Thankyou!! I'm sure if you have experience in the medical space this sort of thing seems obvious, but to me (non-medical), the original phrasing was so confusing. Your explanation makes sense.
As it turns out, no one lets you generate mutant human embryos with deficient creatine receptors, grow them up into adult humans, inject them with melanoma, euthanize them and harvest the tumor cell mass and bone marrow for analysis.
Please remember that this is a study not the ads and pop-sci articles usually posted here. That means it’s meant to elucidate at most some biological pathways and not to present an overall recommendation. Maybe creatine has strong anti-tumor activity through one pathway and strongly tumor-promoting impacts elsewhere.
Please… just read it as the isolated and interesting insight into biology that it is. It’s a fascinating in vitro result that shows a potentially important role for creatinine in a certain immune response.
Not risks but sideeffects that might affect you. I just decided to cut creatine out during summer months, as I sweat significantly more when on creatine (and pee of course, but that is manageable). Now I already sweat more than average joe based on my genetics (yes, I had that checked out by a doctor) but on creatine it became really annoying during hot season. Since creatine definitely allows me to lift heavier and progress, I will just plan around that and put cutting/maintenance phases into the hot season off-creatine, and go back to supplementing it the rest of the year.
Anecdotally, it makes me feel like crap and significantly increased hair shedding. I've seen attestations of both side effects online as well. No idea how or why it could cause either, and the crumminess at least significantly improved very quickly after stopping it. Neither side effect seems to be especially common though.
Near as I can parse it, as a very, very anti-woo person, is as follows:
In a healthy individual with a balanced diet and no deficiencies, there are essentially zero supplements that do anything whatsoever to a measurable degree. Essentially the entire supplement aisle at Whole Foods or whatever is completely woo and useless, and any advertisements are someone trying to make money from you, or some mindless viral craze with no evidence. The exception to this general rule is omega 3s (fish oil is great for this, algae oil is even better given potential heavy metals in fish), protein supplementation if you're weightlifting, and creatine. GLP-1s are a wonder drug that are great if you are not a healthy individual and wish to be.
Citation please? Creatine is one of the most studied modern supplements, and I have yet to see anything that says to you'd need to 'take breaks' from it...
I saw someone handing out samples of creatine at Costco the other day, spouting all sorts of stuff like it's a wonder drug.
It's definitely becoming mainstream.
I've taken it off and on for the past 15 years, the most noticeable effect is about 5lbs of weight gain. I do think it helps gym performance and the increased water retention mames for better muscle definition.
This is such a crazy substance. I'm 43 and I feel like I have more energy than I have ever had before. I started taking it during recovery from a bad ankle fracture since it helps building muscle mass. Once the ankle was better I took up CrossFit, and kept on taking creatine because why not, it helps replenish ATP so I will be able to give the extra-push when working out, I thought.
What is blowing my mind though is that at $dayjob my team is going through a crazy crunch to deliver a very strategic project and some of us are pushing 10-12h days often. I'm in hour 12 today for the second day in a row, and my head is not tired at all. Turns out the brain also uses a lot of ATP too, specially during demanding cognitive tasks so I guess it is creatine that is keeping the engine running smoothly even after so many hours.
I will like once every week or two have a poor night sleep. These days I take twice the dose and I don't feel like I'm sleep deprived at all. Feels like cheating! And apparently no side effects at all so far. Well, maybe I'm working too much.
Mind that, while the "creatine high dose to fight drowsiness" hack works and has no side effects (other than upset stomachs), the lost sleep still does it thing. You don't notice day to day but it will catch up to you eventually in many bad ways.
Hey. I'm not familiar with this site, which isn't very important anyways, since I joined specifically to contact you. I can't tell much more without sharing sensitive information. Is there a way to contact you?
Some people report less GI distress with creatine HCL but it’s much more expensive.
The GI issues are caused by the creatine absorbing water. This causes your gut to have more water than usual as it follows the creatine through the works… which causes… urgency.
The effect diminishes after you’ve been taking a regular dose for a while, even with just monogydrate (not HCL).
Some people say HCL causes less distress because it doesn’t draw water as much. Others argue that defeats the purpose of taking it.
Monohydrate is studied to death and proven effective, HCL not so much.
The studies I've seen from HCl claim it's more bioavailable too, so you only need 1/3 the dosage compared to honohydrate. That makes the cost pretty comparable.
But otherwise, I'd agree that monohydrate has significantly more research behind it and I'd default to that if it's tolerable.
Have a friend with sensitive gut. He has to use protein extract instead of concentrate due to issues from lactose.
He had issues with creatine too and switched to Creapure, which is monohydrate from one factory in Germany producing just that. With their nazi like attention to details and certification. It's sold by multiple providers.
The aforementioned friend has no issues now.
Instead of switching from cheapest to most expensive, I take a mid-shelf creatine that also has some certs and never had issues. hn hates name drops, but it's a Polish medium price supplement company.
It's even more anegdotical, but supposedly some cheaper brands give you bad stomach because to save money they use the same production/packaging line without expensive thorough cleaning in between products.
But the logic about water absorption makes more sense. And it would be rare to have such high level of people with issues from creatine just because of negligent cost cutting production/packaging practices. OTOH, I work in food production myself and heard some people say how things look in other places and could believe that people get bad stomach at least from some producers/packagers/resellers.
Creatine is one of the few if not the only supplements we actually know work. But with that said, my experience is that the bump is there but not world changing. Although it could be placebo, I don't think so because the first time I started taking it I noticed something but didn't make the connection because I noticed it playing basketball and not as much lifting. I could just sprint a lot easier. I recently started taking it again and again I noticed I can sprint easier and not be as spent. Of course you can improve by simply working out regularly, but IMHO the bump you get is obvious.
aye. along with steroids its one of the few supps that has concrete evidence supporting.
didn't feel like a serious game changer when I was taking big doses, but I felt like it did a good job at making me present at the gym. Like I didn't have "slow" days working out, or off-days, or days where I roll up and feel 'blah' and slack on the workout.
I'm not sure it let me actually push more iron or run faster in an absolute sense, but it ensured got there and went hard.
by comparison I had friends on the gear, and they were visibly more muscular in weeks, and started lifting serious metal not long after. "die young, die strong, dianabol"
Creatine is not available from plants and the 0.5 g is not insignficant for normal health. The 5 grams you're quoting is generally for people who supplement for athletic performance.
Creatine is created within the body so a vegetarian eating plant precursors can help create their own baseline supply.
A non-aggressive, curious question: can you give a citation for the "significant" health benefits of 0.5g creatine? That seems like quite a claim. (I'm reading "not insignificant" as "significant", perhaps a step too far?)
Note that there have also been brain benefits from creatine, but those have only been observed in ~20g/day studies (its not just athletic performance).
I'm not making a claim for a significant health benefit from 0.5g of creatine I'm just countering your bald claim that it's insignficant - we are getting into word lawyer territory. But anyway to establish what I'm claiming, 0.5g of creatine, I feel, is a useful amount - the numbers you are fixated on are for athletes or neurotropic nerds.
"Although the human body produces a portion of its daily creatine needs, approximately 50 % must be obtained through the diet – predominantly from animal-based foods like red meat and fish"
So in that context, a vegetarian can benefit from small amounts of supplementation if they aren't getting it in their diet.
Ah. I guess the term we're looking for is "physiologically meaningful"; I wasn't talking about "statistical significance". Something can be statistically significant but have a clinically worthless effect size.
FYI the standard null hypothesis is that differences are not significant until shown otherwise. E.g. no doctor will prescribe 50mg metformin to a prediabetic even if it might have an effect; it will be physiologically meaningless.
> the numbers you are fixated on are for athletes or neurotropic nerds
If you have other numbers/studies to back "0.5g of creatine, I feel, is a useful amount", then I'm willing to "fixate" on those numbers.
you are either doing it for moral reasons. in that case all these facts are irrelevant. or you can eat red meat for a month and see if you can tell the difference. if you can't there's your answer.
citations are bullshit for this context. Unless you are doing research.
Good grief. I say absolutely nothing about vegetarianism: you're the one who keeps bangin on about about it.
> you are either doing it for moral reasons
Or red meat isn't easily available or cheap in the place where you live? There are many reasons why red meat isn't in your digestive system that are outside "morals". Beef is literally at an all-time high in the US. https://www.macrotrends.net/3141/us-ground-beef-prices
Summary of this thread:
Me: 0.5 g of creatine is small
Other: No it isn't
Me: Citation please?
Other: no
Me: null hypothesis
You: Incorrect interpretation of null hypothesis
Me: Correction
You: "citations are bullshit"
There are many people who feel morally grey about eating meat yet still choose to do so. E.g. there are science-based discussions in plant-based-diet social media; relatively few plant-based diet discussions revolve around morality. Facts matter.
I agree that n=1 experiments are important and often _overrule_ any RCT for an _individual_. If that's your point, I _agree_. But you should say so instead of me trying to infer whatever it is you're arguing...? Is that even what you're saying?
The goalpost shifting is immense. All I wanted was a citation for 0.5g creatine being meaningful, and instead I get "facts are irrelevant", "citations are bullshit", and "morals".
(To be clear: I'm not saying that you're saying "facts are irrelevant"; I'm annoyed that you seem to think that _I'm_ arguing "facts are irrelevant". See this? This is me giving you grace. I would appreciate the same in kind.)
so you thought I had a handy citation showing 0.5g is meaningful.
or were you just trying to make a point that you didn't think 0.5g is meaningful.
i don't fucking know. vegetarians seem to gain more than non vegetarians from creatine supplementation. implying that eating meat is meaningful. then you fixated on 0.5g as if 4oz of red meat per day was allot or not, I don't even know.
but I see it now. the accusation of goal post shifting, you are arguing about what idk. find your damn citation.
>I'm 43 and I feel like I have more energy than I have ever had before. I started taking it during recovery from a bad ankle fracture / Once the ankle was better I took up CrossFit, and kept on taking creatine because why not
And how do you know it's the creatine and not ...taking up CrossFit and the benefits to energy and cognitive function exercize brings?
I’m 45 and work out a lot and feel this way without creatine. To the point that this makes me worry it would exacerbate my existing sleep issues (I literally never feel sleepy, I feel exactly the same 24 hours a day).
If you would, please explain or point me to the material where you get your higher dosage recommendation. (I always heard and understood proper dosage to be 5–7.5g/day, 10g/day at the most. I’d like to correct my error if I’m mistaken.)
Sorry i dont have strong views on the fact under question but 1) pointing to an entire podcast is not a very helpful suggestion 2) I listened to a few episodes on issues I know about and can just say that the guy is speaking with confidence but just making it all up. So much false info or at best hearsay repackaged as supposedly scientific advice.
Agreed, Huberman (and his guests) strike me as charlatans, with their “protocols” du jour. And given the number of creatine posts on HN of late, I suspect that guerrilla marketing and astroturfing are at play too.
I mean creatine monohydrate costs like 20€/kg off of Amazon.
Taking it 2 weeks is not a big investment, and by that time you'll know whenever it works for your body or not.
The thing that's unclear is wherever there are long term health issues when taking a lot of creatine over months and years - but with it being so cheap and highly available by countless cheap brands, astroturfing initiatives would be highly unlikely.
<10g is the correct dosage for the non-mental benefits
But inversely, unless you actually go above 10, eg 15... The blood saturation isn't enough for your brain to take advantage of it.
But there is very little studied about sustained use of such a dosage.
It's safe enough for anecdotes of people doing it for years and not having issues - but despite others claiming that it's well studied, it's really not - at least not with dosages above 5g in humans.
Personally I've been doing so for a year now and can unquestionably confirm a strong effect, which goes away if I reduce the dosage below the threshold. So at least my body responds to it.
I started taking a scoop of the Creatine Hydrate from Costco every afternoon because why not. Wife had bought it and the bag was sitting right there.
I honestly don't know whether it made a difference. Sleep didn't get worse, no noticeable metabolic effects. Possibly the "perma tired muscles" I've been suffering from increasingly since about age 57 (I'm an active cyclist) have gotten a bit better, with <50% of days affected rather than >90% last year, but even that is subjective.
If "taking the stuff" means "more uptake" (does it?) and there are other beneficial effects, bring it on.
It sounds you have the hardest part of it underway - consistency.
There's lots of studies - if you can get over 20g per day it is noticeable to the brain and energy. Adding a few grams a week until you're up there I found it noticeable. 20-30g seems to be a noticeable range.
Supplements aren't always like a coffee spike, they build up and sustain quite well.
so coffee fights the onset and progression of parkinson's, but creatine may impact the coffee's ability to slow it.
not seeing a serious risk for the average, non-parkinson's person here
> This study has several strengths, including a large population of PD patients with detailed clinical assessments by movement disorders specialists over several years, as well as availability of data on caffeine intake for a majority of the subjects. There also are limitations. Caffeine data were collected at only one time point during the study, and this was 18 months after baseline. Therefore, our analyses could not account for potential changes in levels of caffeine intake over the course of the study.
lol there is no reason to take this study seriously
they don't even give a guess at why, just that they saw this relationship sometimes, and threw out a couple of WAGs about uric acid and antioxidants
> The potential mechanism by which caffeine and creatine may negatively interact with respect to the rate of progression of PD is not addressed in the current study.
I've been taking 10g of creatine monohydrate by the Allmax brand for 16 years and it's always been great. That brand has been around for a long time, is well reputable and decent price ($40 for 1kg tub on amazon Canada).
I take creatine almost daily for close to 20 years now. Blood work is always perfect. Hours of strength training, cycling and running every week, though.
This might be the best supplement. People over 40 needs CoQ10 (ubiquinol) as well. The energy boost is crazy (I also combine with PQQ, but it's not really proven). Lugol iodine is also the cheapest best supplement ever.
With so much publishing fraud, low quality of publishing and bogus peer review, I am hard pressed to believe anything that comes out of these journals. I was highly disappointed after reading about Dana-Farber Cancer Institute publishing fraud that endangered so many people lives. Specially papers with 'dietary' research, which are even more bogus. So if someone says, eat X to reduce chance of cancer, I'd ask them to take X put it back where the sun don’t shine.
Cell is not one of "these journals". Publishing to Cell, Nature, Science used to guarantee tenure track for a young professor although I'm not sure if that's still the case.
I know that used to be the case. But its unfortunately not anymore. I am currently In RF and working on some resonators and waveguides. Recently I had the displeasure of reading some papers from top journals to survey what are some new designs that are being pursued.
I was highly disappointed by the low bar of publishing. No characterisation of design, no repeatability study, no comsol files, no fringe field study. Most of the papers read like "we came up with design, tested it with the lowest hanging usecase and there are the results attached with a basic smith chart we made". How am I supposed to have any confidence in anything that is being published like this . The point of public funded research is so I don’t have to research and I can take that research and use/engineer it. But If this is the output then I am not going to spend money and time to do studies to figure out if someone else's research is viable or not because the peer review is broken and publishing bar is in the grave.
Heres a question, this threat is interesting and OpenAI is saying they are at AGI with Astra.... so can we give Astra all the papers on creatine, and all the anecdotal evidence in this thread and get it to produce any new insights to answer why people have different experiences, and why theres some reports of it being cancer fighting and why theres some that arent...?
Just feel if we are at AGI, and its amazing then we should be able to do our own research with it on these topics...
99 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 44.5 ms ] threadSo, creatine = good?
Creatine uptake promotes dendritic cell activation and enhances antitumor immunity
Please… just read it as the isolated and interesting insight into biology that it is. It’s a fascinating in vitro result that shows a potentially important role for creatinine in a certain immune response.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25601461/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2021.03.009
More accessible video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcMgHncZVIw
- Loo et al. 2015 found color cancer cells can use it as fuel and blocking the creatine cut metastasis in mice [0]
- zhang et al 20921 found it promoting mouse colon and breast cancer models [1]
not an expert in any way, but i’m guessing it depends on cancer type and there doesn’t seem to be human data either way.
[0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25601461/
[1]: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2021.03.009
(I regret posting that blog post, but the study is interesting)
In a healthy individual with a balanced diet and no deficiencies, there are essentially zero supplements that do anything whatsoever to a measurable degree. Essentially the entire supplement aisle at Whole Foods or whatever is completely woo and useless, and any advertisements are someone trying to make money from you, or some mindless viral craze with no evidence. The exception to this general rule is omega 3s (fish oil is great for this, algae oil is even better given potential heavy metals in fish), protein supplementation if you're weightlifting, and creatine. GLP-1s are a wonder drug that are great if you are not a healthy individual and wish to be.
It's definitely becoming mainstream.
I've taken it off and on for the past 15 years, the most noticeable effect is about 5lbs of weight gain. I do think it helps gym performance and the increased water retention mames for better muscle definition.
What is blowing my mind though is that at $dayjob my team is going through a crazy crunch to deliver a very strategic project and some of us are pushing 10-12h days often. I'm in hour 12 today for the second day in a row, and my head is not tired at all. Turns out the brain also uses a lot of ATP too, specially during demanding cognitive tasks so I guess it is creatine that is keeping the engine running smoothly even after so many hours.
I will like once every week or two have a poor night sleep. These days I take twice the dose and I don't feel like I'm sleep deprived at all. Feels like cheating! And apparently no side effects at all so far. Well, maybe I'm working too much.
The GI issues are caused by the creatine absorbing water. This causes your gut to have more water than usual as it follows the creatine through the works… which causes… urgency.
The effect diminishes after you’ve been taking a regular dose for a while, even with just monogydrate (not HCL).
Some people say HCL causes less distress because it doesn’t draw water as much. Others argue that defeats the purpose of taking it.
Monohydrate is studied to death and proven effective, HCL not so much.
But otherwise, I'd agree that monohydrate has significantly more research behind it and I'd default to that if it's tolerable.
Have a friend with sensitive gut. He has to use protein extract instead of concentrate due to issues from lactose.
He had issues with creatine too and switched to Creapure, which is monohydrate from one factory in Germany producing just that. With their nazi like attention to details and certification. It's sold by multiple providers.
The aforementioned friend has no issues now.
Instead of switching from cheapest to most expensive, I take a mid-shelf creatine that also has some certs and never had issues. hn hates name drops, but it's a Polish medium price supplement company.
It's even more anegdotical, but supposedly some cheaper brands give you bad stomach because to save money they use the same production/packaging line without expensive thorough cleaning in between products.
But the logic about water absorption makes more sense. And it would be rare to have such high level of people with issues from creatine just because of negligent cost cutting production/packaging practices. OTOH, I work in food production myself and heard some people say how things look in other places and could believe that people get bad stomach at least from some producers/packagers/resellers.
It has replaced in some ways caffeine for me.
The part of where creatine wipes out sleep deficit sounded like a stretch, but it definitely helps.
I've been taking it for almost a month and I plan to stop to see if I notice any change back that would make me want to start taking creatine again.
didn't feel like a serious game changer when I was taking big doses, but I felt like it did a good job at making me present at the gym. Like I didn't have "slow" days working out, or off-days, or days where I roll up and feel 'blah' and slack on the workout.
I'm not sure it let me actually push more iron or run faster in an absolute sense, but it ensured got there and went hard.
by comparison I had friends on the gear, and they were visibly more muscular in weeks, and started lifting serious metal not long after. "die young, die strong, dianabol"
That's pretty insignificant. Does anyone really wanna eat 2.5lbs of beef every day for the usual dose of 5g?
Creatine is created within the body so a vegetarian eating plant precursors can help create their own baseline supply.
A non-aggressive, curious question: can you give a citation for the "significant" health benefits of 0.5g creatine? That seems like quite a claim. (I'm reading "not insignificant" as "significant", perhaps a step too far?)
Note that there have also been brain benefits from creatine, but those have only been observed in ~20g/day studies (its not just athletic performance).
"Although the human body produces a portion of its daily creatine needs, approximately 50 % must be obtained through the diet – predominantly from animal-based foods like red meat and fish"
So in that context, a vegetarian can benefit from small amounts of supplementation if they aren't getting it in their diet.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12722096/
FYI the standard null hypothesis is that differences are not significant until shown otherwise. E.g. no doctor will prescribe 50mg metformin to a prediabetic even if it might have an effect; it will be physiologically meaningless.
> the numbers you are fixated on are for athletes or neurotropic nerds
If you have other numbers/studies to back "0.5g of creatine, I feel, is a useful amount", then I'm willing to "fixate" on those numbers.
Vegetarian status is irrelevant, I'm just using the other guy's framing.
citations are bullshit for this context. Unless you are doing research.
> you are either doing it for moral reasons
Or red meat isn't easily available or cheap in the place where you live? There are many reasons why red meat isn't in your digestive system that are outside "morals". Beef is literally at an all-time high in the US. https://www.macrotrends.net/3141/us-ground-beef-prices
Summary of this thread:
Me: 0.5 g of creatine is small
Other: No it isn't
Me: Citation please?
Other: no
Me: null hypothesis
You: Incorrect interpretation of null hypothesis
Me: Correction
You: "citations are bullshit"
There are many people who feel morally grey about eating meat yet still choose to do so. E.g. there are science-based discussions in plant-based-diet social media; relatively few plant-based diet discussions revolve around morality. Facts matter.
I agree that n=1 experiments are important and often _overrule_ any RCT for an _individual_. If that's your point, I _agree_. But you should say so instead of me trying to infer whatever it is you're arguing...? Is that even what you're saying?
The goalpost shifting is immense. All I wanted was a citation for 0.5g creatine being meaningful, and instead I get "facts are irrelevant", "citations are bullshit", and "morals".
(To be clear: I'm not saying that you're saying "facts are irrelevant"; I'm annoyed that you seem to think that _I'm_ arguing "facts are irrelevant". See this? This is me giving you grace. I would appreciate the same in kind.)
/me throws up arms
or were you just trying to make a point that you didn't think 0.5g is meaningful.
i don't fucking know. vegetarians seem to gain more than non vegetarians from creatine supplementation. implying that eating meat is meaningful. then you fixated on 0.5g as if 4oz of red meat per day was allot or not, I don't even know.
but I see it now. the accusation of goal post shifting, you are arguing about what idk. find your damn citation.
And how do you know it's the creatine and not ...taking up CrossFit and the benefits to energy and cognitive function exercize brings?
I’ve previously stopped taking it for a couple months and noticed no real difference in physical or mental ability.
Taking it 2 weeks is not a big investment, and by that time you'll know whenever it works for your body or not.
The thing that's unclear is wherever there are long term health issues when taking a lot of creatine over months and years - but with it being so cheap and highly available by countless cheap brands, astroturfing initiatives would be highly unlikely.
Which option seems preferable to you?
But inversely, unless you actually go above 10, eg 15... The blood saturation isn't enough for your brain to take advantage of it.
But there is very little studied about sustained use of such a dosage.
It's safe enough for anecdotes of people doing it for years and not having issues - but despite others claiming that it's well studied, it's really not - at least not with dosages above 5g in humans.
Personally I've been doing so for a year now and can unquestionably confirm a strong effect, which goes away if I reduce the dosage below the threshold. So at least my body responds to it.
I honestly don't know whether it made a difference. Sleep didn't get worse, no noticeable metabolic effects. Possibly the "perma tired muscles" I've been suffering from increasingly since about age 57 (I'm an active cyclist) have gotten a bit better, with <50% of days affected rather than >90% last year, but even that is subjective.
If "taking the stuff" means "more uptake" (does it?) and there are other beneficial effects, bring it on.
It sounds you have the hardest part of it underway - consistency.
There's lots of studies - if you can get over 20g per day it is noticeable to the brain and energy. Adding a few grams a week until you're up there I found it noticeable. 20-30g seems to be a noticeable range.
Supplements aren't always like a coffee spike, they build up and sustain quite well.
not seeing a serious risk for the average, non-parkinson's person here
> This study has several strengths, including a large population of PD patients with detailed clinical assessments by movement disorders specialists over several years, as well as availability of data on caffeine intake for a majority of the subjects. There also are limitations. Caffeine data were collected at only one time point during the study, and this was 18 months after baseline. Therefore, our analyses could not account for potential changes in levels of caffeine intake over the course of the study.
lol there is no reason to take this study seriously
they don't even give a guess at why, just that they saw this relationship sometimes, and threw out a couple of WAGs about uric acid and antioxidants
> The potential mechanism by which caffeine and creatine may negatively interact with respect to the rate of progression of PD is not addressed in the current study.
This might be the best supplement. People over 40 needs CoQ10 (ubiquinol) as well. The energy boost is crazy (I also combine with PQQ, but it's not really proven). Lugol iodine is also the cheapest best supplement ever.
I would be highly sceptical of the claim "antitumor immunity". It sounds like an ad.
Just feel if we are at AGI, and its amazing then we should be able to do our own research with it on these topics...