Originally Posted by
Enthalpic
I don't think advantage is the correct term. The vegetarians were the only group who statistically improved but I see no statement that the groups were matched for ability at the beginning or that they were outperforming omnivores afterwards. I think it is more likely that the vegetarians were underperforming at the beginning due to sub-optimal levels which agrees with other research that creatine is more ergogenic in vegetarians than omnivores due to a "catch up" effect. Both groups seem to hit the same saturation point with supplementation.
Respectfully, I disagree.
British Journal of Nutrition (2011), 105, 1100–110
Page 1102:
Preliminary analysis found that those who were vegetarian as opposed to meat-eaters, and those who subsequently consumed the placebo as opposed to creatine supplement, did not differ on the baseline performance of any test.
Page 1104:
The major finding was that after supplementation, the memory of vegetarians was better than that of meat-eaters (Fig. 1). However, at base-line, memory did not differ depending on dietary style, so any hypothesised creatine deficiency in vegetarians did not influence memory, rather it was found that vegetarians were more sensitive to supplementation with creatine."