What Kind Of Creatine Is Best? The Creatine Battle Royal

Creatine is one of the most popular and well-researched supplements in the world, celebrated for its ability to enhance strength, power, and muscle growth. While numerous forms of creatine have emerged over the years, each claiming unique advantages, the conversation often circles back to the original: creatine monohydrate. 

To understand why it remains the benchmark, we’ve taken the liberty to compare many of the most popular forms that exist, examining their composition, proposed benefits, and what the science says about their efficacy.

If you’ve ever wanted a creatine battle royal, this is it!

Creatine Monohydrate

Creatine monohydrate is the OG of creatine supplements, a simple molecule composed of creatine bound to a single water molecule. It’s the form that kicked off the creatine craze in the 1990s and remains the most widely used today. 

Found naturally in foods like red meat and fish, creatine monohydrate works by increasing the body’s stores of phosphocreatine, a compound muscles use to regenerate ATP—the energy currency of cells—during high-intensity efforts like weightlifting or sprinting. However, it might be impractical to consume the amount of meat required to get the necessary dose on a daily basis, making a strong case for effective supplements such as Brickhouse Foundation. Add to the mix the presence of patented Peak ATP, and you’ve got a hard-hitting creatine formulation.

The standard protocol for creatine monohydrate involves a loading phase of 20 grams per day (split into four 5-gram doses) for 5–7 days, followed by a maintenance dose of 3–5 grams daily. Alternatively, some skip the loading phase and stick to 3–5 grams from the start, with saturation occurring more gradually over a few weeks. 

Studies consistently show that either approach boosts muscle creatine levels by 20–40% (albeit, at different speeds), leading to measurable gains in strength, power output, and lean mass. Research also highlights its safety, with decades of data showing no significant adverse effects on kidney or liver function in healthy individuals when taken at recommended doses.

One critique of monohydrate is its solubility—or lack thereof. It tends to settle in water rather than fully dissolve, which some argue could affect absorption. This could be overcome in part by consuming with a carbohydrate-rich meal or beverage. Another common complaint is bloating, attributed to water retention in muscles, though this is often overstated and varies by individual. 

Despite these minor gripes, the sheer volume of research—hundreds of peer-reviewed studies—backs creatine monohydrate as a reliable, cost-effective option. Priced at just a few cents per serving, it’s hard to beat from a practical standpoint.

Creatine Nitrate

Creatine nitrate is a newer contender, pairing creatine with a nitrate group. Nitrates are compounds known for their role in boosting nitric oxide production, which dilates blood vessels and enhances blood flow. 

Supplement companies market creatine nitrate as a dual-action product: delivering the strength and endurance benefits of creatine while also improving vascularity and pumps during workouts. It’s often pitched as more soluble than monohydrate, potentially reducing the gritty texture some dislike (or just consume your monohydrate in capsule form).

The idea is intriguing—combine creatine’s energy-boosting effects with nitrate’s circulatory perks. Some studies on nitrates (typically from sources like beetroot) suggest they can enhance endurance by lowering oxygen cost during exercise, which could theoretically complement creatine’s anaerobic benefits. 

A few small studies specific to creatine nitrate have reported positive outcomes, like increased bench press performance or improved lifting volume, often at doses of 1–3 grams per day. Manufacturers also claim it causes less bloating due to lower required doses.

However, the evidence is thin. Most studies on creatine nitrate are small, industry-funded, or lack rigorous controls. The creatine component likely works as expected, but whether the nitrate addition provides a meaningful edge over monohydrate remains unproven in large-scale, independent trials. 

Solubility might be improved, but absorption data doesn’t clearly show superiority over monohydrate’s well-documented uptake. Plus, creatine nitrate tends to cost more, raising questions about whether the price justifies the purported extras.

Creatine Hydrochloride (HCl)

Creatine hydrochloride, or creatine HCl, bonds creatine to hydrochloric acid, aiming to tackle two perceived flaws of monohydrate: solubility and stomach discomfort. Advocates claim it dissolves better in water, requiring smaller doses (typically 1–2 grams versus 5 grams for monohydrate) to achieve similar muscle saturation. 

This, they argue, reduces water retention and bloating while maintaining efficacy. It’s often marketed to those sensitive to monohydrate’s side effects or seeking a more convenient option.

The science behind creatine HCl leans heavily on its pH-lowering design. By making the compound more acidic, it’s thought to resist breakdown in the stomach, potentially improving bioavailability. A 2012 study suggested creatine HCl could achieve comparable muscle creatine increases at a lower dose than monohydrate, hinting at efficiency. Anecdotal reports from users often praise its ease on the stomach and lack of bloating, making it a popular alternative in pre-workout blends.

Yet, the research is sparse. That 2012 study was small and hasn’t been widely replicated. Larger, long-term trials comparing HCl to monohydrate head-to-head are lacking, leaving its advantages speculative. Monohydrate’s saturation effect is so well-established that even if HCl works at lower doses, it’s unclear if this translates to better performance outcomes. The higher cost—sometimes double that of monohydrate—also undermines its appeal unless definitive proof emerges.

Creatine Ethyl Ester (CEE)

Creatine ethyl ester takes a different approach, attaching an ester group to creatine to enhance its ability to cross cell membranes. The pitch is simple: better absorption means more creatine reaches your muscles, requiring less to get the job done. CEE gained traction in the early 2000s as a supposed upgrade to monohydrate, with claims of no bloating, no loading phase, and superior potency. Doses typically range from 2–5 grams daily.

Early marketing leaned on the esterification concept, borrowed from pharmacology, where esters improve drug delivery. CEE was touted as a leaner, meaner creatine—absorbed faster and more completely, bypassing the digestive issues some associate with monohydrate. User reviews were mixed, with some swearing by its effects and others noticing little difference.

The science, however, tells a different story. A 2009 study directly compared CEE to monohydrate and found it less effective. CEE broke down more readily into creatinine—a waste product—before reaching muscles, therefore reducing its potency. Blood and muscle creatine levels were lower with CEE than with monohydrate at equivalent doses, and performance gains didn’t stack up. 

Additional research reinforced this, showing no advantage in strength or mass gains. The instability of CEE in acidic environments like the stomach likely explains its shortcomings, contradicting the initial hype.

Buffered Creatine (Kre-Alkalyn)

Buffered creatine, patented and commonly sold as Kre-Alkalyn, is marketed as a pH-corrected version of creatine monohydrate. The idea is to raise its alkalinity (typically to a pH of 12) to prevent it from breaking down into creatinine—the inactive byproduct—in the acidic environment of the stomach. Interestingly, this is the opposite of the way the HCL form is believed to work.

Manufacturers claim this stability allows for better absorption, requiring smaller doses (1.5–3 grams daily) without a loading phase. It’s also pitched as a solution to bloating and stomach discomfort, issues some associate with monohydrate’s higher 5-gram doses.

Kre-Alkalyn emerged in the early 2000s with bold assertions: all the benefits of monohydrate with none of the downsides. The buffering process, patented and heavily promoted, suggests that more creatine survives digestion to reach muscles, potentially offering a more efficient delivery system. 

A small 2012 study funded by the Kre-Alkalyn brand reported that it matched monohydrate’s effects on strength and endurance at a lower dose, with participants experiencing fewer side effects like bloating. User testimonials often echo this, praising its ease of use and smooth digestion.

However, independent research casts doubt. A 2015 study compared Kre-Alkalyn to monohydrate and found no significant difference in muscle creatine levels, performance gains, or creatinine production over 28 days. 

Monohydrate’s conversion to creatinine in the stomach is minimal at typical doses, undermining the buffering advantage. Critics argue that Kre-Alkalyn’s benefits are overstated, especially given its higher price tag—often two to three times that of monohydrate. Without large-scale, unbiased trials, its edge remains theoretical rather than proven.

Creatine Citrate

Creatine citrate binds creatine to citric acid, a compound involved in the body’s energy-producing Krebs cycle. This form hit the market as a more soluble alternative to monohydrate, dissolving readily in water for a less gritty texture. 

Supplement companies suggest this improved solubility enhances absorption, requiring doses of 2–5 grams daily. It’s also marketed for its potential synergy with citric acid, which could theoretically boost aerobic energy production alongside creatine’s anaerobic benefits.

Introduced in the 1990s, creatine citrate gained traction as a palatable option for those put off by monohydrate’s chalky residue. Its solubility is a clear win—mixing tests show it disperses more fully than monohydrate, appealing to users who value the convenience. 

Some early studies on citrate hinted at faster uptake in the bloodstream, and its citric acid component has fueled speculation about added endurance perks. You’ll often find it in effervescent tablets or flavored powders, broadening its appeal.

Yet, the evidence doesn’t fully support the hype. While solubility is better, absorption studies show muscle creatine saturation with citrate mirrors monohydrate at equivalent doses, suggesting no real bioavailability advantage. 

The citric acid angle lacks robust backing—research on citrate’s metabolic role doesn’t translate to measurable performance boosts when paired with creatine. A 2007 study found citrate and monohydrate equally effective for strength gains, but citrate’s higher cost and slightly larger dose requirement (due to less creatine per gram) make it a less practical choice for many.

Creatine Malate

Creatine malate combines creatine with malic acid, another player in the Krebs cycle, typically in a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio (di- or tri-creatine malate). Like citrate, it’s touted for superior solubility and a potential energy boost from malic acid, which aids ATP production during exercise. 

Marketers claim this duo enhances endurance and recovery, positioning it as a multi-purpose supplement for both strength and stamina. Recommended doses range from 3–5 grams daily, often without a loading phase.

Creatine malate appeals to athletes seeking a well-rounded performance edge. Its solubility rivals citrate, dissolving smoothly in liquids, which makes it a favorite in pre-workout mixes. Malic acid’s role in energy metabolism sparks interest—studies on malate alone (e.g., in apple extract) suggest it might reduce fatigue in endurance contexts. Anecdotally, users report less bloating and a slight uptick in workout stamina, attributing it to the malate component.

Scientific support, however, is limited. No large studies directly compare creatine malate to monohydrate in terms of muscle creatine uptake or strength outcomes. A 2010 study on tri-creatine malate showed strength improvements, but the trial lacked a monohydrate control group, making it hard to gauge relative efficacy. 

Malic acid’s benefits are plausible but unproven in this context—its contribution appears minor next to creatine’s dominant effect. Priced higher than monohydrate, malate’s added value remains speculative without more data.

Creatine Pyruvate

Creatine pyruvate fuses creatine with pyruvic acid, a compound linked to energy metabolism via the conversion to pyruvate in the body. Launched as a premium option, it boasts high solubility and claims of enhanced bioavailability, with doses typically at 3–5 grams daily. 

The pyruvate component is said to amplify aerobic energy production, potentially aiding endurance while creatine fuels short-burst power. Some brands even suggest it could improve fat metabolism, tapping into pyruvate’s role in glucose utilization.

Introduced in the early 2000s, creatine pyruvate drew attention with a 2001 study showing it increased blood creatine levels more than monohydrate over a single dose. This fueled claims of superior absorption and efficacy, with users noting a cleaner mix and occasional endurance boosts. Pyruvate’s metabolic role adds an intriguing twist—research on calcium pyruvate supplements has linked it to modest fat loss, hinting at possible synergy.

But the evidence falters under scrutiny. That 2001 study didn’t measure muscle creatine levels or long-term performance, limiting its relevance. A 2008 follow-up found pyruvate and monohydrate equally effective for strength gains over weeks, with no significant difference in muscle saturation. 

Pyruvate’s standalone benefits (e.g., fat loss) require doses far higher than what’s provided in creatine pyruvate, diluting its impact here. Cost is another hurdle—it’s pricier than monohydrate, yet the data doesn’t justify the premium for most users.

Creatine Magnesium Chelate

Creatine magnesium chelate binds creatine to magnesium, a mineral essential for muscle function and energy metabolism. This form, often marketed as MagnaPower, aims to enhance absorption and efficacy by leveraging magnesium’s role in ATP production—the same energy system creatine supports. 

Supplement companies claim this chelation protects creatine from stomach acid breakdown, delivering more to muscles with less waste. It’s typically dosed at 2.5–5 grams daily, with promises of reduced bloating and improved workout performance compared to monohydrate.

The concept hinges on synergy: magnesium facilitates ATP recycling, potentially amplifying creatine’s effects on strength and endurance. A 2004 study compared creatine magnesium chelate to monohydrate and a placebo in resistance-trained men. 

Over eight weeks, both creatine forms increased bench press strength similarly, outperforming the placebo, with no notable side effects like bloating reported for either. Advocates highlight this as evidence of equivalence, suggesting the magnesium boost could offer subtle perks, especially for those with low dietary magnesium intake. Its solubility is decent, though not a standout feature.

However, the research is limited. That 2004 study, while promising, was small and industry-linked, and few follow-ups exist. Muscle creatine levels weren’t measured, leaving absorption claims unverified. 

Monohydrate already saturates muscles effectively, so any magnesium-driven edge remains theoretical without larger trials. Priced higher than monohydrate, creatine magnesium chelate appeals to niche users, but its benefits over the standard form lack robust support.

Creatine Orotate

Creatine orotate pairs creatine with orotic acid, a precursor to pyrimidine nucleotides involved in RNA and DNA synthesis. Marketed as another premium option, it’s said to enhance cellular energy beyond monohydrate by supporting nucleotide pools, which could aid recovery and endurance. Doses range from 2–5 grams daily, with claims of better bioavailability and less water retention, appealing to athletes seeking lean gains.

The orotic acid component is the hook—studies on orotate alone suggest it may boost ATP in cardiac tissue, sparking interest in its ergogenic potential. A 2010 study on creatine orotate in rats showed increased muscle creatine and improved exercise capacity, hinting at promise. Users often note its smooth mixing and minimal digestive upset, positioning it as a refined alternative.

Yet, human data is scarce. No major studies compare creatine orotate to monohydrate in trained individuals, leaving its superiority untested. The rat study’s relevance to humans is shaky, and nucleotide benefits are speculative at typical doses. Costlier than monohydrate, it banks on theoretical advantages that science hasn’t solidified.

Final Words

So what should you choose? For 99% of users, monohydrate is the way to go. It’s ridiculously affordable, proven via thousands of studies, and is widely available. We’ve even upped the ante in Foundation by adding jet fuel to the mix in the form of Peak ATP.

Ultimately, take it from someone who has tried many of the offshoots. You’ll be lucky to get an equivalent effect, but you will definitely be more out of pocket in getting there.