Hi Curious Mind,

Before we dive in, we want to give a special thank you to Monika Mistry (Creative Design) for creating our brand new logo. It's been amazing working with her to bring our visual identity to life. Check it out on our site!

If you've been following health trends lately, you've probably seen creatine touted as a solution for brain fog and cognitive issues during perimenopause and menopause. A 2025 study has been making the rounds, and the headlines are compelling.

But when we reviewed the research, we found some significant red flags that everyone should know about before investing in this supplement.

The Claim

"Creatine supplementation improves brain function and reduces cognitive issues in perimenopausal and menopausal women."

Our verdict: The overall evidence is currently disproving this claim, and this particular study is categorized as inconclusive.

View the full claim review on our site →

What the Study Found

The research in question is called the CONCRET-MENOPA trial—an 8-week randomized controlled trial that tested different forms and doses of creatine in 36 perimenopausal and menopausal women (9 per group).

At first glance, it looks promising: a few cognitive tests showed improvement in the medium-dose group. But here's where things get complicated.

The Red Flags We Found

1. The Statistical Problem

The study measured around 60 different cognitive tests and biomarkers, but only 2-3 showed improvement. When you run that many tests, you expect a few to look positive just by chance—it's called the multiple comparison problem.

It's unclear if the researchers properly accounted for this. When testing dozens of outcomes, scientists need to adjust their statistics to avoid false positives. Without clear evidence this was done correctly, what looks like a promising result could actually be a coincidence.

2. No Clear Dose Pattern

Sometimes the low dose showed benefits. Sometimes the medium dose. There was no consistent trend. When a supplement truly works, you expect to see a clear dose-response relationship—more supplement, more benefit (up to a point). That didn't happen here.

3. Conflicts of Interest

The study authors have ties to supplement companies, and the creatine used in the study was donated by a supplement supplier. This doesn't automatically invalidate the research, but it's important context that can introduce bias.

4. Very Small Sample

With only 9 women per group, this study doesn't have the statistical power to draw strong conclusions—especially when most of the 60+ tests showed no benefit.

How to Spot These Red Flags Yourself

This study is a great example of why it's important to look beyond the headline. Here's what to watch for:

• Sample size: Studies with fewer than 50 participants per group should be interpreted cautiously
• Multiple outcomes: If a study tests dozens of things and only one or two show marginal improvement, be skeptical
• Funding source: Industry-funded research isn't inherently bad, but it warrants extra scrutiny

Check It With Us First

Before you trust the next health trend, visit our platform to see what the evidence really says. We review health claims with scientific rigor so you don't have to wade through the research yourself.

Read the full claim review →

Want to explore more claims? Visit healthintegrityproject.org or install our app to fact-check health information in real-time.

Follow us on Instagram @health.integrity.project for bite-sized evidence breakdowns.

Stay curious, The Health Integrity Project Team

P.S. You can unsubscribe at any time using the link at the bottom of this email. We're committed to evidence-based communication and respecting your inbox.