But, I never argued that they benefit better with Creatine. You haven't read my posts. And just as vegetarians get a boost from it, so do meat-eaters, who also perform better when supplementing Creatine - ask 10 athletes (body builders in particular) and you will find at least 5 who uses it and can vouch for increased stamina from it. Does this, too, mean that they don't get enough? Surely it should, by the logic you've been using, and at this point you are contradicting yourself. From this we can simply draw the conclusion that everyone benefits from more of this in their systems, but it doesn't point to a deficiency of any kind, just as with my example of how artificially increased oxygen levels in the blood doesn't mean we don't get "enough" naturally.
The point I trying to make just flies by you; You don't KNOW what is enough, you don't KNOW what is too little. You can't say any of this based solely on the proof that _anyone_ performs BETTER when you ADD MORE. This is _not_ synonymous with a deficiency. And the research pointed to doesn't even bring up the specific vegetabilic diets held by the vegetarian subjects of the research, which is a very important detail missing for solidifying the "facts" the research is trying to bring forth. It's a very clear case of "correlation is not causation".
The definitions you're using for "deficiency", "enough" and "too little" are useless. If your body performs better with more of a substance that can be obtained through food or produced by your body, I'd call that a deficiency. If your body isn't performing as well as you'd like, and that can be improved by consuming more of a substance without harming your health, then you don't have enough of it.
This really shouldn't be controversial. I think vegetarianism is a good thing and it's something I'm attempting, but ignoring science because you don't like the negative connotation of "deficiency" doesn't make any sense.
If we define a "deficiency" as "expected level" of something, then we don't know if they had a deficiency. Regarding your definition, I don't have a testosterone deficiency, but I'd certainly perform better as an athlete if I took anabolic steroids.
Regarding creatine levels, all we know from the study is that after the supplementation, they had significantly more in their body. Maybe the results would be the same for omnivores - we don't know until someone runs the experiment. Even within this data, I'd like to see the vegans and vegetarians graphed separately.
My definition of "deficiency" was intended to consider only levels that can be obtained through food or created by your body from food. The definition still isn't completely right since given the same inputs, different people will produce a range of values. You get the idea, though.
The point I trying to make just flies by you; You don't KNOW what is enough, you don't KNOW what is too little. You can't say any of this based solely on the proof that _anyone_ performs BETTER when you ADD MORE. This is _not_ synonymous with a deficiency. And the research pointed to doesn't even bring up the specific vegetabilic diets held by the vegetarian subjects of the research, which is a very important detail missing for solidifying the "facts" the research is trying to bring forth. It's a very clear case of "correlation is not causation".