I've noticed that creatine decreases myostatin levels (protein that restricts overgrowth of muscles) But i dont know whether or not there are any health problems with this or if nothing really bad will happen with this.
Also some thoughts on creatine Hcl vs creatine monohydrate? And does creatine hcl increase muscle size as better than monohydrate?
Research indicates that creatine Hcl will lead to strength and mass increases while maintaining or even losing weight when compared to micronized creatine monohydrate. This body re-composition effect is based on the decreasing weight of your wallet while matching the gains of the cheaper alternative.
Totally, they can't put stuff on the internet that isn't true.
Pre-workout is gonna be your best bet to assist in your workouts, i actually take 5g in both my pre and post workout shakes though. Some would say its unnecessary but monohydrate is so cheap i dont give a fuck.
Favorite way to take it is to buy the unflavored and mix in my shakes. Its literally flavorless, so wont alter the taste. Mixing in water is like drinking water with sand in it.
IMO PH buffered creatine is the best form, costs a little more though, but when you consider its extra potency its basically the same.
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.
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.
I don't think most people understand that there is only one way to synthesize creatine, and the result of this process is a substance called creatine monohydrate. Any other kind of creatine like ester, phosphate, citrate, alkalyne, whatever is just monohydrate that someone in a lab has fucked with in some way.
Most of the arguments I've seen against HCl boil down to "it's not worth the extra money." Does this mean that it would be worth trying if it were on sale? If the cost per serving is close to the same, my concerns become taste and solubility because let's face it, if it doesn't dissolve perfectly (and many times it doesn't), mono tastes pretty gross.