Why I think Kre-Alk is some BS
- 04-17-2010, 02:43 PM
Why I think Kre-Alk is some BS
Ok guys, I hear a lot of people raving about Kre-Alk, and companies like SciFit and All American boasting its superiority over. The companies all cite a study done on Bulgarian Olympic weight lifters for their claims. Yet the study DOES NOT back these claims at all. So let's review:
All American claims that "At low doses (1.5 - 3 grams) ® boosts and training capacity for up to three hours." However, the lifters used in the study each took 7.5 grams per day. At this amount, the cost of NutraPlanet brand Kre-Alk (I believe the cheapest out there) would be almost $2 per day. This is about 20 times the cost of the same amount of creatine mono.
All American also claims that the men in the study who used Kre-Alkalyn gained "28% more raw power" than the men who used creatine monohydrate. This may have been valid, but there is nothing in the study to suggest that this is a significant difference. In every clinical trial, there is bound to be regular sampling variation for each observance of data. For trials like these, statistical analysis of the data using 2-sample T-tests or ANOVA is required. These tests determine whether or not the difference of the means in the tested groups is significant enough to attribute to the test variable. This is concluded based on the resultant p-value, a number which gives the likelihood that the difference between the means could have occurred by chance. For a study like this one where type 2 error is not a huge issue, the p-value must be less than .05 to conclude that the difference between the means is significant. Absolutely NO p-value for any of the results was given in this study. There can be two reasons for this:
1) The researchers didn't test for significance, which would technically nullify all claims made by the study.
2) The researchers found p-values, but they were higher than .05 and therefore were not worth including in the results.
Finally, the study did admit that there was no difference in size gain between the two groups.
To conclude, Kre-Alkalyn may in fact be a legit product. But the study on Bulgarian athletes does not back this in any way. So why do people rave about it? I can't say for sure, but my best guess is that in terms of chemical composition Kre-Alk is closer to creatine monohydrate than any other creatine variation, and monohydrate has been proven time and time again to give results. Kre-Alkalyn might give good results, but as I have made quite clear above, it does not seem to be worth the extra cash.
If you would like to view the study for yourself, here's a link:
Hope this turns some heads XD
- 04-17-2010, 02:58 PM
Con-cret all the way. Kre Alk is just mono with a buffer look at the patients. So to conclude is Kre Alk any better than mono not for its price. Con-cret is also mono based but with out the water retention which is something I like. No bloat but all the benefits of creatine and I know companys have been asking promera health the company that makes con-cret to licence out there creatine and they have been in talks apparently as not just 1 but several companys would like to use there creatine.
04-17-2010, 03:27 PM
04-17-2010, 03:29 PM
04-17-2010, 04:13 PM
04-17-2010, 08:03 PM
04-17-2010, 09:18 PM
I havent tried it, but i plan to. There are so many people out there who love it, they rant and rave about it. It has to work pretty good for some many people to be all over it.
05-12-2010, 05:36 AM
I used to call myself a hard gainer at 150 pounds. Tried Kre-Alk, a weight gainer, solid diet and training, and put on 30 pounds in two months. Muscles were very hard and looked very toned (everyone had told me creatine makes you look a bit puffy). Lost a good 25 pounds of water weight over the next month as I abruptly stopped working out after taking a construction job.
Tried mono after that because people like you convinced me it would be better lol and I bloated and experienced the "puffy" people were talking about even my face was puffy.
I love Kre-Alk and that's my personal opinion. To me it came down to how both products made me look. I know they are the same thing in essence (creatine) and it doesn't make sense that one would make you look different but man... difference between night and day for me. Performance was really the same between the two. Nice rush of energy from both.
05-12-2010, 08:08 AM
Its creatine. I personally like the Con-crete. Its a really small dose, I liked the sour taste, and it worked pretty good. I mean FFS its creatine. Its really hard to mess that up.
05-12-2010, 08:59 AM
05-12-2010, 09:17 AM
05-12-2010, 09:21 AM
05-12-2010, 09:25 AM
05-12-2010, 09:28 AM
I like Kre-Alk, first time i tried it i noticed a difference right away. Did extra sets and felt more energy all around. Placebo or not but it works for me. I take like 2 or 3 rather than the reccomended 1, so i guess its about 5 grams of mono. dont wanna buy into the hype then dont order it. I myself ran out so now im trying out nutra's bulk mono. its not like Kre-alk costs $60 like those hype preworkout beast master concoctions
05-12-2010, 09:29 AM
05-12-2010, 09:31 AM
05-12-2010, 09:36 AM
05-12-2010, 09:50 AM
I tried Concrete and it works...Just like creatine should. Not too long ago I finally tried Creapure creatine (got mine from Primordial Performance btw) and it will be the last and only creatine I ever use. It works just as good or better in some cases than any other creatine out there. Factor in the price and its a done deal.
05-12-2010, 09:52 AM
05-12-2010, 09:55 AM
05-12-2010, 03:23 PM
I hate with a passion using Kre-Alk for a month or 2 months cycle making gains like 20 pounds and losing it all after stopping. I just don't see the point at all in using creatine like that and don't see the point to be on it 24/7. It psychologically puts you down like hell to watch yourself shrink and it's not like gear where you can keep any "water" gains lol. It's like my secret for looking GREAT and FAST--nothing else. I never worry about cost using it in this way.
05-12-2010, 08:21 PM
05-12-2010, 08:43 PM
is it just me or does the fact that kre-alk and CEE were both proven to be barely equal--if not inferior to mono--seem to not have much of an impact on people's decision-making process when choosing "what creatine to take"?
i've been MIA but has there been additional research after disproving CEE/Kre-Alk inferiority to mono?
05-12-2010, 08:48 PM
I thought this was a bumped thread at first, i remember back in 07 kre-alk was basically written off..
05-12-2010, 09:14 PM
I have tried all creates and always end up with the same results. Right now I am using body tech and notice no difference than that of creapure; though I prefer creapure for its purity.
05-12-2010, 09:14 PM
05-13-2010, 01:56 PM
problem is that there are studies proving both sides of the kre alkalyn issue, some prove its very effective for strength and endurance and others prove it is no better than Mono...
05-13-2010, 01:59 PM
05-14-2010, 03:43 AM
What is your diet and training like while using it?
05-14-2010, 08:49 AM
I wouldn't say that Kre-Alk is a wonder supplement but it does make me recover after sessions a lot quicker. Mono and CEE bloat me really badly but with Kre-Alk I gained about 4 lbs of weight but it is the recovery after workouts that really makes it worthwhile for me.