Many supplements hit the market promising huge gains, only to fall out of favor after results don't quite match up to marketing claims. Creatine has managed to stick around for years and is a staple in many atheletes' diet regimen. However, there is still a lot of controversy surrounding not only creatine's effectiveness, but its method of action. I'm going to try and keep this as easy to read for the lay-person as possible but beware, I might nerd-out at points.
First, a basic look at creatine and its function. ATP is the muscle's gasoline, its what gives your pecs the energy for a 300 pound bench press. ATP is made in little powerplants inside your muscle called mitochondria. These powerplants aren't always running full steam though, there's no need for them to be pumping out massive amounts of energy when your laying in bed or watching TV. In this case, mitochondria enough ATP to fill the reserve tanks and then shut down.
The reserve tank is creatine. ATP is attached to creatine and stored like a battery, in case you need to throw a punch or jump away from a predator. The consensus is that most muscles have about 3-5 seconds of ATP-creatine, which is all they need because by that time the mitochondria have ramped up and are providing all the ATP that the muscle needs.
Here is where most people are confused about how creatine supplements work. More creatine must mean a bigger reserve, which has to let your muscles work longer right? Well there are two problems with that line of reasoning. The first is that muscles don't need more creatine because they have enough to cover the small time interval before the mitochondria ramp back up. It would be like trying to run a car via the battery once the engine is turning - its not necessary.
The second problem is that increasing the amount of creatine does not actually increase the supply of energy to a muscle. It seems that if the amount of creatine was increased, then the amount of ATP attached to creatine would increase and therefore a muscle would have more reserve, right? Unfortunately, that is not how things work out. Get ready to put your nerd pants on.
The chemical reaction were talking about is governed by something called Gibbs free energy:
Where K = [ATP][Cr] /[ADP]*[P-Cr].
The math looks really complex but most of the variables are constants. When we clean up the equation and keep whats relevant to us, it actually says something more like this:
Rate of ATP synthesis =(ATP/used ATP)* (creatine/ATP bound creatine)
For an in-depth look at how this was derived, check the comments.
What this means is that the amount of ATP synthesized is determined not by the amount of ATP bound to creatine, but the ratio of ATP bound creatine versus free creatine. This ratio does not change when you take supplements so neither does the energy output.
Debunking is fun, but at the end of the day the empirical data shows that creatine does help performance in "burst" type activities like sprinting and weight lifting. There is no certainty to the mechanism behind this effect, but the general consensus is that its osmotic. While the previously mentioned ratio doesn't change, the amount of creatine in the muscle does increase. The increased load causes other substances like water, nutrients, and electrolytes to move into the muscle - accounting for the swollen look the muscles acquire after supplementation. As far as I have read, there is no definite culprit to what is causing the increased performance, just that more "stuff" is getting to the muscles.
Would I recommend creatine to someone looking for gains in strength/performance? Absolutely. Its cheap, effective, and has stood the test of time. Safety-wise, it is completely harmless. There has been some worry as to kidney issues due to people confusing creatine with its metabolite creatinine - a measure of kidney function. Creatinine is used as a marker for kidney failure, not to be confused with a cause of kidney failure. I personally use creatine when I'm bulking and consider a worthwhile supplement.