The question of which creatine form is most superior is controversial and would always attract attention. Creatine monohydrate is the "oldest" form of creatine in use. Consequently, it is not surprising that it has the most studies to support its efficacy. No one disputes that monohydrate is effective. But what use are all those pro-creatine-monohydrate studies to anyone who gets bloats and running stomach from the compound? These so-called non-responders must look elsewhere for their creatine supplementation. Creatine ethyl ester, creatine ethyl ester malate, creatine gluconate, creatine bonded to orotic acid or any of the Krebs Cycle intermediates (citrate, fumarate, malate, succinate, and alpha keto glutarate), and so on, are all viable alternatives for those who cannot handle monohydrate. And there are studies showing that these more advanced creatine forms work.
If monohydrate works for you, stick to it. Otherwise, try the more advanced forms. And let us not forget the influence of the creatine-monohydrate lobby with an interest in discrediting other creatine forms. Before we base our decision on whether or not to use the other creatine forms on the conclusions of one or two "negative" studies, it might help to understand who sponsored those studies. One can always pull out an appropriate study to justify one's recommendation for or against the more advanced creatine forms.
Personally, I would always prefer most of the more advanced creatine forms to monohydrate, especially when they are combined with co-factors such as rhodiola (elevates cellular phosphocreatine levels), banaba extract (absorption and nutrient partitioning), and so on. Or even as simple stand-alone compounds without any co-factors. Monohydrate is simply not an option for me, regardless of the bashing other creatine forms receive. That bashing would not help with the bloats I get from monohydrate. To each his own! :thumbsup: