The added value of expensive, supposedly more effective forms of creatine has hardly been demonstrated. It is wise not to be tempted by flashy advertisements from manufacturers claiming to have developed an even better version of creatine. The “old reliable” creatine monohydrate remains unbeaten in terms of price/quality ratio. Even if you are willing to pay four times as much for creatine, you should question whether this adds anything to the effectiveness of “normal” creatine monohydrate.
There are circumstances in which creatine monohydrate is not fully absorbed into the bloodstream and therefore cannot be fully effective in the muscles because it does not reach them. Manufacturers of special forms of creatine claim to have adapted their creatine as a solution to this reduced absorption. In the following section, I will first describe the circumstances under which creatine is not fully absorbed. More importantly, I will show you how to easily adjust these circumstances to fully benefit from creatine monohydrate. This means you don’t need more expensive variants of creatine at all.
In the second part of this article, I will also address some of the special forms of creatine, how they are supposed to improve absorption, and how this turns out not to be the case in practice. In fact, many of these forms are poorly absorbed or are partly broken down even before the creatine is ingested.
Small Cake and Many Diners
“Everybody wants a piece of the pie”
And in this case, that cake is called “creatine monohydrate”. Creatine is one of the most researched supplements [1,2]. The possible effects have been repeatedly demonstrated, making it one of the most popular supplements as well. The supplement industry is a multi-billion-dollar industry [3,4]. There is good money to be made from the cake called creatine, and everyone wants their share.
The turnover in supplement sales is also increasing. In the US, for example, $11.5 billion was spent on supplements in 2012, 7% more than the previous year [4]. However, new supplement brands seem to appear almost weekly. Although the cake is still growing, the number of diners seems to be increasing even faster. To prevent everyone from eventually having to settle for just a few crumbs, you can try to make the cake even bigger. However, in doing so, you are improving the promotion of creatine in general while only partially benefiting from it yourself and allowing the competition to hitch a free ride. Another possibility is to claim a larger share for yourself by smarter marketing of your own product. But these marketing costs naturally come at the expense of your profit.
So, some smart cookies came up with an idea: “Let’s just bake a new, tastier cake*. Instead of trying to get our share in the market for creatine monohydrate, we create a “better” creatine. Then we can stuff ourselves until other parties follow our example and start eating with us.”
I’ve told such a story before, however, without making a substantive comparison based on research. Based on the research conducted on the effectiveness and safety of other types of creatine, I will substantiate in this article that more expensive certainly does not mean better.
*Those who have ever tried creatine ethyl ester malate will say that “tastier” in this context is not entirely appropriate. Indeed, that stuff is really nasty.
Types of Creatine Compared
In a 2011 study, American researchers from various institutions compared different types of creatine [5]. They concluded:
However, there is little to no evidence that any of the newer forms of creatine are more effective and/or safer than CM [red: Creatine Monohydrate] whether ingested alone and/or in combination with other nutrients. In addition, whereas the safety, efficacy, and regulatory status of CM is clearly defined in almost all global markets; the safety, efficacy, and regulatory status of other forms of creatine present in today’s marketplace as a dietary or food supplement is less clear.
Supplemental Table 1 contains a detailed summary of the potential beneficial effects of the various creatine forms discussed throughout this manuscript, however, one will note the consistent lack of scientific evidence supporting the claim that the alternative forms of creatine are superior to CM for enhancing exercise performance, increasing training adaptations, and/or increasing muscle mass when ingested alone and/or in combination with other nutrients.
The researchers analyzed, among other things, the types creatine monohydrate, citrate, ethyl ester, gluconate, magnesium-chelate, and nitrate. They had to conclude that there was no scientific evidence that any of the new forms of creatine were more effective and/or safer than creatine monohydrate.
Later in this article, we will discuss various forms of creatine that have been developed to better absorb it. However, as already suggested, these improved forms are also not necessarily better. The previously quoted study also found that the absorption and distribution in the body do not always work as hoped.
Why Creatine Monohydrate Isn’t Always Effective
It is sometimes said that the effectiveness of creatine is limited because it is not fully absorbed by the body. Therefore, it is not always present in sufficient quantities in the muscles. Before we delve into the various forms of creatine that should prevent this, I would like to briefly discuss the conditions under which creatine is not fully absorbed.
The first condition for the effectiveness of creatine is that there must be enough creatine in the blood. This depends on the supply from outside, i.e., the intake of creatine in the diet or through supplementation, and the production of creatine by the body itself. There are three types of creatine. The largest part of the creatine in our body, about 95%, is stored in the muscles. The muscle cells absorb creatine from the blood. This requires energy. If there is already enough creatine in the muscles, or if there is a shortage of energy, the creatine will not be absorbed into the muscle cells.
The intake of creatine via the diet is quite small. In an omnivorous diet, about one gram of creatine is consumed daily. About half of this is produced by the body itself. However, the turnover is quite high. It is estimated that a human of 70 kilograms has about 120 grams of creatine in the body. Every day, about 2 grams of creatine is degraded and 2 grams is resynthesized [6]. If you eat 1 gram of creatine per day, you are at a stable level and do not need to use the stored creatine. If you eat more, the stored creatine will also be used. At some point, the stored creatine will be supplemented again by the dietary intake, until it is full again.
With supplementation, you can increase the creatine content in your muscles. Creatine supplementation can lead to an increase in creatine levels in the muscles of up to 20% [7,8]. However, this does not apply to everyone. Not everyone responds equally well to supplementation with creatine [9].
For creatine to be absorbed by the muscles, it must first be present in the blood. For creatine to be present in the blood, it must first be absorbed by the intestines. In the next section, we will see which circumstances ensure that creatine is not fully absorbed in the intestines. In other words, we will see what conditions must be met for creatine to be effective in the muscles.
