Is creatine hydrochloride better than creatine monohydrate for the improvement of physical performance and hormonal changes in young trained men?

Tayebi, Mehdi; Arazi, Hamid

doi:10.1016/j.scispo.2019.07.013

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… Type of Creatine Level of Evidence Summary of Evidence Available Creatine Phosphate No Evidence Not Available Creatine Alpha-Ketogluterate No Evidence Not Available Tri-Creatine Malate No Evidence Not Available Creatine Ethyl Ester Malate No Evidence Not Available Creatine Gluconate No Evidence Not Available Di-creatine Malate No Evidence Not Available Creatinol-O-Phosphate (COP) No Evidence Intramuscular and intravenous administration of COP ↑ handgrip performance, but no studies have evaluated if it has any effect on muscle creatine levels or exercise performance [ 35 , 43 ] Buffered or KreAlkalyn® Creatine Some Evidence Recommended doses and loading/maintenance equivalent doses did not provide greater changes in muscle creatine, body composition, strength, or anaerobic capacity compared to CM [ 27 , 35 ] Creatine Pyruvate Some Evidence ↑ intermittent handgrip exercise of maximal intensity and may have benefits with endurance exercise, but conflicting evidence exists on benefits with endurance exercise [ 25 , 35 , 64 ] Creatine Citrate Some Evidence Studies provide evidence it can increase blood creatine levels in a similar manner as CM and there is some data supporting an ergogenic benefit, but the impact of supplementation has not been assessed on muscle or brain creatine content. No studies currently indicate it is more effective or safe than CM [ 16 , 19 , 24 , 25 , 35 , 61 ] Creatine Hydrochloride Some Evidence This creatine salt should disassociate into creatine and HCL and is bioavailable, but there is no evidence that it is absorbed more effectively than CM in humans, promotes greater muscle creatine retention than CM at same dosages, or that lower doses are more effective than standard CM doses [ 15 , 35 , 63 ...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the efficacy, safety, and cost of alternative forms of creatine available for purchase on Amazon.com: are label claims supported by science?

Escalante¹,

Gonzalez²,

Mart³

et al. 2022

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the efficacy, safety, and cost of alternative forms of creatine available for purchase on Amazon.com: are label claims supported by science?

Escalante¹,

Gonzalez²,

Mart³

et al. 2022

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This would be expected, given the creatine content based on molecular weight in these dosages was 35.1 g in the Cr-HCl group compared to 131.9 g in the CrM group over the 30-day period. Finally, a study conducted by Tayebi and Arazi [ 202 ] evaluated the effects of ingesting 3 g/day of Cr-HCL, 3 g/day of CrM, and 20 g/day of CrM, or a placebo for 7 days on anaerobic power and hormone levels. Results revealed that ingestion of 3 g/day of Cr-HCl did not promote greater gains in performance or hormonal responses than 3 or 20 g/day of CrM as claimed.…”

Section: Some Evidence To Support Bioavailability Efficacy and Safetymentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioavailability, Efficacy, Safety, and Regulatory Status of Creatine and Related Compounds: A Critical Review

Kreider

Jäger²,

Purpura³

2022

Nutrients

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2011, we published a paper providing an overview about the bioavailability, efficacy, and regulatory status of creatine monohydrate (CrM), as well as other “novel forms” of creatine that were being marketed at the time. This paper concluded that no other purported form of creatine had been shown to be a more effective source of creatine than CrM, and that CrM was recognized by international regulatory authorities as safe for use in dietary supplements. Moreover, that most purported “forms” of creatine that were being marketed at the time were either less bioavailable, less effective, more expensive, and/or not sufficiently studied in terms of safety and/or efficacy. We also provided examples of several “forms” of creatine that were being marketed that were not bioavailable sources of creatine or less effective than CrM in comparative effectiveness trials. We had hoped that this paper would encourage supplement manufacturers to use CrM in dietary supplements given the overwhelming efficacy and safety profile. Alternatively, encourage them to conduct research to show their purported “form” of creatine was a bioavailable, effective, and safe source of creatine before making unsubstantiated claims of greater efficacy and/or safety than CrM. Unfortunately, unsupported misrepresentations about the effectiveness and safety of various “forms” of creatine have continued. The purpose of this critical review is to: (1) provide an overview of the physiochemical properties, bioavailability, and safety of CrM; (2) describe the data needed to substantiate claims that a “novel form” of creatine is a bioavailable, effective, and safe source of creatine; (3) examine whether other marketed sources of creatine are more effective sources of creatine than CrM; (4) provide an update about the regulatory status of CrM and other purported sources of creatine sold as dietary supplements; and (5) provide guidance regarding the type of research needed to validate that a purported “new form” of creatine is a bioavailable, effective and safe source of creatine for dietary supplements. Based on this analysis, we categorized forms of creatine that are being sold as dietary supplements as either having strong, some, or no evidence of bioavailability and safety. As will be seen, CrM continues to be the only source of creatine that has substantial evidence to support bioavailability, efficacy, and safety. Additionally, CrM is the source of creatine recommended explicitly by professional societies and organizations and approved for use in global markets as a dietary ingredient or food additive.

show abstract

Creatine hydrochloride or creatine monohydrate plus resistance training: which combination has a greater effect on oxidative stress, muscle damage, performance, and body composition in soldiers?

Eghbali,

Riahy,

Arazi

2024

Sport Sci Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is creatine hydrochloride better than creatine monohydrate for the improvement of physical performance and hormonal changes in young trained men?

Cited by 3 publications

References 21 publications

Analysis of the efficacy, safety, and cost of alternative forms of creatine available for purchase on Amazon.com: are label claims supported by science?

Analysis of the efficacy, safety, and cost of alternative forms of creatine available for purchase on Amazon.com: are label claims supported by science?

Bioavailability, Efficacy, Safety, and Regulatory Status of Creatine and Related Compounds: A Critical Review

Creatine hydrochloride or creatine monohydrate plus resistance training: which combination has a greater effect on oxidative stress, muscle damage, performance, and body composition in soldiers?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About