Creatine is the most effective natural muscle and strength-building supplement currently offered. While many versions of creatine exist, monohydrate (CrM) is the most studied and proven form. However, newer creatine, hydrochloride (Cr-HCl), is often touted as superior.
The belief is that since Cr-HCl dissolves better than CrM in liquid, more gets absorbed by the muscles using smaller dosages, and it doesn’t require a loading phase for faster benefits. Dr. Layne Norton, a biochemist and powerlifting champion, dissected a 2024 study comparing the effects of equal servings of monohydrate versus hydrochloride. (1) Watch his seven-minute analysis below:
For the study, 40 resistance-trained men were randomly divided into four groups. They combined resistance training (RT) with either a non-creatine placebo, CrHCl, CrM, or CrM with a loading and maintenance phase for eight weeks.
The subjects used the same creatine doses in grams (g) per kilogram (kg) of body weight (BW):
- RT + Placebo
- RT + CrHCl at 0.03g/kg BW
- RT + CrM at 0.03g/kg BW
- RT + CrM at a loading dose of 0.3g/kg BW followed by a maintenance dose of 0.03g/kg BW
Using low doses in the study offers the best opportunity to determine potential differences.
The Verdict
The literature states, “CrM and Cr-HCl significantly enhanced the beneficial effects of RT on strength, hypertrophy, and hormonal responses, with CrHCl showing no benefit over CrM.”
In Layman’s language, “Creatine hydrochloride is not better than creatine monohydrate,” Norton affirmed, adding, “Just because something is more soluble doesn’t make it more bioavailable.” All creatine groups experienced roughly the same boost in muscle and strength gains.
Is Creatine Hydrochloride Worth It?
“There isn’t a good justification to spend more money on creatine hydrochloride,” Dr. Norton said. If you’re skeptical about CrM’s solubility, mix it in an acidic beverage like orange juice. While some report gastrointestinal distress using monohydrate, splitting the doses should fix that.
Dr. Norton also cited studies on creatine ethyl ester and buffered creatine, which are said to have superior bioavailability. Ethyl ester was less effective than monohydrate, while buffered creatine offered no advantages. (2)(3) “Creatine monohydrate is already 100% bioavailable,” Dr. Norton claims.
For those who feel Dr. Norton is biased toward creatine monohydrate, he reminded, “I have always maintained that creatine monohydrate is the best form because you get all the results at the lowest cost.”
More In Research
- Develop These 5 Habits for a Leaner Physique
- Do You Actually Need Carbs Before Training?
- Does Resistance Training Improve Academic Performance?
References
- Eghbali, E., Arazi, H., & Suzuki, K. (2024). Supplementing With Which Form of Creatine (Hydrochloride or Monohydrate) Alongside Resistance Training Can Have More Impacts on Anabolic/Catabolic Hormones, Strength and Body Composition?. Physiological research, 73(5), 739–753. https://doi.org/10.33549/physiolres.935323
- Spillane, M., Schoch, R., Cooke, M., Harvey, T., Greenwood, M., Kreider, R., & Willoughby, D. S. (2009). The effects of creatine ethyl ester supplementation combined with heavy resistance training on body composition, muscle performance, and serum and muscle creatine levels. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 6, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1550-2783-6-6
- Jagim, A. R., Oliver, J. M., Sanchez, A., Galvan, E., Fluckey, J., Riechman, S., Greenwood, M., Kelly, K., Meininger, C., Rasmussen, C., & Kreider, R. B. (2012). A buffered form of creatine does not promote greater changes in muscle creatine content, body composition, or training adaptations than creatine monohydrate. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 9(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/1550-2783-9-43
Featured image via Shutterstock/Erhan Inga
