The research behind our three ingredients, summarized honestly.
Creatine
Kreider et al. (2017), “International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: Safety and efficacy of creatine supplementation in exercise, sport, and medicine.” Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition.
Evidence review and position stand.
Concludes that creatine monohydrate is effective for increasing high-intensity exercise capacity and lean body mass, particularly when combined with resistance training. It also reports that creatine is well tolerated in healthy people and that evidence does not support common claims that it causes dehydration, cramping, or kidney damage in healthy users.
Chilibeck et al. (2017), “Effect of creatine supplementation during resistance training on lean tissue mass and muscular strength in older adults.” Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine.
Meta-analysis of 22 studies involving 721 adults, generally aged 57–70.
Creatine combined with resistance training produced greater gains in lean tissue mass, chest-press strength, and leg-press strength than placebo plus training.
Delpino et al. (2022), “Influence of age, sex, and type of exercise on the efficacy of creatine supplementation on lean body mass.” Nutrition.
Meta-analysis of adults across age groups.
Creatine plus resistance training increased lean body mass by approximately 1.1kg, while creatine without exercise did not reliably increase lean body mass.
Dos Santos et al. (2021), “A systematic review and meta-analysis of creatine supplementation and resistance training in older females.” Experimental Gerontology.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of older women.
Found a significant improvement in upper-body strength overall; longer studies, at least 24 weeks, also showed benefits for upper- and lower-body strength.
Desai et al. (2024), “The effect of creatine supplementation on resistance-training-based changes to body composition.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Compared with resistance training alone, creatine increased lean body mass by approximately 1.14kg and produced small reductions in body-fat percentage and fat mass.
Avgerinos et al. (2018), “Effects of creatine supplementation on cognitive function of healthy individuals.” Experimental Gerontology.
Systematic review of six randomized trials involving 281 people.
Suggests possible improvements in short-term memory and reasoning, especially in people under stress, older adults, or those with lower dietary creatine intake. Results for attention, executive function, reaction time, and long-term memory were inconsistent.
The strongest evidence is for improved high-intensity exercise performance, strength, and lean mass when creatine is combined with resistance training. Cognitive benefits are plausible but less consistent and appear more likely in people with lower baseline creatine availability, such as vegetarians, older adults, or people experiencing sleep deprivation or mental stress.
Collagen peptides
Khatri et al. (2021), “The effects of collagen peptide supplementation on body composition, collagen synthesis, and recovery from joint-related injury and exercise.” International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism.
Systematic review of collagen peptide studies, including exercise and joint-related conditions.
The most consistent benefits were reduced joint pain and improved joint function. Evidence was particularly supportive when collagen was combined with exercise or rehabilitation; commonly studied amounts were approximately 5–15g per day.
Barati et al. (2020), “Collagen supplementation for skin health: A mechanistic systematic review.” Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.
Systematic review of 10 eligible publications from more than 9,000 initially identified records.
Found that intact or hydrolyzed collagen was associated with improvements in clinical measures of skin health, including hydration, elasticity, and other aging-related parameters.
de Miranda et al. (2021), “Effects of hydrolyzed collagen supplementation on skin aging: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” International Journal of Dermatology.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Found generally favorable effects on skin hydration, elasticity, and wrinkle-related outcomes, though the clinical size of the effects and the quality of individual studies varied.
Benito-Ruiz et al. (2009), “A randomized controlled trial on the efficacy and safety of a food ingredient containing hydrolyzed collagen.” International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition.
Randomized controlled trial in people with osteoarthritis-related joint discomfort.
Reported improvements in joint-related symptoms and functional outcomes compared with placebo.
Trc and Bohmova (2015), “A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, clinical study of efficacy and safety of Biocell Collagen in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee.” International Journal of Medical Sciences.
Double-blind randomized trial in people with knee osteoarthritis.
Collagen-peptide groups had significant reductions in WOMAC and pain scores and improvements in quality-of-life measures compared with placebo.
Zdzieblik et al. (2017), “Collagen peptide supplementation in combination with resistance training improves body composition and increases muscle strength in elderly sarcopenic men.” British Journal of Nutrition.
Randomized controlled trial in older men performing resistance training.
Collagen peptides combined with resistance training improved body composition and muscle strength; some of the benefit may have resulted from the combination of supplementation and exercise rather than collagen alone.
Collagen has the most credible evidence for modest improvements in joint pain and function, particularly in people with osteoarthritis or exercise-related joint discomfort. Evidence for skin hydration and elasticity is also reasonably positive, while evidence for muscle, tendon, and bone outcomes is more dependent on the population, exercise program, and formulation.
Citicoline
Secades (2020), “Application of citicoline in neurological disorders.” Journal of Neurology and Experimental Neuroscience.
Review of clinical and experimental research.
Describes potential benefits in cognitive impairment, stroke recovery, and other neurological conditions, but also notes that the evidence base is heterogeneous and that citicoline should not be treated as a proven therapy for all of these conditions.
Alvarez-Sabín et al. (2016), “Long-term treatment with citicoline prevents cognitive decline and predicts a better quality of life after a first ischemic stroke.” Stroke.
Long-term observational and clinical study after ischemic stroke.
Reported associations between citicoline use and less cognitive decline and better quality of life after stroke. Because of the study design, it does not establish the same level of causation as a large placebo-controlled trial.
Davalos et al. (2012), “Citicoline in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke: an international, randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled study.”
Large randomized placebo-controlled trial in acute ischemic stroke.
Did not demonstrate a significant overall improvement in the primary global recovery outcome, although some subgroup findings generated interest. This is an important example of mixed evidence.
Parisi et al. (2022), “The effect of citicoline oral solution on quality of life in patients with glaucoma.” Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.
Multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled crossover trial; citicoline dose was 500mg per day.
Found a statistically significant improvement in vision-related quality of life in the prespecified analysis, particularly among patients whose quality of life was more impaired at baseline.
Lanzino et al. (2023), “Efficacy of citicoline as a supplement in glaucoma patients: A systematic review.”
Systematic review of glaucoma studies.
Did not find sufficient evidence that citicoline significantly lowers intraocular pressure or reliably preserves visual fields, retinal nerve-fiber-layer measurements, or retinal function.
Nakazaki et al. (2023), “Effects of citicoline supplementation on cognitive function in healthy adults.”
Review of controlled trials involving healthy adults.
Suggests possible small benefits in attention, memory, or psychomotor performance in some circumstances, but studies are generally small and results are not uniformly positive.
Grieb (2014), “Neuroprotective properties of citicoline: facts, doubts and unresolved issues.” CNS Drugs.
Narrative review.
Provides a useful overview of proposed neuroprotective mechanisms and clinical research in stroke, cognition, and eye disease, while emphasizing unresolved questions about dosing and clinical effectiveness.
Citicoline is biologically plausible and has some promising findings in cognition, stroke recovery, and glaucoma-related quality of life, but the evidence is mixed and many studies are small. We summarize it here so you can weigh it yourself.
These summaries are informational and describe research on ingredients, not on NuvaCore Restore itself. They are not medical advice. Talk to your healthcare provider about what's right for you.
One scoop a day. Decades of reasons why.
Give it 35 days. If you don't feel a difference, your first tub is on us.
