Blonyx Research Update: Creatine Gummies, Heavy Lifting for Cyclists, and the New Strength Training Rulebook

Creatine Comes in Gummy Form Now, and It Still Works

This study tested whether creatine delivered in gummy form, at the standard 5g daily dose, could improve jump height, change-of-direction speed, body composition, and reaction time in 32 female collegiate and professional beach volleyball athletes over 10 weeks. The creatine group significantly improved jump height and cutting speed, while the non-supplemented control group's performance stayed flat or got worse. Body fat mass and body fat percentage stayed stable in the creatine group but increased in the control group, though this looks driven mostly by the control group's numbers moving the wrong way rather than creatine actively burning fat. There was no group difference in lean mass, skeletal muscle mass, total body mass, or reaction time. This wasn't placebo-controlled. The control group received nothing rather than a matching dummy supplement, so nobody was blinded to who was taking creatine.

My thoughts: Nice to see more creatine research showing up in a female group specifically, as most of what we know is still extrapolated from male lifters. The gummy format is really just a compliance story, not a new mechanism, but if it gets more athletes actually taking their daily dose, that's a genuine win for athletes. It’s worth flagging that this had no placebo group and the study received donated product plus some notable industry ties among the authors, so I'd want to see this replicated independently before treating it as settled.

Heavy Lifting Helps Cyclists, Just Not the Way You'd Think

This meta-analysis pooled 17 studies and 262 cyclists to see whether heavy strength training, using loads of 80% of one-rep max or higher, actually improves cycling performance. Heavy strength training significantly improved cycling efficiency, anaerobic power, and overall cycling performance such as time to exhaustion or time trial results. It had no significant effect on VO2max, power at VO2max, or maximal metabolic steady state. In other words, the benefit came from becoming a more efficient, powerful rider rather than from any change in aerobic capacity. Sex, body mass, performance level, and strength training experience didn't change how much someone benefited. The certainty of evidence was rated low overall.

My thoughts: This matches what I've told endurance athletes for years: heavy strength work isn't there to boost your VO2max, it's there to make you a more economical engine. The certainty of evidence is low though, so it's a nudge toward lifting, not a mandate to overhaul your training block.

ACSM Just Updated the Rulebook on Strength Training (137 Reviews Later)

This position stand pooled 137 systematic reviews covering more than 30,000 participants, the first update to ACSM's resistance training guidance since 2009. For building strength, the strongest evidence points to loads of 80% of one-rep max or higher, full range of motion, 2 to 3 sets per exercise, key lifts done early in a session, and at least 2 sessions a week. For hypertrophy, weekly training volume of at least 10 sets per muscle group and training close to failure mattered more than the specific load used, with loads anywhere from 30 to 100% of one-rep max all working. For power, moderate loads of 30 to 70% of one-rep max, lower volume, and fast concentric or Olympic-style lifting worked best. Training to failure did not consistently improve any of the three outcomes.

My thoughts: This is more useful as a checklist than a headline, nothing radical here. But, it's reassuring to see the ACSM formally confirm what good coaches have been doing for years. It’s worth pulling the specific numbers, sets, percent of one-rep max, into whatever we publish, since they're genuinely practical.

— That's all for now, train hard!