First Study to Provide Evidence Creatine HCL Could Beat Monohydrate as a Muscle Builder and Fat Shredder, BUT...

First Study to Provide Evidence Creatine HCL Could Beat Monohydrate as a Muscle Builder and Fat Shredder, BUT...

body composition build muscle creatine creatine HCL creatine monohydrate lose fat

"Dude, that better be creatine HCL in dat drink of yours, because..." - bullshit, no?

I have to admit that I still have my doubts about the reproducibility and practical significance of the results, but since the authors declare that they have no competing interests, I think it is worth taking a look at what is the first (and only) study to suggest that any of the bazillion allegedly "superior" forms of creatine are actually an improvement over good old plain creatine monohydrate.

You will probably have heard the yadiyada about how creatine doesn't dissolve properly and creatine HCL was 41 times more soluble in water than creatine monohydrate, would permeate the intestinal tract easier and would thus yield significantly better results than plain monohydrate... right?

Obviously you've heard that bullshit. "Bullshit"? Yes, it's bullshit, because as of now there has been ZERO experimental evidence that the last and most important claim that the increased solubility of the product would improve its effect is more than yet another marketing gag.

You can learn more about creatine at the SuppVersity

Creatine Doubles 'Ur GainZ!

Creatine, DHT & Broscience

Creatine Pre or After Workouts?

ALA + Creatine = Max Uptake?

Creatine Blunts Fat Loss?

Build 'Ur Own Buffered Creatine

With a recent study from Brazil, this evidence appears to be finally there. In the corresponding experiment, Elias de Franca et al. compared the effects of two different doses of creatine HCl (1.5 g and 5 g) with creatine monohydrate (or "monohidrate" as the scientists like to spell it ;-) on the strength (std. 1-RM testing) and body composition (skinfold method) of recreational weightlifters.

As the scientists point out, all subjects had their diet homogenized by the research team nutritionist. In addition, subjects who hadn't been "creatine free" for at least 2 months were excluded. Whey protein, ad other amino acid supplements were - that's my understanding of the full text - allowed, but "managed to fit in the protein amount of the diet" (Franca. 2015). How much of a standardization in terms supplementation existed, is yet by no means clear. What I can tell you is that all subjects received either placebo (CG | capsules with resistant starch), 5 g creatine monohydrate (CMG), 5g creatine HCL (HCl-1) or 1.5 g creatine HCL (HCl-2) for 28 days. In that, the dosage for the creatine monohydrate group was selected based on a study by Hultman et al. that shows that 5 g of CrM during 28 days, is enough to promote the ergogenic effects of the supplement. By choosing the same and a lower dose of creatine HCL of which the the manufacturer obviously claims that it has the same effect as 5 g of the real deal, Franca et al. were able to (a) verify / falsify the claim and (b) check whether increasing the dosage beyond those 1.5g that are supposedly equal to 5 g of creatine monohydrate would yield significant advantages..

Figure 1: Pre / post (and rel. change in % above post-bar) strength data (de Franca. 2015).

As you would expect it, the training alone produced some changes in the male and female subjects' strength parameters. Figure 1 displays how the 1RM strength on the leg and bench press developed over the course of the 28 days and 8 workouts that were completed in an AB, CD, AB, CD fashion, i.a. as a basic 2-way split with different exercises in weeks 1, 3 vs. 2, 4. All programs (full text lacks detailed information) were composed of four exercises of chest and back muscles, three to shoulder muscles, four to legs muscles, three to biceps and triceps, and two abdominal exercises, though; and subjects performed four sets of 10 to 12 reps (80% to 90% of 1 MR) of each exercise and with every set being executed until momentary exhaustion.

No significant inter-group differences = no true benefit! In contrast to what you will probably read elsewhere the study at hand did not really show that creatine HCL is superior to creatine monohydrate. It did, not even as the scientists rightly say "induce changes on body composition in recreational weightlifters" (de Franca. 2015) while creatine monohydrate did not. Why's that? Well, de Franca et al. have (deliberately or not) left out two words that are of utmost importance: statistically significant. These two words must go before the word "changes" and they tell you that the body composition changes in the creatine HCL group with their laughable N = 7 and N = 6 subjects were significant, while those in the monohydrate group (N = 8) were not. On average, however, both groups gained almost the same amount of muscle and lost almost the same amount of fat. Accordingly, there is no wonder that there is no significant inter-group difference... not even for the placebo group, by the way. To say that one, i.e. PLA, CreM or CreHCL has been shown to yield superior results would thus be simply lying (most likely to increase one's sale).

Interestingly, enough, the scientist analysis of the data shows that none of the (in absolute terms high) increases in bench press performance reached statistical significance. Similarly, the only 1-RM increase for the leg press was the one in the 5g creatine HCL group, where the probability p that the increase we see was coincidental is smaller than 5% (p < 0.05)

Figure 2: Pre / post (and rel. change in % above post-bar) body composition data (de Franca. 2015).

If we continue to look at statistical significant results, only, the data in Figure 2 is what will make snake oil vendors love and abuse this study: according to the researchers' statistics software, only the 8% reduction in body fat of the two creatine HCL groups and the 15% increase in lean mass in the 5g creatine HCL groups were statistically significant.

Now, malicious gossip has it that this wouldn't prove anything, because there is (a) no significant inter-group difference, and because (b) the absolute increase in lean mass in the creatine monohydrate group was greater than in any HCL group and that the subjects in the 8 subjects in the monohydrate group were much fatter (yes, not significantly, though) than the 13 men and women in the other two groups. Speaking of men and women,... I wonder why the authors don't disclose the number of each in the groups. They only say that there were 60-70% men, 30-40% women in both groups. Well, that's nice, but since de Franca et al. "lost" 13 of their 40 subjects along the way (the abstract says they had 40 subjects, but there are 6, 7, 6, and 8 subjects in the four groups), this only adds to the already existing doubts about the reliability, reproducibility and the foreseeable mainstream interpretation of this study.

Want to "Advance" Your Creatine? Add Bicarbonate | read more

Bottom line: You may be asking yourselves why I am not all excited now. Well, I tell you what: The scientists write that they "hypothesized that, CrHCl im proves performance similarly to CrM, but promotes different results in body composition" (de Franca. 2015) - why on earth would they do that. If there was a science-based hypothesis to be made, it would be that creatine HCL would yield the same effects as creatine at lower dosages, because it dissolves better and is taken up faster (Gufford. 2010), so that less is necessary to saturate the muscle. To speculate that it would produce of all things what people are willing to pay for the most is... to say the least, a bit suspicious, don't you agree?

The same goes for the surprising "coincidence" that the researchers, who obviously couldn't afford reliable DXA scans (Pietrobelli. 1998) *cough*, were able to conclude, without reference to the conclusion being (a) based on the lack of statistical significance and (b) made in view of identical changes in body mass (within standard deviations), that their caliper data tells them "that CrHCl and CrM improve performance but only CrHCl induces changes on the body composition in recreational weightlifters" (de Franca. 2015).

Thus, I personally would suggest we all wait for independent, adequately powered research to (a) confirm the findings and (b) show that there is a significant inter-group difference with an advantage for creatine HCL. Until that study is done, peer-reviewed and published, I refuse to get all excited about yet another form of allegedly "superior creatine" companies use for the sole purpose of increasing the margins on products that would otherwise hardly have margin | Comment!

References:

• de França, Elias, et al. "Creatine HCl and Creatine Monohydrate Improve Strength but Only Creatine HCl Induced Changes on Body Composition in Recreational Weightlifters." Food and Nutrition Sciences 6.17 (2015): 1624.
• Gufford, Brandon T., et al. "Physicochemical characterization of creatine N-methylguanidinium salts." Journal of dietary supplements 7.3 (2010): 240-252.
• Pietrobelli, Angelo, et al. "Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: fat estimation errors due to variation in soft tissue hydration." American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology And Metabolism 274.5 (1998): E808-E816.
• Wells, J. C. K., and M. S. Fewtrell. "Measuring body composition." Archives of Disease in Childhood 91.7 (2006): 612-617.

Resistance Training, Not Starving Yourself or "Cardio" is Key to Successful Fat (!) Loss -- Metabolic Stress Appears to Determine Improvements in Body Composition & Health

Resistance Training, Not Starving Yourself or "Cardio" is Key to Successful Fat (!) Loss -- Metabolic Stress Appears to Determine Improvements in Body Composition & Health

body composition build muscle calorie reduction cardio lose fat resistance training starvation weights

Just look at the guys surrounding you, girls. How on earth will you get bulky if they are training like maniacs and still look like size-zero bans?

"Overfat", that's a term scientists use to refer to obese, but more importantly over- or even normal-weight people who are still carrying exuberant amounts of body fat around. In a recent meta-analysis, James E. Clark from the Manchester Community College tried to figure out, which of the significant numbers of means of methods to alter body composition, and metabolic issues that are available for the adult who is overfat is the "best" one.

In his review, the scientists focused on comparing changes from treatment program for adults who are overfat based on analysis of aggregated effect size (ES) of inducing changes from 66-population based studies, and 162-studywise groups.

Learn more about dieting and not ruining your metabolism @ www.suppversity.com

Orgasm Hormone Increases REE

9 Tricks to Keep You REE Up

High EAA Intake, High REE

You're not a Bomb Calorimeter

Calorie Shifting for Max. Fat Loss

Met. Damage in Big Losers?

Clark's analysis of this large dataset yielded both, obvious and less obvious results. The realization that "a hypocaloric balance [=dietary restriction] is necessary for changing body composition" (Clark. 2015), for example is hardly surprising.

Figure 1: There's little doubt that the overall improvements in body composition (figures are effect sizes for loss of fat, increase in lean mass) are the most pronounced in response to diet + resistance training (but non-existent w/ resistance training, only - not shown). What is surprising is the low efficacy of combined training programs, though (Clark. 2015).

What may be surprising, though is the fact that the available evidence indicates that the size and effectiveness of the caloric deficit "does not equate with the effectiveness for body compositional changes, or any biomarkers associated with metabolic issues" (Clark. 2015). In other words: It's not the guy or gal who diets the hardest who will lose the largest amounts of body fat.

Figure 2: The effect sizes of the interventions' effects on insulin, leptin, cholesterol & co yields similar results: The combination of resistance training and diet has (on average) the most favorable effects (Clark. 2015).

As the data in Figure 1 goes to show you, the combination with exercise is generally beneficial. In view of the fact that being "overfat" is also associated with being undermuscled, there's yet no reason to doubt Clark's conclusion that

"resistance training (RT) was more effective than endurance training (ET) or combination of RT and ET, particularly when progressive training volume of 2-to-3 sets for 6-to-10 reps at an intensity of ≥75% 1RM, utilizing whole body and free-weight exercises, at altering body compositional measures (ES of 0.47, 0.30, and 0.40 for loss of BM, FM, and retention of FFM respectively)" (Clark. 2015)

Now, while this may still be in line with at least some of the mainstream recommendations, Clark's observation that the RT regimen was also more effective at reducing total cholesterol (ES = 0.85), triglycerides (ES = 0.86) and low-density lipoproteins (ES = 0.60), as well as at reducing fasting insulin levels (ES = 3.5) than endurance training or  endurance training and resistance training in combination emphasizes how much of a game changer (intense!) resistance training can actually be.

Avoid black and white thinking! Despite the fact that the meta-analysis at hand shows on average that interventions that focus on diet + resistance training are the most effective ones. It would be haphazard to conclude that doing a moderate amount of cardio would be counter-productive. If you use it, to eat more, it may in fact impair your results. If you go for a 20-minute jog at a moderate pace thrice per week, though, this is neither going to burn away muscle mass, nor stalling your fat loss. As discussed below, the lack of additional effects of combined training in the meta-analysis at hand may well be caused by factors that have nothing to do with the often-heard-off ill effects of moderate intensity cardio.

Figure 3: The good results some studies on combined training show suggest that the lack of benefits in the meta-analysis may be a statistical phenomenon, or a result of certain aspects of the individual study design (e.g. low volume or intensity) in some of the studies (data from Donnely. 1991).

There's thus just one thing we still have to address: Why is doing both, cardio and resistance training not more effective? Well, the answer may be hidden in the study design, where the combination training rarely complied to the previously outlined rules of a high intensity, progressive, high volume resistance training workout with free weights. In addition studies that met these criteria, such as Cuff et al. (2003), for example, didn't measure the body composition of their female subjects and focused on weight changes, exclusively. In the exceptional studies that had both a sensible resistance training regimen and comprehensive analyses of body composition in place, on the other hand, suggest that the lack of benefits in the combined training analysis of Clark's study may be a statistical phenomenon.

Bottom line: If you still need material to convince your significant other that hitting the weights is not only more time-efficient and less daunting than hours on the treadmill, but also more effective when it comes to improving his/her body composition and/or health, I'd suggest you print this article and pin it on your fridge.

Losing Weight Doesn't Have to Ruin Your Metabolism | more

Eventually, though, the article has another, even more important message than "resistance beats cardio training". Which one? Well, there is "no relationship between any treatments effectiveness for inducing acute changes in energetic balance with the effectiveness for induced responses to body composition or biomarkers of health from said treatment program" (Clark. 2015). A revelation that reinforces the idea that our individual body composition is not a function of energy intakes vs. expenditure. The effects of metabolic stress, which is obviously greater for resistance and HIIT training (compared to steady state, the HIIT studies in the meta-analysis yielded better results, too), on the other hand is still underappreciated by both practitioners and scientists of who James E. Clark is one of the first to conclude that the "focus of treatment should be on producing a large metabolic stress (as induced by RT or high levels of ET [don't overdo it on "cardio", though | learn why]) rather than an energetic imbalance for adults who are overfat" (Clark. 2015) | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Clark, James E. "Diet, exercise or diet with exercise: comparing the effectiveness of treatment options for weight-loss and changes in fitness for adults (18–65 years old) who are overfat, or obese; systematic review and meta-analysis." Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders 14.1 (2015): 31.
• Cuff, Darcye J., et al. "Effective exercise modality to reduce insulin resistance in women with type 2 diabetes." Diabetes care 26.11 (2003): 2977-2982.
• Donnelly, Joseph E., et al. "Effects of a very-low-calorie diet and physical-training regimens on body composition and resting metabolic rate in obese females." The American journal of clinical nutrition 54.1 (1991): 56-61.