Bulls*it. Really? There is no "unique' pathway into the cell. It may....and I use may very loosely here, be a matter of improved efficacy. Creatine Monohydrate does not need a so-called "active" transport, whatever that means. Creatine monohydrate is about the most studied supplement, there isn't much out there on MCC...yet. All creatines are utilized via the Kreb's cycle for ATP production. As far as volumization goes, I am not sure that any have the efficacy of creatine monohydrate. I'm not saying that other forms aren't effective, don't get me wrong here. I like Green Mag, I just prefer creatine monohydrate better for volumization.
Is there a reason every time I post anything scientific, you come into the thread, assume a hostile tone, and pick apart my post? What is your deal here?
All I got from your post is:
-You don't know what active transport means. This is 8th grade biology we're talking.
-You think mono is as good as mcc for strength/volumization, if not better (I agree here)
MCC does enter the cell in a unique way due to the chelation. This eliminates possible GI/bloating issues, but I agree, both are equally efficacious, which is great since that value is somewhere near 99%. I prefer to use MCC, but both are terrific options.
