The AlzChem Loop – Inside the Creatine Consensus Factory

If you spend enough time reading the footnotes of the major academic papers claiming creatine helps the brain, you begin to notice a pattern. The same names appear with striking regularity in the author lists, and the same company name appears just as often in the funding statements.

When European regulators assessed that body of evidence in 2024, they rejected the cognitive claim outright. The gap between who pays for the science and what regulators allow to be said about it is where this investigation begins.

The AlzChem Connection

AlzChem Trostberg GmbH is a German chemical company best known in nutrition circles for Creapure®, a patented form of creatine monohydrate marketed as pharmaceutical grade. Creapure® is not a consumer brand, it is a raw material sold to supplement companies and supplied directly to research groups running human trials.

Its dominance matters because most of the high-profile studies on creatine and cognition use the same material from the same supplier. A close audit of the research ecosystem reveals a tight concentration of influence centring on Trostberg.

Five names dominate the footnotes. Whether you are reading a narrative review, a conference transcript, or a global position stand, you will find Richard B. Kreider, Darren G. Candow, Sergej M. Ostojic, Eric S. Rawson, or Bruno Gualano listed as authors. They share more than just research interests. Every one of them has formally disclosed financial ties, ranging from grants to consulting fees, with AlzChem.

None of this is hidden in the journals, conflict of interest statements list these ties clearly, usually at the end of the paper. The issue is what happens when those papers leave the journals. By the time the findings reach consumers, the science looks independent even when it is not.

The Consensus Factory

The modern creatine narrative is assembled in batches through narrative reviews and industry-sponsored conferences. Events such as the International Creatine Conference, held regularly and sponsored by AlzChem, play a key role. The same researchers who receive funding present their work to peers, often alongside company representatives.

Proceedings from these meetings are later published as collections of reviews or position statements. These documents carry the appearance of consensus because multiple authors agree, but the author pool is remarkably narrow. One paper cites another, a review cites both, and over time, repetition substitutes for breadth.

Null results tend to vanish. Take the 2008 trial by Rawson. He tested young, healthy adults, the exact target market for these supplements, and found zero cognitive benefit. You rarely see that paper in the wellness infographics. On the rare occasions it does appear, proponents dismiss it as a fluke rather than accepting it as a hard ceiling on the drug’s potential.

The Regulatory Reality Check

In Europe, health claims on foods and supplements are regulated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA asks a simple question… has a cause-and-effect relationship been established for the general population?

In 2024, EFSA evaluated an application seeking permission to claim that creatine supplementation improves cognitive function. The panel reviewed the same body of evidence cited in marketing materials. Its conclusion was blunt… a cause-and-effect relationship had not been established.

This creates an anomaly where supplement marketing treats cognitive benefits as settled science, while the highest food safety authority in Europe says the evidence does not support that conclusion.

The Dosage Bait-and-Switch

Most creatine supplements instruct users to take three to five grams per day. This dose is well established for muscle saturation and has a long safety record in healthy adults. However, the research cited to support brain benefits utilises a completely different protocol.

In 1999, Dechent and colleagues found that participants needed to ingest twenty grams per day for four weeks to achieve a measurable increase in total brain creatine. Lower doses did not produce the same effect.

This finding creates a split. The dose required to affect the brain is four times higher than the dose sold to consumers.

Marketing rarely acknowledges this gap. Consumers who follow the label get a product that cannot plausibly do what the marketing implies, while those who attempt to replicate the brain dose enter uncharted territory.

The Safety Vacuum

The mantra ‘creatine is safe for kidneys’ is based on the 3–5g/day maintenance dose. There is no long-term safety data spanning 12 months or more for the 20g daily dosage required to saturate brain tissue in healthy adults.

While a healthy kidney can handle the load of 5g/day, the long-term filtration burden of 20g/day is unquantified.

Quadrupling the daily filtration load poses a theoretical risk of ‘hyperfiltration’ injury, particularly in individuals with undiagnosed pre-existing conditions. Recommending this dose for ‘cognitive optimisation’ constitutes an off-label use with an undefined safety margin.

Closing the Loop

The AlzChem Loop operates less like a conspiracy and more like a system. A manufacturer funds research, researchers publish findings, and conferences amplify those findings. Reviews frame them as consensus, and influencers repeat them.

At no point does anyone have to falsify data. The problem lies in selection and omission. Studies that fit the story are highlighted. Those that limit it fade into the background. Until long-term safety data exists for brain-level dosing and until benefits are shown reliably in healthy omnivores, the cognitive claim remains unproven.

Sources

Sources include: financial disclosures and conflict of interest statements published in academic journals including the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition and Nutrients regarding key researchers; the 2024 Scientific Opinion by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Nutrition regarding creatine and cognitive function; foundational pharmacokinetic research including Dechent et al. (1999) on brain creatine saturation and the blood-brain barrier; clinical trials yielding null results in omnivores, specifically the 2008 study by Rawson et al.; corporate records and sponsorship announcements from AlzChem Trostberg GmbH; and comparative analyses of renal filtration loads and safety profiles for high-dose supplementation.