Creatine HCL vs. Monohydrate (study)

Considering how long itís been on the market, the (unsubstantiated) claims made by manufacturers and sellers of HCL, and how much of it has been sold, itís amazing to me itís taken this long for a basic comparative study to get done. The results are exactly as Iíd expected and predicted: itís no better then good old CM. Iíd predicted that unlike some forms that are clearly inferior to CM, HCL would be comparable in its effects, so itís not garbage or a scam per se, but is considerably more expensive per dose to CM.

Criticisms of this study would be the small group sizes and being a short lived study, but I donít expect to see anything different should say aforementioned manufactures/sellers of HCL put their money where their mouth is as far as claims of the superiority of HCL to CM and fund a bigger better study. Positives of this study was they used two dosing protocols at least. A larger study needs to run longer and look at end points such as changes in body comp, strength and so forth.

Is creatine hydrochloride better than creatine monohydrate for the improvement of physical performance and hormonal changes in young trained men?

Objectives
The production and sale of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) with annual increase in number and diversity have now become a beneficial industry. At present, there is a kind of creatine supplement, called as creatine hydrochloride (CHCL), which is claimed to have a much higher absorption compared to creatine monohydrate (CRM) supplementation and does not require a loading period. However, this claim has not been fully examined yet. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare the effects of two types of creatine (CHCL and CRM) on physical activity, plasma levels of testosterone (T), and cortisol (Cor) in trained young men.

Equipment and methods
The statistical population of this study included 36 healthy subjects selected by purposive sampling method and with at least six months of resistance training. The subjects were randomly divided into four groups (Group 1: 20 g of CRM, Group 2: 3 g of CRM, Group 3: 3 g of CHCl per day for a week, and Group 4: placebo). The supplements were given to subjects by double-blind manner. Physical performance variables were evaluated on the morning of the first day and before the supplementation, and blood samples (5 cc) were taken in fasting conditions (8Ė10 hours) to measure the plasma levels of T and Cor. The blood samples were taken again after seven days for physical performance measurements.

Results
The results showed that there were no significant differences between the effects of 3 and 20 g of CRM and 3 g of CHCL on the vigor, power, plasma levels of T and Cor, and T/C ratio. In other words, 3 g of CHCL did not result in improved performance and hormonal changes compared to 20 g of CRM.

Conclusion
According to the results, the multi-day period of supplementation with CHCL in comparison to CRM cannot have much effect on performance and improve the hormonal status of individuals in the short term.