Hey Jordan,
I'm a fan of your work and read as much of it as I can.
I have recently begun trying to read studies on health/fitness/etc. and I have questions about the following creatine related study and how it relates to the study you published in this article. Please note, I am not linking this to argue what you presented in your study, rather I would like to understand your more educated/experienced take on the linked study's importance in creatine research.
The effects of the recommended dose of creatine monohydrate on kidney function. - PubMed - NCBI (full text:
The effects of the recommended dose of creatine monohydrate on kidney function)
Now, I recognize that the study I linked is an accounting of a single individual and I understand the fallacy of small numbers. Therefore, I understand upfront that it is not statistically significant and at best it indicates a need for more research.
The linked study says a "renal biopsy" was taken. I do not know what this entails. Is it possible that a miss diagnosis occurred because of, from your conclusion, "...possible confounders when evaluating renal function in a patient supplementing with creatine."?
What level of importance should I put into the linked study when talking about creatine with people (read as uneducated about health/fitness)? Should I even bring up this study?
Thanks,
Peter