SHOP BEST SELLERS
Shop our best selling products
Type: Performance Supplements
Protein Powder
Type: Performance Supplements
Electrolytes - Stick Packs
Type: Performance Supplements
Electrolytes
Type: Performance Supplements
Creatine Monohydrate
Type: Core Supplements
Source Magnesium
Type: Core Supplements
Vitamin D3 & K2
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Elements Shampoo
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Elements Conditioner
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Elements Tallow Soap (Lemongrass)
Type: Performance Supplements
Raw Honey
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Tallow Sun Balm
★★★★★ 1,000+ 5 Star Reviews
Pure ingredients
Raw ingredients. Ancient wisdom. Modern results. Every product contains only what nature intended:
- Grass-fed tallow rich in bioavailable nutrients
- Raw honey and adaptogenic herbs in their purest form
- Regeneratively sourced proteins, never denatured
- Zero synthetic additives or lab-made fillers
Small-batch wellness our ancestors would recognize. Because when you honor nature's integrity, your body knows the difference.
Purely Natural, Perfectly You
Let customers speak for us
I love this product. it helps to give me energy.
Trust this product! We’ve been deceived by so many products labeled CLEAN but these guys put their money where their mouth is. Sleeping noticeably better after 2 weeks of consistently taking it!
Taste great and mixes well into a smoothie
It's a bit more liquidity than the usual body wash but overall its nice. Smells good and makes my body soft.
It's a bit thick but its still nice and it smells really good. I feel as though it cleans my scalp well
It's a nice consistency, makes my hair really shiny and moisturized and smells amazing.
Love it
The best protein powder I have ever tried
The best electrolytes I ever tried
It's nice and smells really good.
used on baby
Great product
Best Shampoo ever made! Makes my hair lush and thicker! This shampoo is top notch and a must have!
Love the smell
Always looking for a clean alternative for supplements. Great Taste. Excited to try other flavors.
Why PÜRISHH?
Pure Ingredients
Handpicked and ethically sourced from trusted, natural farms.
Effective Results
Each product is designed to protect, nourish, and enhance your skin’s natural balance.
Holistic Wellness
Embrace a balanced lifestyle with supplements and creams that work in harmony with your body.
Frequently Asked Question
What makes PÜRISHH products different from conventional supplements or skincare?
What makes PÜRISHH products different from conventional supplements or skincare?
Our mission is to return to the raw, unprocessed power of nature. Every product is formulated with 100 % natural ingredients and no synthetic preservatives, fillers, or dyes. For example, the Raw Honey Butter contains whipped Wagyu beef tallow, cold‑pressed olive and coconut oils, mango butter, raw honey and beeswax – it moisturizes deeply and can even replace conventional lotion. The Raw Tallow Sunbalm uses grass‑fed tallow, non‑nano zinc oxide and organic oils to provide mineral sun protection while nourishing the skin. Our Protein Powder combines grass‑fed whey and hydrolyzed collagen with organic superfoods to deliver 26 g of easily digestible protein with zero added sugar. Across their range, Purishh keeps ingredient lists short and transparent, using only what is necessary to support health and well‑being.
Are PÜRISHH’s ingredients ethically and sustainably sourced?
Are PÜRISHH’s ingredients ethically and sustainably sourced?
Yes. The founders emphasize sustainable sourcing and ethical treatment of animals and land. Tallow for the skincare range is hand‑sourced from 100 % grass‑fed, Wagyu, halal cattle in New Zealand, ensuring humane slaughter and optimal nutrient quality. Olive and coconut oils are single‑origin, cold‑pressed. The whey in Purishh protein powder comes from grass‑fed cows raised without hormones or antibiotics, and the collagen is hydrolyzed for better absorption. These practices mean customers receive products that are both pure and sustainable.
Why does PÜRISHH use beef tallow in its skincare products?
Why does PÜRISHH use beef tallow in its skincare products?
Grass‑fed beef tallow is biocompatible with human skin; its fatty‑acid profile closely resembles natural sebum, so it’s absorbed efficiently. Properly rendered tallow is a vitamin powerhouse, naturally supplying vitamins A, D, E, and K that support cell turnover, immune function, and antioxidant protection. Tallow also contains oleic, stearic and palmitic acids that strengthen the skin’s barrier, calm inflammation and maintain moisture. Grass‑fed tallow offers a high concentration of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), an anti‑inflammatory fatty acid. These nutrients collectively help Purishh’s Raw Honey Butter and Raw Tallow Sunbalm to moisturize, nourish and protect the skin without clogging pores or causing irritation.
How is PÜRISHH protein powder different, and why is it easy to digest?
How is PÜRISHH protein powder different, and why is it easy to digest?
Many conventional protein powders use cheap sources and add artificial thickeners or sweeteners that cause bloating and digestive discomfort. Purishh starts with grass‑fed whey processed via cold‑filtration, which preserves natural enzymes and bioactive peptides that aid digestion. It also adds hydrolyzed bovine collagen to support joints, skin and gut health. The powder uses organic monk fruit for sweetness and contains no carrageenan, gums, sucralose or artificial preservatives, so it mixes smoothly and is gentle on the stomach. Each serving provides 26 g of complete protein with only 1 g of fat and zero sugar, making it suitable for keto, gluten‑free and non‑GMO diets.
What are PÜRISHH Electrolytes, and how do they support hydration?
What are PÜRISHH Electrolytes, and how do they support hydration?
PÜRISHH’s Electrolytes formula offers clean hydration without the artificial colors and preservatives found in many sports drinks. Each serving includes over 800 mg of unrefined Himalayan salt, providing sodium and trace minerals, plus magnesium malate and potassium chloride. Organic fruit powders (raspberry or lemon‑lime) and monk fruit sweetener give a natural flavor without sugar. The formula helps replenish electrolytes lost through exercise, supports muscle function, and is keto‑friendly.
What is Raw Shilajit, and how should it be used?
What is Raw Shilajit, and how should it be used?
Raw Shilajit is a resin harvested from high‑altitude Himalayan rocks. It forms from decomposed plant material and is rich in minerals and fulvic acid. Traditionally used as an adaptogen, Shilajit helps boost energy, improve stamina and support overall health. Purishh provides 100 % pure Himalayan shilajit. Users typically dissolve a pea‑sized amount in warm water, tea or milk. Due to its potent minerals, start with a small dose and consult a healthcare professional if you have existing medical conditions.
What is the Ishh Leaky Gut Protocol?
What is the Ishh Leaky Gut Protocol?
The Ishh Leaky Gut Protocol is a step‑by‑step program designed to help restore gut health naturally. It includes dietary recommendations, lifestyle tips and natural supplements to support the intestinal lining. The protocol focuses on removing irritants, replenishing beneficial bacteria and repairing the gut barrier. It is not a medical treatment, so customers with chronic digestive issues should consult a healthcare professional before starting.
How should I store PÜRISHH products?
How should I store PÜRISHH products?
Store supplements and protein powders in a cool, dry place away from direct sunlight. Skincare products like Raw Honey Butter and Raw Tallow Sunbalm are natural and free from artificial stabilizers; keeping them at room temperature helps maintain texture. If you live in a hot climate, refrigerating tallow‑based balms can prevent melting. Always use clean hands or a spatula to avoid introducing bacteria.
When will my order ship, and how long will delivery take?
When will my order ship, and how long will delivery take?
We ask customers to allow 2–3 business days for processing and production before an order ships. Once dispatched, average transit times are 7–10 business days; however, natural disasters, holidays and weather can cause delays. Free standard shipping is offered on orders over US$150 (or equivalent), and shipping costs for smaller orders are calculated at checkout. PÜRISHH cannot guarantee exact delivery dates because delivery is ultimately the responsibility of the shipping carrier.
Can I subscribe and save on regular purchases?
Can I subscribe and save on regular purchases?
Yes. We offer a subscription program for most of our products. Subscribe and save up to 30 % OFF your first delivery. You can choose delivery intervals (e.g., monthly). Subscriptions auto‑renew, but you may skip or cancel at any time through your account.
Are PÜRISHH products allergen‑free or suitable for special diets?
Are PÜRISHH products allergen‑free or suitable for special diets?
PÜRISHH formulates products without common synthetic additives, but some items may contain potential allergens. The protein powder contains whey (a dairy product) and collagen derived from bovine sources; it is unsuitable for vegans or those with dairy allergies. The Electrolytes formula is gluten‑free, sugar‑free and keto‑friendly. Always review ingredient lists carefully and consult your healthcare provider if you have specific allergies or dietary restrictions.
Where are PÜRISHH products made?
Where are PÜRISHH products made?
PÜRISHH sources ingredients globally, such as New Zealand Wagyu tallow and Himalayan shilajit, but manufactures products in small batches under rigorous quality control. By keeping production small and hands‑on, PÜRISHH can maintain freshness and ensure every batch meets the highest standards.
PÜR Insights
Skin Changes in Your 40s: What Nutrition Can and Can't Address
Skin Changes in Your 40s: What Nutrition Can and Can't Address Somewhere in your 40s, skin often starts behaving differently. It gets drier. It feels thinner. Lines that used to fade by lunchtime stay put. And right on cue, the marketing arrives: collagen powders, "beauty from within" capsules, antioxidant blends promising to turn back the clock from the inside. Some of that has a basis in real biology. A lot of it doesn't, and the research on this is unusually clear in places. The honest picture is that the biggest drivers of skin aging in this decade are hormonal change and sun exposure, and nutrition has limited reach over either. What diet can influence is real but narrower than the products suggest. This post separates the two, with the studies behind each claim. What's actually changing Two broad processes drive skin aging. Intrinsic aging is the internal, largely programmed part, which in women is heavily shaped by hormones. Extrinsic aging comes from outside, and the dominant factor there is ultraviolet light. The hormonal part. Estrogen supports the cells in the skin that make collagen, so when estrogen falls, collagen production falls with it. The most frequently cited data here comes from work by Brincat and colleagues in the 1980s. A 2007 review by Stevenson and Thornton in Clinical Interventions in Aging summarizes it: in postmenopausal women, skin thickness decreases by about 1.13 percent per postmenopausal year, with collagen content falling about 2 percent per postmenopausal year. The review also notes that collagen types I and III are thought to decrease by as much as 30 percent in the first five years after menopause. Two details in that summary matter. First, the decline in skin thickness and collagen appeared to track the length of estrogen deficiency more closely than chronological age. Two women of the same age can be in very different places depending on where they are in the menopause transition. Second, notice the phrasing: "thought to decrease by as much as." The 30 percent figure is now everywhere, sometimes under the name "collagen cliff," but it comes from small biopsy studies from several decades ago and is an upper estimate rather than a typical outcome. It's real research. It's also older and less precise than its popularity suggests. For most women, the 40s are the perimenopausal years, and menopause itself comes around age 51 on average. So the steepest part of this hormonal decline usually arrives a bit later. The 40s are when it starts. The sun part. This is where the strongest intervention evidence in the whole field sits, and it isn't a nutrient. The Nambour trial, published by Hughes, Williams, Baker, and Green in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2013, volume 158, pages 781 to 790, randomized 903 adults younger than 55 in Nambour, Australia. Participants were assigned to daily or discretionary use of a broad-spectrum sunscreen, and separately to 30 milligrams of beta-carotene or a placebo. Assessors who didn't know who was in which group graded changes in skin microtopography over four and a half years. The daily sunscreen group showed no detectable increase in skin aging over that period. Skin aging was 24 percent less in the daily sunscreen group than in the discretionary group, with a relative odds of 0.76 and a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.59 to 0.98. The authors concluded that regular sunscreen use retards skin aging in healthy, middle-aged men and women. Hold onto the beta-carotene arm. We'll come back to it. What nutrition can't address This is the part most "beauty from within" marketing skips, so it's worth being direct about it. It can't replace estrogen. The collagen loss described above is driven by falling estrogen signalling to the cells that build collagen. No food or supplement replicates that signal. Eating well supports the raw materials your skin uses, but it doesn't restore the hormonal instruction to use them at the same rate. Hormone therapy is a separate medical decision with its own evidence and risks, and it belongs in a conversation with a clinician rather than a supplement brand's blog, so we're leaving it there. It can't undo sun damage, and the best trial on this says so. Back to Nambour. The same randomized trial that showed sunscreen working also tested a nutritional antioxidant against placebo. Beta-carotene supplementation had no overall effect on skin aging. The authors noted contrasting associations in subgroups with different levels of aging at the start, and said further study would be needed to definitively rule out either benefit or harm. But in a well-designed trial lasting four and a half years, the topical intervention worked and the nutritional one didn't. That's about as clean a comparison as this field offers. Collagen supplements: the evidence is weaker than it looks. Collagen powders are the most heavily marketed nutrition product for aging skin, and for a while the research seemed encouraging. Several meta-analyses pooled randomized trials and found improvements in skin hydration and elasticity. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 randomized controlled trials, for example, concluded that hydrolyzed collagen can have positive effects on skin health, while calling for larger trials. Then a 2025 meta-analysis asked a question the earlier ones hadn't. Myung and Park, publishing in the American Journal of Medicine, volume 138, pages 1264 to 1277, analyzed 23 randomized trials with 1,474 participants, and the study itself received no funding. Pooling all 23, collagen supplements significantly improved skin hydration, elasticity, and wrinkles. But when the authors split the trials by funding source, the studies that did not receive funding from pharmaceutical or supplement companies showed no effect on hydration, elasticity, or wrinkles, while the funded studies did show significant effects. Splitting by methodological quality gave a similar picture: high-quality studies showed no significant effect in any category, while low-quality studies showed a significant improvement in elasticity. That's a striking result, and it's fair to report the response to it as well. Industry representatives pushed back, arguing that industry-funded studies aren't necessarily lower quality, and pointing out that most of the industry-funded trials in the analysis scored reasonably well on a standard quality scale. A 2026 narrative review in Applied Sciences took a middle position: it described collagen at 2.5 to 10 grams a day for at least 8 to 12 weeks as associated with improved hydration, elasticity, and wrinkle depth, while stating that results are inconsistent and that the effect is markedly weaker or not statistically significant in the highest-quality studies and those independent of industry support. The fair summary: the case for collagen supplements improving aging skin is real enough to have been studied seriously, and fragile enough that it largely disappears when you look only at the strongest and most independent trials. We should be upfront about why this matters to us. Our protein blend is majority hydrolyzed collagen. Given this evidence, we're not going to tell you it will reverse skin aging. If you take it, take it as a protein source, not as a wrinkle treatment. What nutrition can plausibly influence None of this means diet is irrelevant to skin. It means the realistic claims are more modest and more general than a single product can offer. Overall dietary pattern shows up in the data. The most relevant study for this age group comes from Cosgrove and colleagues, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2007, volume 86, pages 1225 to 1231. Using data from the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, they examined 4,025 women aged 40 to 74. Nutrient intake was estimated from 24-hour recall, and dermatologists examined each woman's skin for wrinkled appearance, age-related dryness, and skin thinning. Higher intakes of vitamin C and linoleic acid, and lower intakes of fat and carbohydrate, were associated with better skin-aging appearance, independent of other factors known to affect skin aging. A 50-gram increase in carbohydrate intake was associated with higher odds of a wrinkled appearance, with an odds ratio of 1.36. Higher fat intake was also associated with greater likelihood of a wrinkled appearance. Higher linoleic acid intake was associated with a lower likelihood of age-related dryness, with an odds ratio of 0.75, and with a lower likelihood of skin thinning. The caveats are important. This was a cross-sectional study, meaning it measured diet and skin at one point in time. It shows association, not cause. A single 24-hour diet recall is a rough snapshot of what someone usually eats. And women who eat more fruit and vegetables may differ in many other ways, such as sun habits, that the analysis may not fully capture. It's useful evidence that diet and skin appearance travel together. It isn't proof that changing one item on your plate will change your skin. Vitamin C is a genuine requirement. Vitamin C is a required cofactor for the enzymes that build and stabilize collagen. That's basic biochemistry, not marketing, and it's why severe deficiency affects skin and connective tissue. What it supports is getting enough. It doesn't mean that taking more than you need makes your skin build extra collagen, and there isn't good evidence that it does. For most people, a diet with regular fruit and vegetables covers it. Protein matters as a building block. Collagen is a protein, so skin needs adequate dietary protein to maintain it. In the Cosgrove data, women with a wrinkled appearance had lower protein intakes than women without one, though that's an unadjusted comparison and shouldn't be over-read. We've written about protein needs after 40 separately. The relevant point here is that getting enough protein overall supports skin as part of supporting the whole body. Linoleic acid is an essential fat with a skin role. Linoleic acid is an essential omega-6 fatty acid that the body uses in the lipids that make up the skin's barrier. Its association with less dryness in the Cosgrove study fits that role. It's found in many nuts, seeds, and plant oils. Again, the point is adequacy as part of a varied diet, not megadosing. Put simply, nutrition looks most useful for making sure your skin isn't short of what it needs. That's genuinely worth doing. It's also a different promise from reversing the changes driven by hormones and sun. Where topical care fits, including ours The changes people notice most in their 40s aren't all in the deeper layers of the skin. Dryness and a rougher surface happen at the outer barrier, and that's a place where what you put on your skin can make a measurable difference. We covered this in detail in our post on tallow balm and hydration. Moisturizers work by reducing water loss through the skin's surface, through occlusive and emollient effects. Tallow-based products sit in the emollient category, integrating into the outer layer's lipids and helping with dryness and texture. The honest limit is the same one that applies to collagen powders, from the other direction. A moisturizer, including ours, works on the surface. It can make dry skin feel and look better and support the outer barrier. It doesn't rebuild collagen in the deeper layers or reverse wrinkles caused by collagen loss. We'd rather you buy a balm for what it does than expect it to do something it can't. And for sun protection, use a tested, broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF rating and a Drug Facts label. Our Sun Balm is not one, and we've said so directly before. The Nambour results came from daily use of a proper broad-spectrum sunscreen, and that's the product category the evidence supports. What's actually worth doing Based on the research above, the priorities line up in a fairly clear order. Use a broad-spectrum sunscreen every day on exposed skin. It's the intervention with the strongest randomized evidence for slowing visible skin aging, and in the Nambour trial it outperformed the nutritional antioxidant tested alongside it. Eat a varied diet with enough vitamin C, protein, and essential fats. The evidence supports this as a way of not shortchanging your skin, consistent with what Cosgrove and colleagues found in women aged 40 to 74. Moisturize for dryness. It works at the surface, where a lot of what people notice in their 40s actually happens. Be skeptical of products promising to reverse skin aging from the inside. The best-known category, collagen supplements, shows effects that mostly vanish in the highest-quality and most independent trials. If you want to address changes that go deeper, a dermatologist can walk you through evidence-based topical treatments. Hormone-related questions belong with your doctor. The honest summary The skin changes many women notice in their 40s are driven largely by two things nutrition can't reverse. Falling estrogen reduces collagen production, with older biopsy studies estimating losses of about 2 percent per postmenopausal year and as much as 30 percent in the first five years after menopause. And sun exposure drives visible aging, which daily broad-spectrum sunscreen reduced by 24 percent in a randomized trial of 903 adults. That same trial found no overall effect from a beta-carotene supplement. A 2025 meta-analysis of 23 trials found that collagen supplements' apparent benefits for skin largely disappeared in high-quality studies and in studies not funded by industry, though the industry disputes that interpretation. What nutrition can do is narrower and still worthwhile: provide the vitamin C, protein, and essential fats skin needs, as part of an overall dietary pattern that, in a large study of middle-aged women, was associated with better skin-aging appearance. That's a smaller promise than most skin supplements make. It's also one the evidence actually supports.
Learn more
Creatine Myths That Keep Women From Trying It
Creatine Myths That Keep Women From Trying It Creatine is one of the most researched supplements in existence, and for most of its history it was marketed almost entirely to men. The tubs were black, the labels were loud, and the promise was size. So it's not surprising that when women ask about it, the questions tend to start from worry rather than curiosity. Will it make me bulky? Will I bloat? Is it basically a steroid? Will my hair fall out? Those are fair questions, and they deserve better answers than "trust me, it's fine." In 2021, eleven researchers, including Abbie Smith-Ryan, one of the leading investigators on creatine in women, published a review in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition specifically to address the most common questions and misconceptions about creatine. Antonio and colleagues, volume 18, article 13, worked through twelve of them, from water retention to whether creatine only works for men. A Part II followed at the end of 2024. This post takes the myths women raise most often and checks each one against the research, including the places where the evidence is thinner than it should be, or was gathered mostly in men. One note before starting. Many of the researchers who study creatine most closely have disclosed relationships with supplement companies, and that's worth keeping in mind. Where it's relevant below, we'll point it out. Where independent research reaches the same conclusion, we'll point that out too. Myth 1: "Creatine will make me bulky" This is the most common worry, and it rests on a misunderstanding of what creatine actually does. Creatine doesn't build muscle on its own. It increases the amount of phosphocreatine stored in your muscles, which helps regenerate energy quickly during short, hard efforts like a heavy set. That can let you train a little harder, and training is what builds muscle. Without a training stimulus, creatine has very little to work with. When researchers look at what creatine actually changes in women, the story is led by strength rather than size. A 2021 review by Smith-Ryan, Cabre, Eckerson, and Candow in Nutrients, volume 13, article 877, concluded that creatine supplementation appears effective for improving strength and exercise performance in pre-menopausal women. A 2025 narrative review by Smith-Ryan and colleagues in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition reported positive effects on muscle strength, exercise performance, and body composition, particularly alongside resistance training. In older adults, the numbers are even more telling. A three-level meta-analysis of creatine combined with resistance training found a significant improvement in muscle strength compared with training alone, with a Hedges' g of 0.31 and a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.18 to 0.45. For muscle mass, the result wasn't statistically significant, with a confidence interval running from negative 0.09 to 0.78. If there's a problem with creatine's effect on size in that research, it's that the effect is modest, not that it's excessive. The 2021 Antonio review also examined a related fear, whether creatine increases fat mass, and concluded it does not. Building noticeably bigger muscles takes years of deliberate, progressive training and eating to support it. Creatine can make that training slightly more productive. It doesn't change the timeline or the effort involved, and it won't do the work for you. Myth 2: "Creatine causes bloating and water weight" This one has a grain of truth in it, which is exactly why it persists. Creatine does draw water into muscle cells. That's part of how it works. The key word is into. This is water stored inside muscle tissue, not the puffy, under-the-skin fluid most people picture when they think of bloating. The 2021 Antonio review addressed water retention directly. Its summary was that while creatine can increase total body water in the short term, particularly during a high-dose loading phase, over longer periods it does not appear to change body water, inside or outside cells, relative to muscle mass. For women specifically, there's a trial designed around exactly this concern. Moore, Gordon, Cabre, Hackney, and Smith-Ryan published a randomized controlled trial in Nutrients in 2023, volume 15, article 429, examining changes in fluid distribution across the phases of the menstrual cycle with creatine supplementation. The finding, as the 2025 review summarized it, was that there was no demonstrated significant increase in body mass for women after creatine monohydrate supplementation in any phase of the menstrual cycle. That's one trial rather than a large body of replicated work, and individual responses vary. But it directly tested the fear in the right population, across the variable women worry about most, and it didn't find the effect. There's also a practical piece. Much of the early water shift, and most of the stomach discomfort people report, comes from loading, which typically means around 20 grams a day split into several doses for about a week. Loading isn't required. Starting at a standard 3 to 5 grams a day reaches the same saturation point, just more slowly, over roughly three to four weeks. If bloating is your main concern, skipping the loading phase is the simplest way to avoid most of what people complain about. Myth 3: "Creatine is basically a steroid" It isn't, and the difference isn't subtle. Creatine is a compound your body makes on its own, from three amino acids: arginine, glycine, and methionine. It's also in food, mainly meat and fish. About 95 percent of the creatine in your body sits in your skeletal muscles, where it's part of normal energy metabolism. Anabolic steroids are synthetic compounds derived from testosterone. They're a completely different class of molecule, with a completely different mechanism, acting on hormone receptors. The Antonio review lists "Is creatine an anabolic steroid?" among the misconceptions it examined, and the answer is no. The related worry, that creatine might disrupt your hormones, has been tested in men more than in women. A 12-week randomized controlled trial published in 2025, discussed in more detail below, found no significant differences between creatine and placebo in total testosterone, free testosterone, or dihydrotestosterone. The women's research runs in a different direction: the 2025 Smith-Ryan review describes how female hormones influence creatine metabolism, not the reverse. What's been measured doesn't support the idea that creatine meaningfully changes hormone levels, though it's fair to say the direct hormonal data in women is limited. Myth 4: "Creatine will make my hair fall out" This fear has a specific origin, and for a long time the evidence on it was surprisingly thin in both directions. It traces back to a small 2009 study in college-aged male rugby players, in which levels of dihydrotestosterone, or DHT, rose over three weeks of creatine supplementation. DHT is the hormone involved in pattern hair loss, so the connection got made quickly and repeated widely. What rarely got mentioned is that the study measured hormones, not hair. That gap was finally tested directly. A randomized controlled trial published in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition in 2025, titled "Does creatine cause hair loss? A 12-week randomized controlled trial," recruited 45 resistance-trained men aged 18 to 40. They took either 5 grams of creatine monohydrate or 5 grams of a maltodextrin placebo daily for 12 weeks, and 38 completed the study. The researchers measured total testosterone, free testosterone, and DHT, and assessed hair follicle health using a Trichogram and the FotoFinder system, which measure hair density, follicular unit count, and cumulative hair thickness. There were no significant differences between the creatine and placebo groups in DHT levels, the DHT-to-testosterone ratio, or any of the hair measures. The authors described it as the first study to directly assess hair follicle health after creatine supplementation, and as strong evidence against the claim that creatine contributes to hair loss. Two honest caveats. First, the trial was in young men, not women, and no equivalent trial has been done in women yet. Second, several of the authors disclosed industry relationships, including advisory roles with creatine brands. That doesn't make the result wrong, and it lines up with earlier research finding no consistent rise in testosterone with creatine, but it's worth knowing. If you're noticing hair thinning, it has a range of possible causes in women and is worth having a dermatologist look at directly, rather than attributing it to, or ruling it out based on, any single supplement. Myth 5: "Creatine will dehydrate me and give me cramps" This myth was common enough in sports that it drew several dedicated reviews, and they're consistent. A systematic review with meta-analyses by Lopez, Casa, McDermott, Ganio, Armstrong, and Maresh, published in the Journal of Athletic Training in 2009, volume 44, pages 215 to 223, looked specifically at whether creatine hinders heat tolerance or hydration during exercise. None of the included studies showed adverse creatine-induced changes in thermoregulation, percentage of dehydration, urinary hydration measures, or plasma volume. On body temperature, the pooled effect estimate was 0.03, with a 95 percent confidence interval of negative 0.07 to 0.13, meaning no meaningful difference. Controlled trials of athletes exercising in the heat found no adverse effects from creatine at recommended doses. A 2008 review by Dalbo and colleagues in the British Journal of Sports Medicine was titled, fairly bluntly, "Putting to rest the myth of creatine supplementation leading to muscle cramps and dehydration." A 2003 study by Greenwood and colleagues in college football players reported that creatine supplementation during training did not increase the incidence of cramping or injury. The honest limitation is that much of this research was done in athletes, many of them men. The findings are consistent, but they come largely from that population. Myth 6: "Creatine is hard on your kidneys" We've covered this one in detail before, so this is the short version. The International Society of Sports Nutrition's 2017 position stand, by Kreider and colleagues, found no adverse effects on kidney function in healthy adults at recommended doses, and the 2021 Antonio review addressed kidney concerns among its misconceptions. A 2026 structured review in the journal Sports, analyzing randomized controlled trials, was titled "Creatine Supplementation Dose and Duration Are Not Associated with Increased Side Effects." Where the confusion comes from is a blood test. Creatine raises serum creatinine, a waste product that doctors use as a marker of kidney function. In someone taking creatine, a higher creatinine reading reflects the supplement itself rather than kidney damage. If you have bloodwork done, tell your doctor you take creatine so the result gets read correctly. The genuine exception: if you have existing kidney disease, talk to your physician before starting. That's standard guidance for that group, not a general warning. Myth 7: "Creatine is for men" Historically, the research was mostly in men, and that's where this impression comes from. It's changing. "Is creatine only effective for males?" is one of the twelve questions in the 2021 Antonio review, and the review's answer is no. The 2021 Smith-Ryan review and the 2025 review that followed it both report benefits in women for strength, exercise performance, and body composition, especially alongside resistance training. The 2021 review also found that post-menopausal women may see benefits for muscle size and function at higher doses. There are also genuine gaps. The 2025 review notes that data in perimenopausal women remains limited. And the 2021 review states plainly that there are no human studies to date evaluating creatine supplementation during pregnancy. If you're pregnant, trying to become pregnant, or breastfeeding, that's a conversation for your obstetric provider rather than something to decide from a blog post, including this one. What the myths leave out Clearing up the myths doesn't mean there's nothing to think about. The real considerations are just different from the ones people usually worry about. Pregnancy is a genuine gap in the research, as above. Existing kidney disease warrants a conversation with a physician. And expectations matter. The evidence supports creatine as a modest, useful addition to resistance training, particularly for strength. It isn't a shortcut, and people who take it without training usually notice very little. If you do decide to try it, the approach with the most evidence behind it is simple: creatine monohydrate, 3 to 5 grams a day, taken consistently, with no loading phase required. Timing doesn't matter much. Consistency does. We sell creatine monohydrate, and our current batch tested at 4,976 milligrams against a 5,000 milligram label claim. That's the kind of number worth asking any brand for. The honest summary The myths that keep women away from creatine mostly don't survive contact with the research. It doesn't make you bulky on its own: the benefits in women are led by strength, and in older adults the effect on muscle mass wasn't even statistically significant. The bloating fear is mostly about water stored inside muscle, and a 2023 randomized trial found no significant increase in body mass in women across any phase of the menstrual cycle. It isn't a steroid, and the hormonal data available, mostly in men, shows no meaningful effect. The first trial to directly measure hair follicles after creatine, published in 2025, found no effect on hair or DHT, though it was in young men and its authors disclosed industry ties. Reviews spanning more than a decade have found no increase in dehydration or cramping. And the kidney concern is largely a misread blood marker in healthy people. What's genuinely unresolved is narrower: no pregnancy trials, limited perimenopause data, and hair research that hasn't yet been done in women. That's a short list, and it's a much more useful one than the fears it replaces.
Learn more
Strength Training After 40: The Supplement Questions Worth Asking
Strength Training After 40: The Supplement Questions Worth Asking If you started lifting in your 40s, or came back to it after years away, you've probably noticed how fast the supplement conversation shows up. Someone at the gym swears by their pre-workout. An ad promises "anabolic support." A podcast recommends five things you've never heard of. The volume of recommendations tends to run in the opposite direction from the evidence behind them. You don't need to evaluate every product on the shelf. A handful of questions, asked in the right order, sorts out most of them. This post walks through those questions and the research behind each one. Some of the answers point toward a supplement. More of them point somewhere else, and a couple point toward things worth avoiding entirely. First, why strength training is worth doing at all The case for lifting after 40 doesn't depend on anything you can buy. The World Health Organization's 2020 guidelines on physical activity, published by Bull and colleagues in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, volume 54, pages 1451 to 1462, recommend that adults do muscle-strengthening activities at moderate or greater intensity, involving all major muscle groups, on two or more days a week. The WHO rated this a strong recommendation supported by moderate-certainty evidence. For older adults, the guidelines go a step further. As part of their weekly activity, older adults should do varied multicomponent physical activity that emphasizes functional balance and strength training, at moderate or greater intensity, on three or more days a week, to enhance functional capacity and prevent falls. The review behind the guidelines found high-certainty evidence that balance and functional exercises reduce the rate of falls. A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis by Momma and colleagues, also in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, reported that muscle-strengthening activities are associated with lower risk and mortality across major non-communicable diseases. One more detail from the WHO work is worth knowing. The review found no evidence supporting a dose-response association with higher volumes of muscle-strengthening activity for health outcomes. In other words, the target is two or more sessions a week done properly, not living in the gym. Question 1: Is the training itself actually in place? This comes first because it determines whether any supplement has something to work with. Supplements that help with strength training work on the adaptation to training, not in place of it. We went through the evidence on this in detail in our post on muscle loss in midlife. The short version is that in research on older adults, resistance training consistently does the heavy lifting, and nutrition makes it work somewhat better. Where the two have been compared directly, adding nutritional support to a training program often produced little or no extra benefit over the training program alone. So before anything else, check the basics against the WHO baseline. Are you training all the major muscle groups, legs, hips, back, chest, core, shoulders, and arms, at least twice a week? Is the effort genuinely moderate or harder? The WHO describes moderate intensity, on a scale relative to your own capacity, as usually a 5 or above out of 10. Are you gradually asking your muscles to do a bit more over time, whether that's more weight, more reps, or harder variations? If the answer to any of those is no, fixing it is the highest-return change available to you, and nothing in a tub substitutes for it. Question 2: Is your protein handled before anything else? Protein is the one nutritional input with a direct, well-established role in building and maintaining muscle, so it belongs ahead of any supplement in the queue. We've covered protein after 40 separately, so this is just the part that matters most for training. The total amount matters, but so does how it's spread across the day. The PROT-AGE Study Group, in its 2013 position paper by Bauer and colleagues in the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, described a higher per-meal threshold for older adults, roughly 25 to 30 grams of protein per meal containing about 2.5 to 2.8 grams of leucine. That recommendation was written for people over 65, but the underlying point, that a meal needs enough high-quality protein to register as an anabolic signal, is a useful habit to build earlier. If you use a protein powder, think of it as a way to make a low-protein meal count, usually breakfast, rather than as a performance product. And source matters here. For the specific job of clearing a per-meal leucine threshold, a whey-dominant protein does it more efficiently than a collagen-dominant one. Our own blend leans toward collagen, and we'd rather tell you that than let you assume it's optimized for this particular purpose. Question 3: What exactly was measured, in whom, and how big was the effect? Once training and protein are in place, this is the question that filters the rest of the shelf. It has three parts. What was measured. Strength, muscle size, physical function, and lab markers are four different things. A supplement can move one without moving the others. Plenty of products cite studies showing a change in a blood marker or a signaling pathway, which is not the same as showing you'll lift more or move better. In whom. A great deal of sports supplement research is done in young, trained men. Results in that group don't automatically carry over to a 45-year-old woman who started lifting last year, or to a 60-year-old man returning after a long break. How big. A statistically significant result can still be small. The confidence interval tells you how precise the estimate is, and whether it plausibly includes no effect at all. Creatine is a useful worked example, because it's the supplement most people in this position ask about, and because the evidence in older adults is genuinely good but narrower than the marketing suggests. A systematic review and three-level meta-analysis of resistance training plus creatine in older adults found a significant improvement in muscle strength compared with training alone, with a Hedges' g of 0.31, a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.18 to 0.45, and moderate certainty of evidence. The same analysis found no statistically significant effect on muscle mass, with a confidence interval of negative 0.09 to 0.78, or on physical function, with a confidence interval of negative 0.08 to 1.03. Run that through the three questions. Measured: strength, yes; mass and function, not significantly. In whom: older adults, which is relevant. How big: small, but with a confidence interval that stays clear of zero. That makes creatine a reasonable addition if strength is your goal and you set realistic expectations. We sell creatine monohydrate, and that's the honest version of the case for it. Question 4: Could it actually work against your training? This is the question almost nobody asks, and it's the one with the most surprising answer. Exercise produces reactive oxygen species, molecules often described simply as oxidative stress. The intuitive move is to neutralize them with antioxidant supplements. But researchers increasingly view some of these molecules as signals that help tell muscle to adapt. Blocking the signal could, in principle, blunt the response. A randomized placebo-controlled trial by Bjørnsen and colleagues, published in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports in 2016, volume 26, pages 755 to 763, tested this directly. Thirty-four men aged 60 to 81 followed the same strength training program, three sessions a week for 12 weeks. Half took 500 milligrams of vitamin C and 117.5 milligrams of vitamin E before and after training, and half took a placebo. The placebo group gained more. Rectus femoris thickness, a front thigh muscle, increased by 3.4 millimetres in the placebo group compared with 1.9 millimetres in the supplement group, and leg lean mass rose by around 5 percent versus around 2 percent. The paper's title states the conclusion: vitamin C and E supplementation blunts increases in total lean body mass in elderly men after strength training. Not every measure differed between groups, but the ones that did all pointed the same way. The authors suggested that high-dose antioxidants may suppress the signaling that activates hypertrophy pathways. A follow-up analysis from the same research group, published by Stunes and colleagues in the European Journal of Applied Physiology in 2017, is titled plainly: high doses of vitamin C plus E reduce strength training-induced improvements in areal bone mineral density in elderly men. The evidence isn't one-sided, and it's worth saying so. A 2014 study by Paulsen and colleagues in the Journal of Physiology found that vitamin C and E supplementation altered protein signaling after a strength training session, but not muscle growth over 10 weeks of training. An earlier study by Bobeuf and colleagues in healthy older adults reported a significant gain in lean mass only when resistance training was combined with vitamin C and E. A 2020 review of this literature in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health also cautioned that findings in older adults may not represent athletic populations. So this isn't settled. What can be said is that there's no good evidence that high-dose vitamin C and E supplements help strength training, and there's a well-designed trial suggesting they can blunt gains in older men. These studies tested high-dose supplements, not antioxidant-rich food, which is a separate question. If you're taking high-dose C and E specifically to help your training, the research doesn't support it. Question 5: Is it doing a job your food already does? Branched-chain amino acids, sold as BCAAs, are one of the most common strength training supplements, and they're a clean example of this question. The three branched-chain amino acids are leucine, valine, and isoleucine. A multimillion-dollar supplement category has grown around the idea that taking them on their own stimulates muscle protein synthesis. Robert Wolfe of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences examined that claim in a 2017 review in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, volume 14, article 30, titled "Branched-chain amino acids and muscle protein synthesis in humans: myth or reality?" His reasoning is straightforward once laid out. Building new muscle protein requires all the essential amino acids, not just three of them. If you take only BCAAs, the other essential amino acids have to come from breaking down existing muscle protein. That puts a hard ceiling on how much new protein BCAAs alone could drive, and Wolfe notes that even his theoretical estimate of that ceiling is an overestimate. His conclusion: the claim that consumption of dietary BCAAs stimulates muscle protein synthesis or produces an anabolic response in human subjects is unwarranted. Complete protein, from food or a quality powder, already contains the branched-chain amino acids along with every other essential amino acid your muscle needs. If your protein intake is in good shape, a standalone BCAA product is paying for a subset of something you're already getting in full. The broader habit is worth keeping. Before buying an isolated ingredient, check whether your diet already supplies it in a more complete form. For a lot of products, it does. Question 6: Is it only what the label says it is? This is the question that matters most for the strength training category specifically, because the documented problems are concentrated here. A 2018 study by Tucker and colleagues at the California Department of Public Health, published in JAMA Network Open, volume 1, issue 6, analyzed the FDA's Tainted Products Marketed as Dietary Supplements database from 2007 through 2016. It found 776 supplements containing unapproved pharmaceutical ingredients, from 146 companies. The three most affected categories were sexual enhancement at 45.5 percent, weight loss at 40.9 percent, and muscle building at 11.9 percent. The muscle building findings are specific. Of 92 adulterated muscle building products, 82, or 89.1 percent, contained synthetic steroids or steroid-like ingredients. Seventy-three contained undeclared anabolic steroids or steroid-like substances. Across all 776 products, 157, or 20.2 percent, contained more than one unapproved ingredient. The authors wrote that adulteration with active pharmaceutical ingredients does not happen by accident. One more detail cuts against a common reassurance. Twenty-eight products were named in more than one warning issued more than six months apart, and of those, 67.9 percent contained new unapproved ingredients in the later warnings. A product being pulled and brought back doesn't mean the problem was fixed. An accompanying editorial by Pieter Cohen in the same issue was titled "The FDA and Adulterated Supplements: Dereliction of Duty," which gives a sense of how the research community read these findings. For practical purposes, the pattern suggests where to be most skeptical: products marketed with aggressive muscle building language, claims of anabolic, steroid-like, or hormonal effects, and proprietary blends that don't disclose amounts. Single-ingredient products with clear documentation are easier to evaluate. For people who need extra assurance, such as competitive athletes subject to drug testing, certification programs such as NSF Certified for Sport exist specifically to screen products for banned substances. It's worth being precise about our own testing here. Our lab reports cover things like potency, microbial safety, and, for some products, heavy metals. They are not banned-substance screens, and we're not going to suggest they are. What that leaves Worked through in order, the questions produce a short and fairly unglamorous list. Training comes first, at the WHO baseline of two or more sessions a week covering all major muscle groups at a genuine effort level, with balance and functional work added as you get older. Protein comes second, with attention to how it's distributed across meals, and a leucine-dense source if clearing that per-meal threshold is your goal. Creatine monohydrate is the one addition with a consistent, if modest, strength benefit alongside training in older adults, supported by moderate-certainty evidence. Standalone BCAAs add little if your protein intake is adequate. High-dose vitamin C and E aren't supported for training and may blunt gains. And products sold with steroid-like or hormonal muscle building claims are the part of the market where adulteration is most documented. We don't sell a standalone BCAA product or a high-dose vitamin C and E supplement, so we have no stake in those two answers either way. The honest summary Strength training after 40 is well supported on its own terms. The WHO recommends muscle-strengthening activity on two or more days a week as a strong recommendation, adds multicomponent balance and strength work for older adults to help prevent falls, and found no evidence that higher training volumes add further health benefit. Supplements sit downstream of that. Asking what was measured, in whom, and how big the effect was turns creatine into a reasonable, modest option for strength rather than a transformation. Asking whether something could interfere turns up a randomized trial in which high-dose vitamin C and E blunted muscle gains in older men, alongside other studies that found smaller or no effects. Asking whether your food already does the job makes standalone BCAAs largely redundant, per Wolfe's 2017 review. And asking whether a product is only what its label says points straight at the muscle building category, where 89.1 percent of the adulterated products in the FDA's database contained steroids or steroid-like ingredients. That's fewer products than most people expect to end up with. It's also a list you can actually defend, which is more than can be said for most of what's on the shelf.
Learn more