- The certainty is low by their own rating. Very low for the overall estimate. That is the authors grading their own evidence base, and it is the single most important line in the abstract
- Body composition is messier than one number suggests. The review states plainly that "the body-composition model combined outcomes without a uniform favorable direction", meaning outcomes pointing different ways were averaged together
- 13 of the 34 studies could not be pooled at all, because of incomplete female specific data, crossover structures, or results published only as graphs
- Publication bias could not be properly assessed. The authors say that check "remained exploratory" with only 21 study level aggregates
- The underlying trials were not all strong. One was non randomized, and the risk of bias concerns were driven by incomplete reporting of randomization, allocation concealment and analysis planning. The review was also registered after the fact, not before
- The gummy trial had no placebo. It is the closest thing here to how our own product is taken, and a trial without a placebo arm cannot separate the supplement from the expectation of taking one
Funding and conflicts, stated plainly: the authors declare that the work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. No supplement company money is disclosed anywhere in it. Worth noting next to the postmenopausal meta analysis already on this shelf, where the authors disclosed creatine research ties and a manufacturer covered part of the publication fee.
WHY IT IS ON THIS SHELF
Because "creatine works for women" is a sentence you will see everywhere, and this is what the pooled female specific evidence behind it actually looks like when someone adds it up.
What this paper does well is narrow. It pools female specific data rather than borrowing conclusions from trials run on men, and it finds a small, real, low certainty edge in performance and lean mass related measures. That is a genuine result and we will take it.
What it does not do is speak to the woman in her forties or fifties who came here because someone told her creatine helps with strength and energy as she ages. For that question, the evidence lives in different trials, and we have written about those separately.
On dose, the trials in this review used a wide range, and the 5 grams a day used in the gummy trial is the one closest to our own. Each four gummy serving of Vybrance Labs creatine gummies delivers 5g of creatine monohydrate, alongside B12 and taurine. A matching dose is not evidence of a matching result, and none of these trials tested our product.
If you want the picture for women past 35 rather than college athletes, our complete guide to creatine for women by life stage in The Lab covers it, and the pooled postmenopausal evidence is on this shelf in 608 women across 7 trials.
see you in the wild!
-Lawrence
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Nothing on this page is medical advice. Reference: PMID 42761190, DOI 10.3389/fnut.2026.1921827.
Ready to move with clarity?
Creatine first: a full 5g, with B12 and taurine alongside. Four gummies. Built for your whole day, not just your workout.