Creatine Isn't Having a Moment. It's Having a Movement.

And the industry needs to decide whether it's ready to lead it responsibly.

I was there in 1992. Barcelona. The whirlwind had already started before the closing ceremony ended. Within 24 months, creatine had gone from a compound discussed in university labs to a name on the lips of coaches, athletes, and supplement buyers around the world. It felt, for a time, like anything was possible.

And then it found its foothold. Sport. Performance. Bodybuilding. For three decades, that's largely where it stayed… incredibly successful in that world, but far short of what the early science was already hinting at.

What's happening right now is different. And I mean that in the most considered way possible, coming from someone who has been wrong about a timeline before.

Every few years, the supplement industry gets a hero ingredient. Turmeric had its moment. Collagen had its run. Sceptics are right to ask whether creatine is simply next in line.

Here's why I don't believe it is. The current wave of creatine interest hasn't been manufactured by brands making claims or marketing budgets chasing trends. It's come from a new generation of researchers at top-tier universities asking a fundamentally different set of questions. Not "how does creatine improve sprint performance?" but "what does creatine do for the ageing brain, for women's health, for bone density, for cognitive resilience?"

These researchers aren't carrying thirty years of orthodoxy. They're coming in with open minds and the willingness to challenge how creatine has traditionally been studied. That's not a fad. That's what a scientific category looks like when it finally matures into the full scope of what it can offer.

The questions being asked today are more applicable to everyday human life than anything that has come before. That's why this is different. And that's why this growth isn't going to reverse.

What has changed dramatically (and what the industry must reckon with) is the speed at which science travels. A paper published on a Monday can reshape the behaviour of thousands of people by Wednesday. Social media is playing a remarkable role in bringing creatine to audiences who have never encountered it before. That is honestly so totally exciting.

It's always a good day for someone to hear about creatine for the first time.

But speed without accuracy is where categories go to lose credibility. The most meaningful risk to creatine right now isn't consumer indifference. It's the space sort of in between what the research is actually communicating and what ends up being said about it in public.

The influencers and communicators who carry this message to hundreds of millions of people all around the world have an enormous responsibility to maintain the integrity of the research they're translating. When that translation is done well, it grows the category authentically. When it isn't, it creates confusion, misuse, and the kind of backlash that sets categories back years.

The demand is here. Clearly. We can’t argue that. Creatine is difficult to source in some markets. Suppliers are stretched. People are switching products. This is a moment that the industry has waited a long time for, and how brands respond to it will define the category's reputation for the next decade.

If you're a formulator or a brand building a creatine product right now, I have one core message: make creatine a real product innovation priority, not just an ingredient addition.

The opportunity is in formats that build real daily habits and products that reach people who would never open a tub of powder, that taste good, that fit how people actually live. RTDs, functional foods, novel delivery systems. But only if the creatine inside them is stable. Only if what's declared on the label is what's being delivered. The market doesn't need more creatine products. It needs better ones. Products that actually do what they claim.

If your product puts creatine on the label but can't demonstrate stability in that format, you're not contributing to this category and, in my opinion… you're borrowing its credibility. That's an integrity problem, and the consumer will notice before the regulator does.

The innovation happening globally shows what's possible when brands treat creatine as a platform for creativity, not just a commodity ingredient to include at the lowest cost. That ambition is what this moment calls for. Are we going to get it right?

Amid all of this, I want to say something straightforward: the science around cognitive and brain health benefits is really, really exciting, yes, and the indications are very promising. But there is a however. The research doses involved are significantly higher than what most people are supplementing with daily, and that context is not being communicated consistently. The goal should never be to push people toward high-dose protocols they don't need indefinitely. The goal should be to help more people supplement with creatine every day, at sensible doses, in forms they'll actually maintain. Consistency is King, seriously.

More people supplementing creatine consistently will lead to better human health outcomes. That is both the foundation AND the mission. Everything else, like the formats, the innovation, the research translation, should serve that goal.

The category has earned its mainstream moment. Now the industry has to decide whether it's ready to give people what they actually deserve.

We all rise together,

Steve Jennings | Co-Founder + CEO, Jenerise