A small Texas A&M University trial found that sedentary adults ages 45 to 65 who took 10 grams of creatine monohydrate daily for 12 weeks showed increases in DXA-measured lean tissue and some strength and endurance measures, including in a group that did not follow a structured exercise program, according to the study available through PubMed Central. The result is preliminary: a DXA increase in lean tissue is not the same as direct evidence that participants built a corresponding amount of new contractile muscle.
What the trial actually tested
The 12-week study enrolled 73 people and analyzed 64 who completed it. Participants were randomly assigned to creatine or placebo, but they separately chose whether to take part in an exercise-and-diet program or remain in a non-exercise group, according to the published report and Kansas City Star. That distinction matters: the creatine-versus-placebo comparison was randomized, while the exercise comparison was not. The study therefore cannot cleanly establish that creatine alone produces the same benefits as a randomized exercise intervention.
The protocol used 10 grams per day, divided into two 5-gram servings. That is higher than the commonly cited 3-to-5-gram daily maintenance amount described by Taylor & Francis. In the non-exercise creatine group, lean tissue rose by about 2.4 pounds, or 1.1 kilograms, over the study period, according to Men’s Journal. That figure should not be generalized to a lower dose or interpreted as a measured quantity of newly formed muscle protein.
Why the DXA result needs caution
DXA measurements can be affected by body water and may confound lean-mass measurements. A separate 2025 randomized trial found that creatine produced a 0.51 ± 1.79-kilogram greater change in measured lean body mass than control after a seven-day, non-exercise wash-in, while noting that creatine may affect body water and confound lean-mass measurements, according to PubMed Central. The finding does not prove that the Texas A&M result was caused by water shifts, but it provides a plausible measurement limitation that the trial cannot resolve by DXA alone.
A 2017 paper listed by the Victoria University Institutional Repository likewise examined how manipulating muscle creatine and glycogen changes DXA estimates of body composition. Together, those findings support a narrower reading of the Texas A&M result: creatine was associated with more measured lean tissue, but the study did not establish how much of that change represented lasting muscle hypertrophy.
Exercise remains an important comparison
Participants assigned to the exercise-and-diet program while taking creatine had larger improvements in strength and endurance and greater reductions in body-fat percentage than the non-exercise creatine group, according to PubMed and Texas A&M. Because participants chose their exercise stratum, that comparison is not definitive proof of exercise’s independent effect in this trial. It does, however, put the non-exercise finding in context: the study did not show that creatine reproduced the broader body-composition changes associated with training and dietary intervention.
Creatine has been studied in combination with resistance training in older adults. A systematic review and meta-analysis of eight randomized trials involving 482 older adults found that creatine combined with resistance training improved lower-limb strength and lean tissue mass compared with placebo plus resistance training, but did not significantly improve upper-extremity strength, according to PubMed Central. Those results are related but not directly interchangeable with the Texas A&M study, which examined sedentary adults and included a non-exercise arm.
Funding and what remains unknown
The study received funding from the WoodNext Foundation, according to the published study.
The trial therefore raises a specific question rather than settling one: whether a higher daily creatine dose can produce meaningful functional or muscle-preserving benefits in sedentary midlife adults without training. It does not show that creatine replaces resistance or aerobic exercise, and it leaves unresolved how much of the reported lean-tissue increase was actual new muscle. Broader conclusions will require larger studies with randomized exercise assignments, direct measures of muscle tissue and longer follow-up.
A published trial can add evidence about one product, dose and population without constituting U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval or proof that every creatine product and dosing pattern will produce the same result.
