It is generally recommended to take at least 1-2 weeks off from creatine supplementation in order to maintain a proper response mechanism in the body.
Is there any proof or research evidence offered for this statement? (I have a very slow connection, and don't want to wait for the site to load so I can see for myself). I don't think so. Not even any logic for it.
"It is generally recommended" usually can be read, "I heard this somewhere and it sounded good to me". I've read a bit about creatine, and have never seen any evidence for cycling.
Beyond that, why should there be agreement between a statement by a member of the forum and the main site? There's no more reason that Ironmaiden should agree with something there than that I should or that you should. The site owner doesn't post in the forum. I don't have any idea if he reads it or not. If you have a suggestion for a change in the site, make it to him. His name is James, and there are links on the site for "contact us" or some such.
The site does quote several studies, so you will have to read it for yourself, otherwise I would think I would have to copy it and its sources which would have to take me longer than you loading the site. You might already know of the studies the article refers to.
I didn't say there would have to be agreement between the site and the forum, only that since both statements seem to be mutually exclusive, they can't both be right. This isn't quantum physics where both answers, though different, can be true at the same time. I wasn't trying to start an argument about anything. If you read what I said, both sources seem to be very knowledgeable so I was wondering which was correct?
(i.e. is the statement by Joel and Joshua Seedman more correct or the statement by ironmaiden708) That has been answered by Ironman.
Anything further will just return me to a state of confusion.
It seemed like a logical and fair question, which led onto questions regarding the other supplements listed and the website. The statement 'It makes me wonder if the website should be updated? ' was simply me thinking out loud, not trying to start a movement or another discussion that would lead off topic and in hindsight I should have only responded to Ironman, but I was hoping if he didn't answer my follow-up question, someone would.
As quoted below:
Thanks for clearing that up. Is there any other outdated information on the main ExRx website I should know about? I'm especially interested in the weight training and diet and nutrition sections.