Some people who comment on here say that I am crazy or obsessed with this issue and I can only agree with them. This subject on height and height increase is an obsession of mine. That is why I have been able to continue to do the type of research which I have found no where else on the internet, in terms of breadth, quantity, insight, and quality anywhere else beside maybe HeightQuest.com on the internet at least for English Language based websites. Maybe there are forums or websites or blogs which are even bigger then here like the old, now dead GrowTallForum.com forum or the GiantScientific.com forum which no one comments on anymore the last I checked.

If I was to be diagnosed by someone like Dr. Paley on why I am so preoccupied with this fixation on something which most people would say I have no control over and can’t change no matter what I do except short of limb lengthening surgery, he would say that I suffer from Body Dismorphia Disorder. Somehow I don’t like my body, but specifically the height aspect of it. This is abnormal for someone who is around the average USA height male, at around 5′ 11″. Most people who feel any type of short statured psychological disorders would more likely be on the short side. However, it would seem that Body Dysmorphia Disorder for the issue of height seems to affect many people who people would say is rather tall. The guy I interviewed recently Joey describes himself as 5′ 10″. The old researcher and contributor to the website Kazlina comes from a family of tall women, and she is aroudn the 5’8-5’9″ range. I read about this one guy from the old Impartial Height Increase Boards who was 6′ 4″ and was so intent on increasing his height that he was ready to go to China back in the mid 2000s for the surgery. I think he said that he wanted to be 7 feet for some reason, but after many years he stopped caring about this issue.

It would seem that no matter how tall or how much we have as humans, we never stop wanting and wishing we could get more or be more. My sister does. My dad does. My current gf does. Both of my female cousin wish that too. This desire is epidemic and affects so many people.

Something that would be very fitting to the same subject of being dissatisfied with our body would be where young adult males become preoccupied with the size of their penis or genitalia. I recently found a forum that is frequented quite a lot called Matters Of Size at MatterOfSize.com.

I took the time to read over the goal of the website and was very surprised that there were men who were so fixated on this area of life that they would devote many hours of a day for many months or years just for the possibility of increasing their penis length or width (girth).

I personally have no issues with the size of my own genitalia and I am confortable with that. These men who are on the website are. I would say that the same type of dissatisfaction we here have about our height, those guys on the forum have the same type of dissatisfaction for their genitalia size. People wish to be bigger. When subjects like whether Stretching or Jelqing I realize just how unique this area of the internet is. This type of forum about the male’s immense desire to feel better about themselves through getting a bigger penis size is very unique, but also very analogous to what we are doing. It is not wrong,  and I would never judge on how these guys want to spend their time to improve themselves in the way they think they need to to feel better about themselves and think they are good enough to love and be loved.

I think that we are doing the same thing, hoping, wishing, striving, working to become taller than what is given to us naturally. Both of the endeavors stem from at least a small degree of body dysmorphia disorder. Both of these areas of study and research are the human being way of trying to change something in their physical appearance to look better.

This is a theory that I am proposing which I have sort of reached after doing research for only less than 1 year. In this post I wanted to go deeper on the old mother’s tale of telling their children to drink their milk so that they will grow taller. The relationship between drinking milk and increasing one’s growth rate and ending up with a taller final height has been around at least as long as I have. I wrote about this connection a long time ago in the post “The Real Correlation Between Milk, Calcium, Bone Growth, And Height”

In that old post I had said that there is some evidence in showing that children who are malnourished in general will obviously lead to stunted growth. The fact is that height is correlated to how well calcium is absorbed into the body. The actual mineral that determines whether Calcium will be absorbed into the bone while the growth plates are still around and endochondral ossification is still going on is Vitamin D. Vitamin D is what will really determine whether the ossification will go faster and lead to more bones building on top of each other while the longitudinal growth was still going on.

The primary focus when mothers and nutritionists talk about is the calcium in the milk but they don’t tak much about the vitamin D. The truth is that in most diets in the developed world, Calcium deficiency is not a very big problem. The bigger issue could be Vitamin D. There is usually enough Calcium in the blood but if there is no way for the bone to absorb it, then the milk that is ingested will be wasted and will probably eventually be passed through the urinary tracts and expelled out of the body.

My theory is that drinking milk and getting calcium will only help increase the growth rate and height in pre-pubsecent girls. – due to low bone density in females and that fact that the effect of calcium is overtaken by the effect of estrogen when puberty does start.

From source #1 – “Height and Height Z-Score Are Related to Calcium Absorption in Five- to Fifteen-Year-Old Girls”

Clearly, an adaptive mechanism of increased calcium absorptive efficiency could be inadequate to meet the needs of very tall individuals or those with a severely deficient calcium intake, especially over a prolonged period of time (22). However, the results of recent controlled trials generally suggest that adequate mineralization of the skeleton does not require very high calcium intake levels during growth (11, 32). The ability to adapt calcium absorptive efficiency to biological needs for calcium is likely part of the reason that more moderate calcium intakes are adequate even during pubertal growth (9, 11, 32)

The section from this study shows that for even developing kids, they don’t need excess levels of Calcium concentration before they reach a level for optimum/highest growth rate of the bone.

From source #2 – “Calcium supplements in healthy children do not affect weight gain, height, or body composition.”

This 2nd article seems to show that if the developing kid tried to increase the calcium level in their blood from taking calcium supplements, they would see almost no increase in increased height. The value from this study was an increase of just 2 mm.

From source #3 – “Does a LOW Intake of CALCIUM Retard GROWTH or Conduce to STUNTEDNESS?”

Where calcium supplements have been fed for short periods to children and youths accustomed to intakes of calcium less than the recommended allowances, there appears to be no critical evidence that these additions have specifically produced increments in height beyond such observed in controls.

The conclusion is reached that it has not been established that calcium intake per se is of importance in regulating height. It is suggested that apart from gross undernutrition, the critical intake of calcium below which retardation of growth occurs, lies below the wide range of calcium contents of everyday diets consumed in different parts of the world.

The 3rd source shows that even when calcium supplements are given to kids who are accustomed to lower calcium rates, their growth rates and final height don’t increase much. They conclude that calcium intake is not that important in regulating height. Most diets around the world, besides malnutriton, already has enough calcium intake to not need to worry about deficiency calcium levels which would lead to stunted growth.

Source #4 – Calcium—Good for Teen Growth and Bone Building

This source was the first one that showed that adolescent males who take calcium supplements seem to show a final height on average 0.25 inches greater than a controlled group. However the researchers noted at the end stated that the 1/4 th of an inch greater height was only for the short term, and did not indicate whether the higher height was really for the boys’ ultimate final height.

As for girls, they state. “In a previous study, adolescent girls who were past puberty (ages 16 to 18) experienced an increase in bone-mineral density but did not increase in height more than girls who did not take calcium.” – The calcium supplements did help give them stronger bones by increasing the BMD but not their height.

Source #5 – “Effect of cow milk consumption on longitudinal height gain in children”

A section of the paper…

“Bonjour et al (6) found that prepubertal girls who consumed a diet including calcium-enriched foods grew in height in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. In our longitudinal study, the mean height gain in the high-consumption group was higher than that in the low-consumption group, and the difference in height gain between the 2 groups was 2.5 cm/3 y.”

We could say that this source seems to suggest that girls who take high levels of calcium when they are still in the ages before puberty have on average 2 cm more in height for every 3 years of growth then girls who has low levels of calcium in their diet. The researchers concluded for this paper that drink large amounts of milk would be good for a person.

Source #6 – Adolescent height: relationship to exercise, milk intake and parents’ height.

The researchers here concluded that “Milk intake of female adolescents from Group I was significantly more than the other groups. It is concluded that parents’ height in both males and females and milk intake in females contribute to a greater adolescent height.”

Group 1 had the adolescents which were in the 97% percentile of height.

Conclusion:

These 6 sources which I had used before seem to point at the relationship that milk only has a reasonable effect on a child’s growth rate in kids who are in the pre puberty ages. There is evidence in the last 3 sources which seem to suggest that calcium intake from milk ingestion would help increase height, but the difference seems to be a couple of cms, not the 4-5 inches of difference those “Got Milk” commercial would make a parent believe. In most diets in the developed nations, Calcium and Vitamin D can be obtained from many other sources besides milk, cheese, or any other type of milk derivative. The calcium at moderate levels in girls seem to have the same rate of bone growth as high levels of calcium.

Source 5 and source 6 shows that girls who are still very young seem to have some benefit towards height from high milk consumption, and the result is just around 2 cms for every 3 years. Beyond the puberty stage, there is no more benefit towards height in girls. For boys, the increase is around .25 inches or a little less than 1 cm. The affect however was only for the short term, not the overall affect towards final height.

There has been many patents over the years that were filed by large and mid sized Biotech and Biomedical companies trying to protect their ideas and methods on how to regrow bones. This idea of using the TGF-Beta has been a very common and well understood concept. I list a few patents I have found from Google Patent which show exactly what concentrations of TGF-Beta would be needed to be injected into the human leg to cause bone growth in vivo. However this would not make the bone actually longer, but only make the bone mineral density increase.

Patent #1: Method of inducing bone growth using TGF-β – US 5158934 A

Abstract: A method is provided for generation of bone at a site of an animal where skeletal tissue is deficient comprising administering to the animal, locally at the bone site in the presence of a source of osteogenic cells, an effective amount of a composition comprising TGF-β in a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, provided that such composition excludes a bone morphogenetic cofactor, the composition being administered in an amount effective to induce bone growth at the bone site. Also provided is a device for implantation into a site of an animal where skeletal tissue is deficient comprising a device treated with an effective amount of a composition comprising TGF-β and a source of osteogenic cells in a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.

What is claimed is: A method for generation of bone at a site of an animal where skeletal tissue is deficient comprising administering to the animal, locally at the site in the presence of an osteogenic cell source, an effective amount of a composition consisting essentially of TGF-β in a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, provided that such composition excludes a bone morphogenetic cofactor, the composition being administered to the animal in an amount effective to induce growth of morphologically normal, mature bone at the site.

Patent #2: TGF-β composition for inducing bone growth – US 5409896 A

Abstract: A method is provided for generation of bone at a site of an animal where skeletal tissue is deficient comprising administering to the animal, locally at the bone site in the presence of a source of osteogenic cells, an effective amount of a composition comprising TGF-β in a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, provided that such composition excludes a bone morphogenetic cofactor, the composition being administered in an amount effective to induce bone growth at the bone site. Also provided is a device for implantation into a site of an animal where skeletal tissue is deficient comprising a device treated with an effective amount of a composition comprising TGF-β and a source of osteogenic cells in a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.

What is claimed is:

1. A pharmaceutical composition for treatment of a site of an animal where skeletal tissue is deficient consisting essentially of about 1 to 100 ng/ml of TGF-β and an osteogenic cell source isolated from an animal, which composition is formulated in a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier and excludes a bone morphogenetic cofactor.

2. The composition of claim 1 wherein the osteogenic cell source is dispersed whole bone marrow, perichondrium, periosteum, or a cell line.

3. The composition of claim 1 wherein the TGF-β is TGF-β1 or TGF-β3.

Patent #3: TGF-β formulation for inducing bone growth – US 5422340 A

Abstract: A formulation suitable for inducing bone formation contains about 0.5 μg to about 5 mg of transforming growth factor-β and about 140 mg to about 50 g of tricalcium phosphate and excludes a bone morphogenetic cofactor. In another embodiment, the formulation contains about 0.5 μg to 5 mg transforming growth factor-β, about 140 mg to 50 g of tricalcium phosphate particles, and an amount of amylopectin ranging from about 01:1 to 1:1 amylopectin:tricalcium phosphate.

Field of the Invention: This invention relates to the use of transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β) to induce bone growth in vivo and to formulations of TGF-β and tricalcium phosphate useful for this purpose.

What is claimed is: A bone-inducing formulation consisting essentially of about 0.5 μg to about 5 mg of transforming growth factor-β and about 140 mg to about 50 g of tricalcium phosphate.

2. The formulation of claim 1 wherein the tricalcium phosphate is particles.
3. The formulation of claim 2 wherein the particles are granules or a powder.
4. The formulation of claim 3 wherein the transforming growth factor-β is adsorbed on the granules or powder.
5. The formulation of claim 3 wherein the tricalcium phosphate is in the form of granules with a diameter of about 120 to 500 μm.
6. The formulation of claim 1 further comprising a polymer selected from amylopectin, gelatin, collagen, agarose, or a mixture of these polymers, in an amount effective to enhance consistency of the formulation.
7. The formulation of claim 6 wherein the polymer is lyophilized before use.

Analysis On The Patents: 

The first two patents are essentially the same one, since the patent inventors are the same people and they are from the same company, Genentch back in the mid 1990s. The Abstract or Introduction are the same thing. However there is just a slight change to the patents, which are separated by 2 years of patent filing. It seems that from the first two patents, there is 5 main parts to the patent…

1. A device used for implantation, like a syringe or something,
2. The TGF-Beta composition, which will have TGF-Beta1 and TGF-Beta3 (concentration is 1- 100 ng/mL of TGF-beta)
3. A carrier, probably like a gel or scaffold which the TGF-Beta will go into. 
4. A source of osteogenic cells – which is probably explanted out first. 
5. Excludes a bone morphogenetic cofactor.

These 3 parts (osteogenic cell source with TGF-Beta composition with the carrier) are combined and the device takes the mixture and puts it into an area of the human bone where there is no bone growth or bone. The mixture will cause bones to grow in the bone defect area. However that will not be enough to create the cartilage we need which will expand and grow out.

The third patent is very similar in its area of focus. The patent inventor is the same person. This time the TGF-Beta is used at a higher concetration, around 0.5 micrograms to 5 miligrams. There is a type of tricalcium phosphate which is in a granular, powder form. The TGF-Beta is absorbed into the granular powder and this mixture is added into bone defects to induce bone matrix formation. This patent also is excluding a certain bone morphogenetic cofactor. There is something called amylopectin which is used to make a polymer selected from amylopectin, gelatin, collagen, agarose, or a mixture of these polymers, in an amount effective to enhance consistency of the formulation.

Something that me and Tyler realize at this point is that intermittent mechanical loading may be one of the best approaches we have towards something that could work. However that chance is very small. The entire LSJL approach is based on short bursts of mechanical loading that is repeated maybe once or twice a day for a few days and then stopped, and then restarted a week later and have that cycle also repeated.

The reason why any type of stimuli that would be applied to the human body must be intermittent is that the human body (or any living organism’s body for that matter) has this ability to be able to react to stimuli from the external world and shift the way the systems in the body in how they work to a new set point of equilibrium.

The best example of this is when people who first start out trying weak drugs develop a tolerance for the weaker drugs and need to take stronger drugs to get the same type of effect they had when they first started out. Their body after continuous stimuli by the outside influence shifted the way the brain worked either upregulating or down regulating certain types of brain neurotransmitters and that resulting in a new place of physiological equilibirum.

The same principles apply to why Hakker and steroid researchers and users would talk about the need to cycle through the compounds. Cycling allows the body to re-set its equilibirum back to a state where the weaker stimuli would still have an effect.

Tyler talks about the fact that maybe the long bone epiphysis he has been loading for these years might have lost their sensitivity so he had to increase the dumb-bells he has been loading with. He had been able to theoretically increase the duration of the loading effectiveness by going off of the loading for a few days.

In my opinion, the mechano-sensitivity he is talking about is something that is unknown at this time.  I don’t believe Tyler can tell whether his epiphysis will still even respond to loading anymore. It could be that the loading he has done even from doing it intermittently has cause the area of bone to stop being able to respond at all to the loading anymore, whether electrically due to piezo nature of bone or any other type of Wolff’s Law bone remodeling patterns.

It could be that he needs to stop loading for an extended amount of time, maybe 2 months before starting again to give the bone area a chance to regenerate the osteogenic properties again.

This article I found seems to show that bone disorders where bone mineral density drops can be negated by doing mechanical loading

Method and device for treating bone disorders by applying preload and repetitive impacts

ABSTRACT

Bone disorders may be treated by applying a compressive preload and repetitive impacts. The patient may be maintained in a static position and the preload be provided by gravity or compression. The impact load, impact rate, and a number of impacts determined by a physician prior to treatment are chosen to generate electrical signals in the patient’s bone such that the majority of energy of the electrical signals lies between 0.1 Hz and 1 kHz, and the peak amplitude values of the electrical signals lie between 15 and 30 Hz.

Analysis & Interpretation

This shows that for bone growth, the compressive repetitive impacts do work. LSJL will work to promote bone growth. The values that is cited in this paper are very low actually at around 0.1-10,000 Hz. The amplitude of the loading is around 15-30 Hz.

Note: This is not an ordinary post, but a patent. There is more in the Description section of the patent.

To slow or reverse bone loss, doctors have focused their attention on estrogens, calcium, and exercise, used either together or individually. More recently, fluorides and thiazides have been tested as therapeutic agents, but none of these approaches has been successful in restoring a severely depleted skeletal bone mass to normal. In addition, many elderly individuals with advanced bone loss cannot participate in exercise programs due to poor reflexes, motor tone and balance, as well as stress pain and stress fractures.

Certain researchers have suggested an electrical intermediary in Wolff’s law. Wolff’s law states, in short, that bone adapts to the forces acting upon it. In other words, bone will increase in mass and remodel to relieve the applied stress.

Because bone is piezoelectric and electrokinetic, it generates an electrical signal in response to the applied force. That electrical signal then effects bone formation. This is explained in Bassett, “Effect of Force on Skeletal Tissues,” Physiological Basis of Rehabilitation Medicine, Downey and Darling eds., 1st ed., W. B. Saunders Co. (1971). On the basis of Wolff’s law and more recent investigations, two techniques have been developed for treatment of bone disorders. One involves mechanical forces and the other involves electrical forces.

Implications For Height Increase

The patent is an interesting read and shows that we can indeed grow bone mass at least from a short intense repetitive loading on bones so that the bones will induce electricity, which somehow stimulate some type of bone growth.

Overall, this patent is useful in showing that we have at least clear evidence that the LSJL method has already been proposed by some researchers before for bone mineral density problems. This is used to treat osteoporosis, not short stature.

There is supposed to be 2 techniques developed to treat bone disorders. One is mechanical and the other is electrical.

Mechanical –  periodical strain rates and cycling patterns generate maximal osteogenic response in avian bones….an experiment demonstrated that cyclically loading the bones at 0.5 Hz caused bone formation, although repetition of more than 36 cycles did not seem to increase bone formation.

Electrical – in vitro and in vivo measurements showed the electrical potentials developed due to bone deformation…. the development of products for the stimulation of bone tissue electromagnetically.

It seems that the end result for both of the techniques is that the bones being deformed create a electrical signal.

The main thing to get out of this is that LSJL has a very good chance of increasing growth rates in people with open growth rates. It might have a smaller chance of working on people with no growth plate cartilages if we can somehow get the bone layer underneath the articular cartilage to be slightly more osteogenic. LSJL might be able to do that in a small minority of people who try it.

Recently I found out from listening to the Podcast by Dave Asprey of the Bulletproof Executive that the compound that has been traditionally been used in male muscle enhancement creatine has benefits towards increasing a person’s intelligence quotient (IQ) by something around 10-15 points. (source (webMD) – Creatine May Boost Brain Performance Study Shows Intelligence, Memory Improvements With the Dietary Supplement)

From the same webMD source…

“Creatine is a type of amino acid created by the Kidneys, Liver, and Pancreas. It is mostly stored in the muscles, where it becomes a source of energy and muscle growth. As a nutritional supplement, creatine has been shown to enhance athletic performance, and in a 2000 study, Scheff found that it protected against traumatic brain injuries in people who were already using it prior to being injured.”

I remember many height increase seekers years ago on the old Impartial Grow Taller Board discussing whether taking other types of amino acids like L-Lysine, and Arginine, and Glutamine would possibly increase their height. While they never gave a scientifically sound explanation on why increased amino acid oral consumption would lead to height increase, it did lead an impression and I have wondered whether amino acids in general do have some positive correlation to height. Proteins are made of amino acids, and and there is a weak positive correlation between people who eat meat being taller than people who eat only vegetables.

This made me wonder whether Creatine could be a type of compound that might increase the level of height growth in people as well. It is indeed a big leap to go from linking the cognitive enhancements of a compound with the possibility that the same compound would have bone growth enhancing properties as well. However it seems that there might be some evidence that shows I am not so crazy in making such a connection.

Tyler wrote a post about the link between Creatine and possible natural height increase in the post “Natural Height Increase with Creatine” back in 2010. I would try to summarize what he was trying to imply with a short paragraph of what I can get from that post.

Point 1: Myostatin is BAD for height increase. While it is a good thing for increased muscle size, losing body fat, and getting cut, myostatin is bad for height increase.

Point 2: Studies Tyler found seem to imply that creatine can inhibit the functions of myostatin.

Point 3: GASP-1 inhibits the biological activity of mature myostatin, but not activin.

Point 4: Activin & Myostatin are both members of the TGF-Beta superfamily

Point 5: GASP-1 binds directly not only to mature myostatin, but also to the myostatin propeptide. – (I don’t understand what this means but I would guess that means that GASP-1 seem to inhibit all forms, mature and immature forms of myostatin.)

Point 6: The other effect of GASP-1 is that it inhibits protease.  Protease breaks down peptide bonds that link amino acids together which means that it can break down compounds like Human Growth Hormone (by Tyler)

Point 7: GASP-1 inhibits BMP-11

Point 8: Resistance training caused significant decrease in serum levels of myostatin and increase in that of GASP-1. Creatine supplementation in conjunction with resistance training lead to greater decreases in serum myostatin, but had no additional effect on GASP-1. —> So this implies…”Exercise can make you taller by inhibiting myostatin and increasing serum levels of GASP-1 which in turn inhibits Myostatin further.” (by Tyler)

That post seems to imply that if we just inhibit the inhibitors of of growth (in double negation way), then our growth will increase. At this point, I would say that this type of thinking doesn’t work very well in height increase. From articles i have read about how the stature of humans is restrained and limited due to continuous lower numbers of cells possible to proliferate and make the bones bigger, removing obstacles that might have held back bone growth doesn’t always imply that we will get taller as a result.

When I googled the term “creatine grow taller” I did find some interesting results. The first came from the website BodyBuilding.com in a thread entitled “Did I get taller from creatine?” . the poster makes the point to say that he was around 6′ 4″ before and he claims he is 6′ 5″ in his profile. He knows that Creatine is somehow related to skeletal muscles. He is 33 right now (2013), so at the time he posted (2007) he would be around 27 years old. His claim is that he grew 1-2 inches in height around the late 20s from doing creatine.

Replies talk about compounds I have never heard of like Fizogen, Cell-Tech, ….

“…creatine monohydrate as a supplement is taken for muscle creatine phospahte (CP) wich is used (during weight training) for muscle contraction energy (ATP). your supplementing your CP pretty much so it restores faster and your muscles will grow faster…in laymens terms….of course….if your creatine includes the human growth hormone well then maybe on a very very rare occasion you might just be getting taller…..”

The guy ultimate says…

“well jokes aside..I tell ya i’m sure I grew a bit (.5-1”)..not sure if it’s posture or like I said bloated spinal disks (cus “The center of the disc is a jelly-like substance called the nucleus pulposus”) no clue if it can bloat or not (hence this thread)..maybe when I cycle off i’ll take actual measurements and see..”

Other people suggest that if they took something called the hardcore version of Cell-Tech that they possibly would increase in height. – Although this can be assumed to be just a joke.

So what do I think about the possibility that Creatine can be used to possibly make a person taller?

From the EHow article “How Does Creatine Affect Growth Hormone and Aging?” it is implied that  creatine somehow stimulates the pituitary gland to overexpress on GH. This could imply that creatine has some way to help in the growth process of developing children. However another section suggests that creatine will almost all be concentrated in the muscles…

Almost all creatine in the body is concentrated in the muscles, and the remaining 5 percent is found largely in organs with high-energy needs such as the heart, brain and testes

The thing about creatine is that it just converts fats in the body to energy. There is no studies that make the connection between taking creatine supplements and possibly increasing endochondral ossification or chondrogensis. Some people have gone on the Yahoo Questions & Answers section to ask whether taking Creatine will help make them taller. The almost unanimous decision by people on there is that it won’t help even the child who is still growing.

What is the conclusion?

Creatine is made of amino acids. For so many years beginning height increase seekers want to try to take proteins and amino acid formulations to grow taller. At this point, I have not heard one genuine success story from just taking amino acids like Glutamin and Glycine. So that implies that one should NOT be able to increase their height from taking Creatine. The few cases where taking creatine would help may be for vegetarians who don’t get enough proteins in their diet or children who live in malnourishment and can’t get enough nutrients into their body which leads to stunted growth. Creatine might help a little for the child who has stunted growth, but for an adult, it should never work to make a person taller.