Best form of creatine:HCL or nitrate?

[Royd The Noyd]

Again, why does this matter in the short term? Once at creatine saturation there wont be much of a difference between the forms of creatine unless you have GI issues

Improving appearance is what 90% of the people on these forums want. And most only last the short term lol. Also why do you propose that the balance of water will suddenly change after continued use?

When I originally said there is a saturation ceiling I probably should have been more careful. As there are a few factors that can seemingly alter that ceiling to some degree (CHO, ala, exercise, etc).

 

[Royd The Noyd]

Again, why does this matter in the short term? Once at creatine saturation there wont be much of a difference between the forms of creatine unless you have GI issues

There is no reason to really cycle off creatine. Many go on it for years at a time...which makes the speed of absorption irrelevant as they pretty much never have to become saturated again.

I could see merits to greater solubility if I was constantly cycling on/off. But otherwise I wouldnt consider that part of my equation into what to buy

I cycle creatine for multiple reasons....but I'm tired and that's a whole different debate.

 

[Powercage]

You want greater intracellular water retention. Less is not a sign of a superior form of creatine.

I didnt say it was superior. I thought that it was interesting that this study is actually showing the other form of creatine being less worthwhile than the placebo in the water retention category




I dont really see how this study proves any point you are trying to make. You cant directly compare it to creatine mono. You dont know, based on this studies setup, how much total body water would have been resultant of their study. You cant use other studies that used different variables. You have no mathematical data to back that up given the exact study conditions

 

[Powercage]

Let's get this debate focused again.

You said to go with HCl because it is more soluble. You claimed this helps with water retention. I said you wont bloat significantly on Mono IF taken correctly (even compared to other forms).

You claim a significant decrease in extracell water retention from MCC compared to mono. Then post a study not showing mono at all. One that shows a significant increase in Total body water of MCC compared to placebo, but over only a 2 week period.

This TBW increase (and subsequent change to osmotic relationship regarding intra vs extra cellular) would be expected since it is creatine and does make the body retain water

If all of this is accurate. What are you driving at?

 

[Royd The Noyd]

I didnt say it was superior. I thought that it was interesting that this study is actually showing the other form of creatine being less worthwhile than the placebo in the water retention category




I dont really see how this study proves any point you are trying to make. You cant directly compare it to creatine mono. You dont know, based on this studies setup, how much total body water would have been resultant of their study. You cant use other studies that used different variables. You have no mathematical data to back that up given the exact study conditions

The other form of creatine also showed inferior results when it came to power output fwiw.

There are not terribly different variables involved here. Healthy subjects, 5 grams per day. I could probably easily find several studies with a similar protocol. The tool specifically used to measure body water was used because it is highly reliable.

I'm not stating this is in anyway conclusive. It's simply evidence that further supports what I have previously posted regarding superior forms of creatine.

 

[Royd The Noyd]

Let's get this debate focused again.

You said to go with HCl because it is more soluble. You claimed this helps with water retention. I said you wont bloat significantly on Mono IF taken correctly (even compared to other forms).

You claim a significant decrease in water retention from MCC compared to mono. Then post a study not showing mono at all. One that shows a significant increase in Total body water of MCC compared to placebo, but over only a 2 week period.

This TBW increase would be expected since it is creatine and does make the body retain water

If all of this is accurate. What are you driving at?

I'm not following what you posted in bold. The study previously posted does not use mono. There are multiple studies showing increases in water retention. The full text of this MCC study actually discusses this issue. Have you read it?

 

[Powercage]

The other form of creatine also showed inferior results when it came to power output fwiw.

There are not terribly different variables involved here. Healthy subjects, 5 grams per day. I could probably easily find several studies with a similar protocol. The tool specifically used to measure body water was used because it is highly reliable.

I'm not stating this is in anyway conclusive. It's simply evidence that further supports what I have previously posted regarding superior forms of creatine.

The other form also showed significance in an increase in Power Output.

My point being, you cannot use that study to prove anything with regards to Extra vs Intra cellular water retention. It was only done over two weeks. Significant changes to Extra/Intra water retention may very well be seen in Mono at the exact same level of MCC once at saturation, but this study is inconclusive when it comes to that.

Am I surprised there is a more significant water differential at 2 weeks compared to another form of creatine? No. If saturation is reached quicker with a certain form it is reached quicker and extra/intracellular water levels would adjust accordingly that much quicker.

Does this mean anything with regards to creatine forms ONCE at saturation which most people would be at after 4-5 weeks? Not really. It also doesnt really prove why you would recommend HCl based off of this study.

I still say what I said in the beginning. Once at saturation (which habitual creatine users will be at the majority of a year), you are not going to see significant difference from whichever creatine form you choose (barring you dont choose CEE).

If you are just starting out (not saturated), sure there may be a benefit to another form such as MCC with a possible faster time to saturation. Or if you have GI issues or want the electrolyte replacement I would definitely go MCC (which I do). But I dont do it because I think the solubility will give me a very significant edge over mono

There are definite benefits to certain forms, but creatine (once at saturation) will behave similarly across the board. Assuming you dont have GI distress to a certain form and are dosing properly (and hence avoiding side effects such as bloat)

 

[jtterrible]

just wanna say good job on not escalating this past debate it's nice to see this happening without any resorting to "you stupid shathead" type stuff..

 

[Royd The Noyd]

The other form also showed significance in an increase in Power Output.

My point being, you cannot use that study to prove anything with regards to Extra vs Intra cellular water retention. It was only done over two weeks. Significant changes to Extra/Intra water retention may very well be seen in Mono at the exact same level of MCC once at saturation, but this study is inconclusive when it comes to that.

You can't? I'm not sure why you cannot. There are mono studies done over two weeks showing increased total body water weight. Significant changes to extracellular and intracellular water weight will be seen with mono but the net weight will not be close to zero. Indicating a greater increase in extracellular water. The study conclusively shows that 2 weeks of MCC results in a net zero (close to) total body water weight.

Am I surprised there is a more significant water differential at 2 weeks compared to another form of creatine? No. If saturation is reached quicker with a certain form it is reached quicker and extra/intracellular water levels would adjust accordingly that much quicker.

But not without a net increase in TBW.

Does this mean anything with regards to creatine forms ONCE at saturation which most people would be at after 4-5 weeks? Not really. It also doesnt really prove why you would recommend HCl based off of this study.

I didnt recommend it based on the MCC study. I am based on the two studies on MCC solubility as well as the ISSN presentation I've seen.

I still say what I said in the beginning. Once at saturation (which habitual creatine users will be at the majority of a year), you are not going to see significant difference from whichever creatine form you choose (barring you dont choose CEE).

If you are just starting out (not saturated), sure there may be a benefit to another form such as MCC with a possible faster time to saturation. Or if you have GI issues or want the electrolyte replacement I would definitely go MCC (which I do). But I dont do it because I think the solubility will give me a very significant edge over mono

There are definite benefits to certain forms, but creatine (once at saturation) will behave similarly across the board. Assuming you dont have GI distress to a certain form and are dosing properly (and hence avoiding side effects such as bloat)

I dont disagree with the majority of what you have here. But the question was which is the superior form. Imo based on current research the most efficient form is creatine hcl. The degree to which you weigh that efficiency likely drives your choice of creatine.

 

[Powercage]

You can't? I'm not sure why you cannot. There are mono studies done over two weeks showing increased total body water weight. Significant changes to extracellular and intracellular water weight will be seen with mono but the net weight will not be close to zero. Indicating a greater increase in extracellular water. The study conclusively shows that 2 weeks of MCC results in a net zero (close to) total body water weight.



But not without a net increase in TBW.



I didnt recommend it based on the MCC study. I am based on the two studies on MCC solubility as well as the ISSN presentation I've seen.



I dont disagree with the majority of what you have here. But the question was which is the superior form. Imo based on current research the most efficient form is creatine hcl. The degree to which you weigh that efficiency likely drives your choice of creatine.

Im numbering not to be a jerk but to address each point...easier for me to show which Im addressing this way.

1) I dont find this information very valuable because 2 weeks into MCC use and 2 weeks into Mono use are rather irrelevant for me as they would have different points of saturation. My entire point being, once they are both at full muscle saturation, their differences will likely be negligible. (Assuming proper dosing, none of this loading phase garbage)

2) There was a net increase in TBW shown even in the example you gave with MCC. That study can't really be used to prove that the net increase in TBW is more/less in mono compared to MCC, especially at saturation of both. All it shows is that at the time of 2 weeks, there is a difference in extracell/intracell concentration of water compared to placebo. Which I would have expected

3) Fair enough

4) This I can agree with to the extent that there are benefits to other forms of creatine above mono. My issue is with say claiming that HCl is a better form of creatine for a new person to choose over Mono. When in reality, it's my belief that given enough time to saturation, both will elicit the same results. I agree that if HCl is absorbed more readily, that it would decrease time to saturation. I just do not find this very worthwhile unless you plan on cycling on and off quite regularly

 

[Powercage]

Here's what I'd like to see, now keep in mind I actually back MCC and it would be much easier for me to just use the 2 week study to prove that the form I like is better than others



I'd like to see a study of intracellular vs extracellular water concentrations.

Over a 6 week period. Of Placebo/Mono/MCC/CN/HCl. At 3-5g daily

That way we could tell if there was any real difference at saturation of the forms of creatine with regards to Extra/Intra water concentrations

Until I see anything straight comparing them using the same methods, under the same conditions, over a long enough time period...you can't have an accurate idea of how they compare in my opinion.


Extrapolation of the 2 week mark just does not work for me as you haven't hit full saturation, and Im not denying some may hit saturation quicker which would skew the 2 week extrapolation data even more

 

[Palash]

I take a month Ergo pump with 3 grams of CN in one dose.
By the action of far inferior to creatine hydrochloride. For me the issue has been resolved - the best creatine - hydrochloride.

 

[RenegadeRows]

Magnesium creatine chelate..... has the best studies to back it up AFAIK.

 

[poison]

Nitrates have good studies showing their performance benefits, as does creatine. If you can't extropolate creatine nitrates benefits from that, I don't know what to tell you. IMO, people way overthink the creatine thing. All creatine is good; the difference is what it's bonded to, and what effects the addition brings to the table, be it nitrates, orotic acid, etc.

 

[CDMMA]

2.ThermoLife: C-Bol
Creatrate ™ - U.S. Patent Pending Creatine Nitrate, Creatine Anhydrous, Creatine HCL 3,000 mg
the same thing - do not know the value of the nitrate form

A little late, but there's 1g of creatine nitrate in C-bol.

Here's what I'd like to see, now keep in mind I actually back MCC and it would be much easier for me to just use the 2 week study to prove that the form I like is better than others

Nitrates have good studies showing their performance benefits, as does creatine. If you can't extropolate creatine nitrates benefits from that, I don't know what to tell you. IMO, people way overthink the creatine thing. All creatine is good; the difference is what it's bonded to, and what effects the addition brings to the table, be it nitrates, orotic acid, etc.

:wave:

 

[mr.cooper69]

Oh hai CDMMA.

Best creatine forms IMO:

Magnesium Creatine Chelate
Trinitine
Creatine Malate
Creatine Orotate
Creatine Nitrate
Creatine Monohydrate

 

[SweetLou321]

Can i get a link the MCC data and or studies? Curious

 

[CDMMA]

Oh hai CDMMA.

:wave2:

 

[RenegadeRows]

Can i get a link the MCC data and or studies? Curious

Invalid Link Removed​

I question this graphs legitimacy, but found it so I figured I'd post it.

Study 1
Invalid Link Removed

Mg2+-creatine chelate and a low-dose creatine supplementation regimen improve exercise performance.
Selsby JT, DiSilvestro RA, Devor ST.
Source
Section of Sport and Exercise Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
Abstract
We tested the hypotheses that, compared with a placebo group or creatine (Cr) group, a Mg(2+)-Cr chelate group would demonstrate improvements in the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) on the bench press and be able to perform more work at 70% of the 1RM for the bench press. Thirty-one weight-trained men were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to a placebo group (multidextran), a Cr group (2.5 g of Cr daily), or a Mg(2+)-Cr group (2.5 g of Cr daily). Baseline data were collected for the bench press 1RM and maximal work completed during a fatigue set at 70% of the 1RM. Following 10 days of Cr supplementation, follow-up tests were completed for the dependent variables. Groups were similar when the change in 1RM was evaluated either absolutely or relatively. Both the Cr and the Mg(2+)-Cr groups had significantly larger increases in work, both absolutely and relatively, when compared with the placebo group. Partial support for the hypothesis suggests that low doses of Cr are effective at increasing fiber Cr content, and consequently, performance. Further, the Cr and Mg(2+)-Cr groups were similar in both performance tests, suggesting that the proposed mechanism of entry is no better than the conventional method when 2.5 g of Cr is administered and performance is measured as work. This study raises the possibility that a low dose of Cr may be an effective means of enhancing performance after short-term ingestion.

PMID: 15142029 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Study 2
Invalid Link Removed

Although no analytical procedures were performed to ascertain magnesium or creatine tissue levels, this study suggests that magnesium creatine chelate may have been absorbed in greater quantities or at least deposited in the muscle in greater quantities because of the differences in ergogenic activity. As shown in Table 2, only the group receiving the magnesium and creatine as a single chelate molecule produced significant new amounts of energy after 30 minutes of rest. The recovery rates for groups 2 through 4 were statistically no different that for the control group that received no supplementation. Because of the significant differences between Group 5 compared to the other groups, additional absorption and metabolic studies for the magnesium creatine chelate are probably warranted.

Conclusions

This study suggests that ergogenic activity may be enhanced when magnesium and creatine are chelated together in a 1:1 molar ratio and subsequently ingested as a single molecule compared with equivalent amounts of magnesium from either MgO or magnesium bisglycine chelate admixed to creatine monohydrate. Furthermore, creatine monohydrate alone did not produce equivalent ergogenic results to those produced by magnesium creatine chelate.

Study 3

Magnesium-creatine supplementation effects on body water.
Brilla LR, Giroux MS, Taylor A, Knutzen KM.

Exercise and Sport Sciences Laboratory, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA 98225-9067, USA.

This study evaluated magnesium-creatine (MgCre) supplementation on body water and quadriceps torque. Maltodextran (Placebo), Mg oxide plus Cre (MgO-Cre), and Mg-creatine chelate (MgC-Cre) at 800 mg Mg and 5 g Cre per day were used for 2 weeks in 35 subjects in a random assignment, blinded study. Pre-post measures were completed with bioimpedance to determine total body water (TBW), extracellular water (ECF), and intracellular water (ICF), and an isokinetic device at 180 degrees per second for knee extension peak torque (T), total work (W), and power (PWR). Body weights increased for both treatment groups, MgO-Cre Delta 0.75 kg (P <.05) and MgC-Cre Delta 0.4 kg (P =.07). Significant pre-post differences (P <.05) were noted only for MgC-Cre in ICW (26.29 v 28.01 L) and ECW (15.75 v 14.88 L). MgC-Cre had significant peak T (Nm) increase (124.5 v135.8, P <.05), while MgO-Cre (116.4 v 124.9, P =.06) and placebo (119.8 v 123.7, P =.343) did not. Both treatment groups had increased PWR (P <.05). MgC-Cre affects cellular fluid compartments. The peak torque changes were significant only in the MgC-Cre group, which had increases in ICW that may infer more muscular creatine due to its osmotic effect, and with increased cellular hydration, perhaps increased protein synthesis.

 

[RenegadeRows]

^^^^^ Those are the 3 studies I know of...if anyone has anymore, please post them

 

[BBB]

I have used them both. Con-crete is expensive and I don't think it did a darn thing for me. Creatine Nitrate is great pre-workout it provides stellar pumps but I would only use it on workout days. I am currently trying CRE02 on non-workout days. It's enteric coated to help absorption. We will see.

 

[SweetLou321]

Looks good to say the least, thanks RR. Got anything for dicreatine malate?

 

[poison]

Looks good to say the least, thanks RR. Got anything for dicreatine malate?

All i know is 3gr Tricreatine malate with 3gr citrulline malate = wicked endurance. It'll also melt your tongue.

 

[SweetLou321]

So the malate helps with endurance then? Hmm. Buy the sounds of it, green mag has a solid formula

 

[Powercage]

So the malate helps with endurance then? Hmm. Buy the sounds of it, green mag has a solid formula

Yep, Green Mag is talked about quite a bit on other forums

 

[Colbert]

creatine mono is the best thing ever and it's super cheap!

If you want creaine nitrate for the pumps, which is great, check out anabolic ignite. Muscle feast also has BCAA nitrate which is pretty freaking amazing!