IMO PH buffered creatine is the best form, costs a little more though, but when you consider its extra potency its basically the same.[/quote]
pH buffered = kre-alk?
I’ve taken it a couple of times and to be honest did not notice much different gains than from taking mono, besides from costing a lot more. I’ve also read a lot of guys saying that kre-alk was basically mono + baking soda.
There isnt any difference really in what it does, but you can supposedly take significantly less to get the same benefits. I have taken both for extended periods of time and noticed no difference in performance (which is the point) but i was taking less creatine per day with the kre-alk than with monohydrate.
Not sure what brand/where you buy it from but the kre-alkalyn i was taking wasnt much more than monohydrate. If you are taking it in the same quantities as monohydrate then i could see it costing significantly more.
The main reason i took the kre-alk was to minimize water retention, i look bloated enough as it is from my current bulk diet.
Either way its not like one is far superior than the other. They both provide the same benefits. [/quote]
I was taking Sci-Fit Kre Alk. Looking back I can’t really tell whether it really worked or not since I only figured out how much creatine I really need on traning day a few months ago (at around 8-10g altogether). The chances I underdosed are expressive since it’s so easy to lose track on that “you don’t have to take as much as mono” ideal.
About water retention, I can’t say there’s a noticeable difference between both… I guess to each its own.