Different Does Not Equal Better
I had a brief Skype chat session this morning with one of my industry buds: Will Brink…we were talking about the latest research on creatine ethyl ester (not good), and then moved on to all the different forms of creatine there are on the market now.
Just for fun, I combed through some supplement formulas and put together a little list…here it is:
creatine monohydrate
creatine pyruvate
creatine taurinate
creatine ethyl ester
creatine ethyl ester malate
creatine ethyl carbonate ester
creatine gluconate
creatine malate
dicreatine malate
tricreatine malate
creatine citrate
tricreatine citrate
Kre-Alkalyn
creatine phosphate
creatine alpha-ketoglutarate
creatine-6,8-thioctic Acid-ketoisocaproic Acid Calcium (CREAKIC)
creatine pyroglutamate
“conjugated creatine” (Con-Cret)
magnesium creatine chelate
creatine anhydrous
dicreatine orotate
tricreatine orotate
creatine alpha-amino butyrate
creatine HMB
carnitine creatinate
tricreatine HCA
“titrated creatine”
“creatine serum”Also:
glycocyamine (precursor)
creatinol-o-phosphate (analog)
The fascinating thing is how little “hard” data there is to support ANY of the creatine compounds on this list – with the exception of the first one: creatine monohydrate (CM). CM literally is the “gold standard” when it comes to creatine, and while a few other forms have been tested, not A SINGLE ONE OF THEM has ever been conclusively shown to be a significant improvement over the original, w/respect to gains in lean mass or strength/performance. Yet, the claims made in ads (and patents/patent applications) say otherwise. In addition, proprietary blends of several different forms are quite popular, even though there’s exactly zero proof that a blend of several different forms gives results that are superior to a single one.
Just goes to show you how the appearance of innovation drives the supplement market…it’s all about creating the perception – no proof is required.
