PDA

View Full Version : Creatine Hydrochloride - Need pro advice, cannot find other posts



warrior504th
01-15-2009, 11:44 AM
I have searched google, and the two supplement boards here for something on Creatine Hydrochloride. I really hate asking questions as you pro's have covered almost everything conceivable already here... but here goes, as I cannot find it!

Creatine Hydrochloride: In the form of GNC's Amped 189 (pill) I heard that there are digestion issues with some people... I dont seem to be having this issue, so other than that, is there something that makes it ACTUALLY more/less effective than straight mono? I would prefer not to be bloated, but I want end-results and would take the bloating of monohydrate if hydrochloride is a big waste.

I have already opened and begun taking the hydrochloride. I am 'loading' at only 12.5g by the recommendations on the label stating that it absorbs twice as effectively; you cant believe labels these days, so I figured I'd ask the pros on that as well.

More or less: is Hydrochloride less effective? is there anything I should watch out for other than digestive issues? Is there something special I must avoid lest it destroy the effect of hydrochloride?

warrior504th
01-15-2009, 12:23 PM
bump.

anyone know anything about hydrochloride? I'm dyin' for some solid info here.

warrior504th
01-15-2009, 12:39 PM
I found one link where they say the acid in creatine hydrochloride destroys the creatine and makes it a waste. someone way later in it said something about chloride leading to impotence.... doubt this is true though.

Anyone, anything??

lastlieutenant
03-31-2009, 08:19 PM
Just wanted to say that I've purchased it myself. I'm guessing that your taking the GNC Amplified Creatine 189? I think it might be the only product on the market right now with Creatine HCL.

From what I've read, the reviews are great, and I'm in my second week of using it.

My first cycle of creatine I used CellTech Hardcore and put on about 8-10 pounds in a month and a half. Solid lean muscle. No increase in body fat.

The second cycle of creatine I'm doing started last Saturday, so I'm on day 10 of this GNC Amplified Creatine 189. I've noticed a 5 pound increase in 10 days, and more stamina in my workouts. I'm guessing I can put on more weight and strength though, because I wasn't using a protein supplement for those 10 days, and I was not getting the amount of water required. Not even close.

I'm gonna write a body blog entry about my experience with GNC Amplified Creatine 189 when I get through the bottle, which should be in about a month.

If your already taking it, I read that breaking the pills in half helps absorption, and that you should be drinking about 1.5-2 gallons of water per day. 1 gallon just because your lifting pretty heavy, and another gallon b/c of the creatine your taking.

Just my 2 cents.

krager54
03-31-2009, 09:32 PM
Yeah I had great results with 189. I didn't have problems digesting it either, but I chewed them up just to be safe. Within a week of my first cycle, I saw noticeable gains in strength, stamina, and energy. My max rep bench of 205lbs went from 6 to 10 after about a week and a half. I'm actually thinking about stacking it with Kre-Alkalyn EFX that I just bought.

The only info I've gotten on it is what's on the package. You know, like 400% more efficient and all that...

warrior504th
03-31-2009, 09:44 PM
Isn't Creatine Hydrochloride ACTUALLY Creatine Ethyl Ester Hydrochloride?

Creatine, with an ester attached, held together by hydrochloric acid and thus in a salt-like form...?

If not, it sounds like creatine bound to hydrochloric acid, and if I recall what I recently have read, hydrochloric acid is used to keep pills solid and is not absorbed... if your creatine is bound to it, wouldn't that defeat the purpose?

theone787
03-31-2009, 09:44 PM
Just wanted to say that I've purchased it myself. I'm guessing that your taking the GNC Amplified Creatine 189? I think it might be the only product on the market right now with Creatine HCL.

From what I've read, the reviews are great, and I'm in my second week of using it.

My first cycle of creatine I used CellTech Hardcore and put on about 8-10 pounds in a month and a half. Solid lean muscle. No increase in body fat.

The second cycle of creatine I'm doing started last Saturday, so I'm on day 10 of this GNC Amplified Creatine 189. I've noticed a 5 pound increase in 10 days, and more stamina in my workouts. I'm guessing I can put on more weight and strength though, because I wasn't using a protein supplement for those 10 days, and I was not getting the amount of water required. Not even close.

I'm gonna write a body blog entry about my experience with GNC Amplified Creatine 189 when I get through the bottle, which should be in about a month.

If your already taking it, I read that breaking the pills in half helps absorption, and that you should be drinking about 1.5-2 gallons of water per day. 1 gallon just because your lifting pretty heavy, and another gallon b/c of the creatine your taking.

Just my 2 cents.

i'm can assure you that your 8-10lb gain did not come solely from celltech hardcore

warrior504th
03-31-2009, 09:45 PM
Yeah I had great results with 189. I didn't have problems digesting it either, but I chewed them up just to be safe. Within a week of my first cycle, I saw noticeable gains in strength, stamina, and energy. My max rep bench of 205lbs went from 6 to 10 after about a week and a half. I'm actually thinking about stacking it with Kre-Alkalyn EFX that I just bought.

The only info I've gotten on it is what's on the package. You know, like 400% more efficient and all that...

I'm almost positive Creatine Hydrochloride is Creatine Ethyl Ester Hydrochloride. If it is, I highly recommend you do not chew it... I wouldn't chew any hydrochloride product to begin with, but especially not that.

EDIT: May also be worth noting that a creatine lode of 20g is great, but only proven effective for the first 3-4 days. Also, it only brings about the effect sooner (1-2 weeks sooner) and not ever BETTER results.

chasinSKURT
03-31-2009, 09:52 PM
Creatine HCl in no way implies an ethyl ester...

This is probably the worst creatine idea I've ever seen. Creatine HCl? HCl is an acid (when mixed in solution), so technically all it would do is lower your stomach pH, and help to convert creatine to creatinine.

Horrible idea.

Also, you'd be able to tell if it were CEE by the smell... the stuff reeks.

warrior504th
03-31-2009, 09:53 PM
Creatine HCl in no way implies an ethyl ester...

This is probably the worst creatine idea I've ever seen. Creatine HCl? HCl is an acid (when mixed in solution), so technically all it would do is lower your stomach pH, and help to convert creatine to creatinine.

Horrible idea.

I rofled :D Thank you for the correction.

Now, we await the "But GNC says its 189% better lulz!"

warrior504th
03-31-2009, 09:56 PM
Hydrochloric Acid lulz @ 2:25

dont eat aluminum foil afterwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iqs4o1ePbhc

SharpieGoal
03-31-2009, 10:00 PM
I didn't have a great experience with the Amp189...No digestion issues are anything like that, but nowhere near as affective as mono powder (for me that is).

I had to dump half the bottle off on a buddy of mine, it just wasn't doing it for me.

chasinSKURT
03-31-2009, 10:03 PM
Hydrochloric Acid lulz @ 2:25

dont eat aluminum foil afterwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iqs4o1ePbhc

Ha, nice.

I've never tried that in school or heard of anyone doing that, but I imagine the HCl reacts with Al and yields aluminum chloride, and gaseous hydrogen.

HCl + Al ---> AlCl (aqueous) + H (gas)

warrior504th
03-31-2009, 10:07 PM
Ha, nice.

I've never tried that in school or heard of anyone doing that, but I imagine the HCl reacts with Al and yields aluminum chloride, and gaseous hydrogen.

HCl + Al ---> AlCl (aqueous) + H (gas)

AH! Now I understand why they want to bind it to creatine for ingestion!


















not.

Cobraboy
08-24-2009, 07:55 PM
bumpity bump...



I just bought some of this today. Does anybody else have some info on it? If this stuff is crap I'm just gonna take it back.


Keeping receipts ftw

TMac26
08-24-2009, 08:03 PM
I'm curious also...as the new C-Bol has creatine HCL in it..and people are raving about it...

mr.giggles
08-24-2009, 08:06 PM
MRI CE2 has the same creatine in it as well...been around for a awhile...

TMac26
08-24-2009, 08:09 PM
MRI CE2 has the same creatine in it as well...been around for a awhile...



That IS Creatine Ethyl Ester Hydrocloride.....Creatine HCL is Creatine Hydrocloride

Cobraboy
08-24-2009, 08:15 PM
What is the difference between the ethyl ester and the reg creatine hydrochloride then? Should I take this stuff like I normally would any other creatine powder?

I have been using creatine for years and have always liked the results. I guess the Hydrochloride creatine doesn't cause bloating? How is that possible when creatine causes water retention? Isn't that how it works?

Somebody with a little more scientific savy please clarify... lol. All I need to know is what is so different about it and does it work any better.

400% better ajfa;lkjdfakja;d... lmfao... no but seriously.

TMac26
08-24-2009, 08:17 PM
What is the difference between the ethyl ester and the reg creatine hydrochloride then? Should I take this stuff like I normally would any other creatine powder?

I have been using creatine for years and have always liked the results. I guess the Hydrochloride creatine doesn't cause bloating? How is that possible when creatine causes water retention? Isn't that how it works?

Somebody with a little more scientific savy please clarify... lol. All I need to know is what is so different about it and does it work any better.

400% better ajfa;lkjdfakja;d... lmfao... no but seriously.



IMO...Creatine Ethyl Ester is junk studies have proven it to be junk.....Creatine HCL works pretty well...used that "189" but i crushed up the pills into powder (i hate horsepills)

Cobraboy
08-24-2009, 08:23 PM
yeah from what I read about it the hydrochoride seems good. The pills are freakin' monstrous lol.. I already broke them in half earlier when I opened the bottle.

I'm excited to hit the gym tomorrow... I also picked up that Wheyabolic extreme 60 powder. Stuff seems legit. So I'm using pretty much all GNC brands at the moment. I also have the AMP Mass XXX.

By the way...... cookies and cream.......... o?0... wowsa

TMac26
08-24-2009, 08:25 PM
yeah from what I read about it the hydrochoride seems good. The pills are freakin' monstrous lol.. I already broke them in half earlier when I opened the bottle.

I'm excited to hit the gym tomorrow... I also picked up that Wheyabolic extreme 60 powder. Stuff seems legit. So I'm using pretty much all GNC brands at the moment. I also have the AMP Mass XXX.

By the way...... cookies and cream.......... o?0... wowsa




Wheybolic is good but god its expensive...i only use it post workout and 2 scoops only at that

Cobraboy
08-24-2009, 08:29 PM
yeah it is very very expensive... but I don't mind payin' for quality I guess. And I agree, 60g in one shot is too much for me... I usually do like a 30-40g shake (milk included) after a workout then a little bit of a smaller one right before bed.. like 20 or so

in10city
08-25-2009, 02:33 AM
What is the difference between the ethyl ester and the reg creatine hydrochloride then? Should I take this stuff like I normally would any other creatine powder?

I have been using creatine for years and have always liked the results. I guess the Hydrochloride creatine doesn't cause bloating? How is that possible when creatine causes water retention? Isn't that how it works?

Somebody with a little more scientific savy please clarify... lol. All I need to know is what is so different about it and does it work any better.

400% better ajfa;lkjdfakja;d... lmfao... no but seriously.
CEE underperforms when compared to CrM on a number of measurable variables [creatine elevation rate, creatinine level, extracellular water].

CrHCl and enteric coated PEG/CrHcl [Amp 189] are not exactly the same and have different pharmacokinetics.

Here's some PEG/CrHCl info: http://recomp.com/wiki/index.php5?title=Polyethylene_Glycosylated_Creatin e

And some CrHCl info: http://www.sportsnutritionsociety.org/conference_presentations/ISSNConference_200906_Miller.pdf

The CrHCl has better solubility and produces a larger AUC compared to an equivalent amount of CrM. Less GI distress would likely be experienced and probably a bit less can be used to acheive the same AUC.

MarkFaulkner
01-13-2010, 01:44 PM
Okay, for starters, let me engage in full disclosure.......My name is Mark Faulkner and I am one of the inventors of Creatine Hydrochloride (CH) and am one of the patent holders for CH.

This forum is new to me and I am guessing with my schedule I won't be able to come read it too often but will do so as often as possible in case anyone has questions OR, if desired, I can give my email address and when people email with questions, they can post my replies in here as they wish.

Anyway, I will try to respond to the various comments and questions I see in here...

First to answer Mr. Warrior on a few things, CH is not a waste compared to creatine monohydrate (CM). The performance of CH is in all relevant categories (strength building, recovery after workout and between sets, endurance during strenuous exertion, and side effects) is far superior to CM. We have studied this molecule at length since synthesizing it back in early 2003 (it was actually made by mistake when we were synthesizing creatine ethyl ester hydrochloride for MRI's CE2...we erred on a batch and CH is what we ended up with). In the categories of molecular stability, solubility, and plasma uptake into the bloodstream, CH far exceeds CM in desired properties.

And Mr. Warrior, you don't need to load CH. And no cycling on and off is required or suggested. And no certain things to be concerned about with CH in terms of "destroying" it's effects because it is remarkably stable. The only thing I would observe since you say you are taking GNC's Amp 189 is the oddity that with GNC's formulation of our molecule, they are using what they describe as a patent-pending PEG (polyethylene glycol) additive/coating/conjugation with the CH and our studies indicate that this PEG product structure inhibits full uptake of our CH molecule. I wouldn't have formulated it in that manner.

Further Mr. Warrior, not sure where you read about the acid of CH destroying the creatine, but that is not accurate. The creatine is very stable with this conjugation throughout the ingestion and bio-uptake process. We presented studies at the International Society of Sports Nutrition that confirmed this fact. (good of you to be digging into all the info you can find, though!). As for chloride leading to impotence...(quite funny)...since your stomach is full of hydrochloric acid, it should be pretty apparent that such a concern is not well-founded.

To Mr. LastLieutinant's comment about 189 being the only CH product on the market...actually the first product on the market with CH is Con-Cret (see con-cret dotcom) and Amp 189 is somewhat of a GNC knock-off of Con-Cret (CC), although CC doesn't have the PEG formulation, it's just pure CH. And also, normal hydration is all that's required of someone taking CH...whatever is recommended for an active person. It's always important to stay properly hydrated when doing any exercise, with or without supplementation.

For Mr. Krager...Kre-Alkalyn is just CM powder that has been blended with a buffering powder. But once in the gut where the stomach acid neutralizes any buffer, all you are left with is CM with it's traditional properties. If you are taking an effective creatine, you don't need to add another creatine.

Back to Mr. Warrior (I'm reading these posts in sequence!)...no, CH is not CEE...they are quite different molecules with very different properties and appearance. As a summary here is an edited version of something I wrote for another inquiry on the differences:
Creatine ethly ester hydrochloride (CEE) is a compound that typically is
synthesized by reacting creatine monohydrate (CM), in a solution / slurry
with ethanol, in the presence of an acid catalyst. This process removes hydrate from the creatine molecule and conjugates the creatine molecule with an ethyl ester molecule derived from the alcohol medium. This change in molecular structure aids in
bioavailibility and solubility (thereby, potency) in a range of 11x vs CM. CEE is a fine talc-like powder with low particle density and a very bitter taste. ON THE OTHER HAND, creatine hydrochloride (CH) has no ethyl ester conjugation and therefore retains a creatine salt characteristic, albeit profoundly more bioavailable and soluble (thereby,
greater potency). Unlike CEE or CM, pure CH has a crystal-salt-like appearance with high particle density and a very tart taste. It's different molecular structure results in a 59x improvement in solubility (potential for uptake into the blood). It's structure and solubility makes CH exceptionally symbiotic with the G.I. tract and the body's affinity for absorbing aqueous-soluble nutrients (i.e. if things aren't in solution, they won't get into your bloodstream).

As for Mr. ChasinSKURT, I smile as I completely disagree with your assessment of CH being the worst creatine idea. First, it wasn't an idea, it was a discovery and we were surprised at the molecule's properties but as we studied it over a number of years, it made sense why it performed so well. And to correct you, it would be difficult for anything ingestible to lower to the pH of the gut...it is very acidic on it's own and we can't orally consume things strong enough to effect it's pH...such things would eat our mouth and esophagus. And as for a low pH causing creatine to convert to creatinine, that is simply not accurate -- creatine, even fragile ones like CEE, are VERY stable in low pH. It's when pH's are closer to neutral that some, like CM and CEE, convert to creatinine. Pure CH though, is very stable at low or neutral or high pH and has virtually no conversion to creatinine.

For Mr. TMac26...I am unfamiliar with C-Bol but will try to find something on it when I have a chance.

For Mr.Giggles...MRI's CE2 is CEE and is not the same compound as CH in Con-Cret or Amp189 (I know this well because as referenced above, I was the source for CEE for MRI's CE2 product...I developed commercial production methods for the reseachers at Nebraska who were synthesizing the CEE molecule). (So Mr. TMac26's comment on the difference is correct!).

For Mr. CobraBoy, creatine doesn't cause water retention, CM causes water retention...and really water/fluid "re-distribution" and the body struggles to deal with and excrete the overload amounts of CM and other poorly soluble creatines that are necessary to get "some" of the compound into the bloodstream.

Back to Mr. TMac26, CEE isn't junk...it actually has excellent science behind it and it is more soluble than CM or others, just not as soluble and bio-available as CH.

Mr. In10City is correct in his 8/25/09 comments.

Anyway, sorry I wasn't around earlier to respond to these but I hope this helps...

Mark Faulkner
markf at vireosystems dotcom

jharri21
01-20-2010, 07:23 PM
In regards to GNC's CH supplement "Amplified 189" because of the coating it inhibits the CH . Would chewing the pill up when taken improve overall absorption? I have just started taking this supplement and hope to retreive good results does anyone have any advice? Thanks

chasinSKURT
01-20-2010, 07:34 PM
CEE underperforms when compared to CrM on a number of measurable variables [creatine elevation rate, creatinine level, extracellular water].

CrHCl and enteric coated PEG/CrHcl [Amp 189] are not exactly the same and have different pharmacokinetics.

Here's some PEG/CrHCl info: http://recomp.com/wiki/index.php5?title=Polyethylene_Glycosylated_Creatin e

And some CrHCl info: http://www.sportsnutritionsociety.org/conference_presentations/ISSNConference_200906_Miller.pdf

The CrHCl has better solubility and produces a larger AUC compared to an equivalent amount of CrM. Less GI distress would likely be experienced and probably a bit less can be used to acheive the same AUC.

I'm still sticking with CrM, as its ability to cause stomach distress seems blown out of proportion, and I'd much rather have H2O as an immediate metabolite versus H+ ions from using an ergogenic.

Just my $.02

will335
03-16-2010, 01:05 PM
I stopped taking this 2 weeks ago after about 9 months on and with 3x per week workouts have noticed no difference in strength or bodyweight or energy.

I was also taking GNC's beta-alanine and stopped that too, with no loss in any of the above categories.

Thermoburst is also out in favor of caffeine powder, for about 1/10th of the price.

Joeker31
06-29-2010, 09:20 AM
To Mark, Since you created both the creatine for GNC's Amplified 189 and also the Creatine for MRI's CEE what would you say is a better form of creatine to use? Ive always been a big fan of cell tech hardcore by muscletech and if Creatine HCL is as good as you say it is im surprised MT hasnt jumped on the bandwagon yet....appreciate the feedback , thanks.






Okay, for starters, let me engage in full disclosure.......My name is Mark Faulkner and I am one of the inventors of Creatine Hydrochloride (CH) and am one of the patent holders for CH.

This forum is new to me and I am guessing with my schedule I won't be able to come read it too often but will do so as often as possible in case anyone has questions OR, if desired, I can give my email address and when people email with questions, they can post my replies in here as they wish.

Anyway, I will try to respond to the various comments and questions I see in here...

First to answer Mr. Warrior on a few things, CH is not a waste compared to creatine monohydrate (CM). The performance of CH is in all relevant categories (strength building, recovery after workout and between sets, endurance during strenuous exertion, and side effects) is far superior to CM. We have studied this molecule at length since synthesizing it back in early 2003 (it was actually made by mistake when we were synthesizing creatine ethyl ester hydrochloride for MRI's CE2...we erred on a batch and CH is what we ended up with). In the categories of molecular stability, solubility, and plasma uptake into the bloodstream, CH far exceeds CM in desired properties.

And Mr. Warrior, you don't need to load CH. And no cycling on and off is required or suggested. And no certain things to be concerned about with CH in terms of "destroying" it's effects because it is remarkably stable. The only thing I would observe since you say you are taking GNC's Amp 189 is the oddity that with GNC's formulation of our molecule, they are using what they describe as a patent-pending PEG (polyethylene glycol) additive/coating/conjugation with the CH and our studies indicate that this PEG product structure inhibits full uptake of our CH molecule. I wouldn't have formulated it in that manner.

Further Mr. Warrior, not sure where you read about the acid of CH destroying the creatine, but that is not accurate. The creatine is very stable with this conjugation throughout the ingestion and bio-uptake process. We presented studies at the International Society of Sports Nutrition that confirmed this fact. (good of you to be digging into all the info you can find, though!). As for chloride leading to impotence...(quite funny)...since your stomach is full of hydrochloric acid, it should be pretty apparent that such a concern is not well-founded.

To Mr. LastLieutinant's comment about 189 being the only CH product on the market...actually the first product on the market with CH is Con-Cret (see con-cret dotcom) and Amp 189 is somewhat of a GNC knock-off of Con-Cret (CC), although CC doesn't have the PEG formulation, it's just pure CH. And also, normal hydration is all that's required of someone taking CH...whatever is recommended for an active person. It's always important to stay properly hydrated when doing any exercise, with or without supplementation.

For Mr. Krager...Kre-Alkalyn is just CM powder that has been blended with a buffering powder. But once in the gut where the stomach acid neutralizes any buffer, all you are left with is CM with it's traditional properties. If you are taking an effective creatine, you don't need to add another creatine.

Back to Mr. Warrior (I'm reading these posts in sequence!)...no, CH is not CEE...they are quite different molecules with very different properties and appearance. As a summary here is an edited version of something I wrote for another inquiry on the differences:
Creatine ethly ester hydrochloride (CEE) is a compound that typically is
synthesized by reacting creatine monohydrate (CM), in a solution / slurry
with ethanol, in the presence of an acid catalyst. This process removes hydrate from the creatine molecule and conjugates the creatine molecule with an ethyl ester molecule derived from the alcohol medium. This change in molecular structure aids in
bioavailibility and solubility (thereby, potency) in a range of 11x vs CM. CEE is a fine talc-like powder with low particle density and a very bitter taste. ON THE OTHER HAND, creatine hydrochloride (CH) has no ethyl ester conjugation and therefore retains a creatine salt characteristic, albeit profoundly more bioavailable and soluble (thereby,
greater potency). Unlike CEE or CM, pure CH has a crystal-salt-like appearance with high particle density and a very tart taste. It's different molecular structure results in a 59x improvement in solubility (potential for uptake into the blood). It's structure and solubility makes CH exceptionally symbiotic with the G.I. tract and the body's affinity for absorbing aqueous-soluble nutrients (i.e. if things aren't in solution, they won't get into your bloodstream).

As for Mr. ChasinSKURT, I smile as I completely disagree with your assessment of CH being the worst creatine idea. First, it wasn't an idea, it was a discovery and we were surprised at the molecule's properties but as we studied it over a number of years, it made sense why it performed so well. And to correct you, it would be difficult for anything ingestible to lower to the pH of the gut...it is very acidic on it's own and we can't orally consume things strong enough to effect it's pH...such things would eat our mouth and esophagus. And as for a low pH causing creatine to convert to creatinine, that is simply not accurate -- creatine, even fragile ones like CEE, are VERY stable in low pH. It's when pH's are closer to neutral that some, like CM and CEE, convert to creatinine. Pure CH though, is very stable at low or neutral or high pH and has virtually no conversion to creatinine.

For Mr. TMac26...I am unfamiliar with C-Bol but will try to find something on it when I have a chance.

For Mr.Giggles...MRI's CE2 is CEE and is not the same compound as CH in Con-Cret or Amp189 (I know this well because as referenced above, I was the source for CEE for MRI's CE2 product...I developed commercial production methods for the reseachers at Nebraska who were synthesizing the CEE molecule). (So Mr. TMac26's comment on the difference is correct!).

For Mr. CobraBoy, creatine doesn't cause water retention, CM causes water retention...and really water/fluid "re-distribution" and the body struggles to deal with and excrete the overload amounts of CM and other poorly soluble creatines that are necessary to get "some" of the compound into the bloodstream.

Back to Mr. TMac26, CEE isn't junk...it actually has excellent science behind it and it is more soluble than CM or others, just not as soluble and bio-available as CH.

Mr. In10City is correct in his 8/25/09 comments.

Anyway, sorry I wasn't around earlier to respond to these but I hope this helps...

Mark Faulkner
markf at vireosystems dotcom

MarkFaulkner
09-16-2010, 12:40 PM
To Mark, Since you created both the creatine for GNC's Amplified 189 and also the Creatine for MRI's CEE what would you say is a better form of creatine to use? Ive always been a big fan of cell tech hardcore by muscletech and if Creatine HCL is as good as you say it is im surprised MT hasnt jumped on the bandwagon yet....appreciate the feedback , thanks.

Dear Joeker31,

So sorry to be delayed in responding. I'm not on these forums very often and it's been a VERY busy summer. And just to be specific, while we created Creatine Hydrochloride (C-HCl) and hold a patent on it with other patents pending, it was scientists at the University of Nebraska that invented the CEE that MRI commercialized -- we just helped Nebraska figure out how to manufacture CEE at commercial scale and work with it (both turned out to be very tricky things to do) and we are now the sole licensed producer of CEE.

As for which is better...it depends on what you are trying to achieve. But for most people in this forum, I am thinking the goal is increased strength, muscular development and refinement (getting lean and cut), and recovery from hard work-outs. And if that is the case, then C-HCl is the preferred creatine form.

As for MuscleTech's, I don't know what their perspective of C-HCl is, but I know that at least one other company has swapped their other forms of creatine and started buying CON-CRET from us to put in as an ingredient instead.

Thanks for the question and good luck (and again, sorry for the delay...if I ever am too slow to respond because I don't see these, someone can email me to tell me I have a question waiting! I'm at mfaulkner at promerahealth dot com...I'l get online and post ASAP)

Best,

Mark Faulkner

snorkelman
09-16-2010, 01:12 PM
CEE is inferior to CM. Most people have accepted that as fact. So, perhaps focusing the discussion on comparing CH to CM is the best avenue.


It's when pH's are closer to neutral that some, like CM and CEE, convert to creatinine. Pure CH though, is very stable at low or neutral or high pH and has virtually no conversion to creatinine.

I can connect the dots you are drawing as to why one might conclude that CH > CM regarding the stability, but how would you explain the following?

See Stability of Creatine Mono in Aqueous Solution
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=137696&d=1099360168

Specifically, if you have CM at neutral pH, at room temp (25 degrees C / 77 degrees F) it can sit in a water solution for three days and be just fine. Heck, you could toss it in the fridge at 4 degrees C and it will be just fine a month later in that water solution. So, I cannot understand your implication that CH > CM at neutral pH.

Heck, even at low pH, CM can sit out at room temp for 8 hours and still be just fine. That is longer than the vast majority of gym rats will leave it mixed up awaiting drinking. And for whatever reason, if your average gym rat mixed CM in a low pH solution and refrigerated it for a freaking month (can't even imagine the circumstances that would warrant such a long time of it being mixed in an aqueous solution) the CM mixture would still would have only degraded about 8%.

I just don't see how:

1. CH > CM regarding stability in an aqueous solution, or
2. even if CH > CM for that issue, how would any claimed improvement on the CM performance numbers make any real-world difference for the fitness freak.

RyouBakua
01-07-2011, 10:49 PM
is there a difference between Creatine Hydrochloride

&

Creatine Ethyl Ester Hydrochloride?

PieEyedPiper
01-07-2011, 11:03 PM
Did you read the thread?

RyouBakua
01-08-2011, 07:06 AM
Isn't Creatine Hydrochloride ACTUALLY Creatine Ethyl Ester Hydrochloride?
Creatine, with an ester attached, held together by hydrochloric acid and thus in a salt-like form...?


I'm almost positive Creatine Hydrochloride is Creatine Ethyl Ester Hydrochloride.

Creatine HCl in no way implies an ethyl ester...



Contradictions. Any support?




Did you read the thread?

Did you?

quack1212
02-14-2011, 04:01 AM
Hello--
Maybe you can help me...My NCAA athlete brother took the product ISO MASS Xtreme...I was told it was nothing with NCAA banned substances, only to learn it has "hydrochloride" in it...then learned NCAA bans "hydrochlorizide".
1. Are these the same thing?
2. My bro was NCAA tested 4 days ago, hasnt been usinng ISO MASS Xtreme for 1.5 months. Will he test positive? Could the effects of the ISO Mass already be out of body?

Noone is helping me here---if you had info I'd be greatful. Thanks.


Contradictions. Any support?





Did you?

NO HYPE
02-14-2011, 05:32 AM
is there a difference between Creatine Hydrochloride & Creatine Ethyl Ester Hydrochloride?

Yes. Different chemical structures. In any case, CrHCL makes plenty of sense to me. in10 nailed it on the head.


The CrHCl has better solubility and produces a larger AUC compared to an equivalent amount of CrM. Less GI distress would likely be experienced and probably a bit less can be used to acheive the same AUC.

NO HYPE
02-14-2011, 05:44 AM
Creatine HCl? This is probably the worst creatine idea I've ever seen.











http://www.gifbin.com/bin/6401703g69.gif

quack1212
02-14-2011, 06:51 AM
..and to make sure I understand...Im slow lol...hydrochloride (more specifically for ISO Mass Product I questioned) or "pyridoxine hydrochloride" is a completely different chemical structure than hydrochlorizide (the NCAA banned substance), and thus most likely will not lead to a failed test. My bro is good?




Yes. Different chemical structures. In any case, CrHCL makes plenty of sense to me. in10 nailed it on the head.

NO HYPE
02-14-2011, 07:44 AM
My bro is good?

I've already made it clear however, yes... he'll be fine.


do you think thr HCL will lead to a failed NCAA test looking for HYDROCHLORIZIDE?


Absolutely not. They are 2 different chemical structures.

NO HYPE
07-22-2011, 06:47 AM
it was scientists at the University of Nebraska that invented the CEE that MRI commercialized -- we just helped Nebraska figure out how to manufacture CEE at commercial scale and work with it (both turned out to be very tricky things to do) and we are now the sole licensed producer of CEE.

Good on paper --> garbage in the real world. You should be ashamed of yourself for standing behind such a pharmacokinetic/dynamic nightmare as CEE.

DanTheMan786
02-10-2012, 07:55 AM
i'm can assure you that your 8-10lb gain did not come solely from celltech hardcore

You honestly think you gained that much muscle from muscletech garbage? Apparently you've never heard of water weight. You'll lose 90% of that weight when you get off it.

losdog42
02-15-2012, 12:53 PM
I have searched google, and the two supplement boards here for something on Creatine Hydrochloride. I really hate asking questions as you pro's have covered almost everything conceivable already here... but here goes, as I cannot find it!

Creatine Hydrochloride: In the form of GNC's Amped 189 (pill) I heard that there are digestion issues with some people... I dont seem to be having this issue, so other than that, is there something that makes it ACTUALLY more/less effective than straight mono? I would prefer not to be bloated, but I want end-results and would take the bloating of monohydrate if hydrochloride is a big waste.

I have already opened and begun taking the hydrochloride. I am 'loading' at only 12.5g by the recommendations on the label stating that it absorbs twice as effectively; you cant believe labels these days, so I figured I'd ask the pros on that as well.

More or less: is Hydrochloride less effective? is there anything I should watch out for other than digestive issues? Is there something special I must avoid lest it destroy the effect of hydrochloride?


AM takeing CON_CRET and that stuff is great. I used to take jack3d but that stuff use to bloat me up and made me look fat. I hated creatine beacuse of the side effects i used to get. I went to the L.A. fit expo and bought some con-cret because i was assured that i would not get any of the side effects. They were right that stuff is awesome. Cresatine Hydrocloride is also known as Creatine HCI. I googled it and i found a web site that is selling it way cheaper!!!!!!!! half the price of con-cret and GNC's high ass prices'. Altough i am tempted to buy from that web site i like to buy name brands and not fly by night companies who might be selling you junk. LISTEN UP YALL TAKE CON-CRET YOU WONT REGERT IT. STAY AWAY FROM CREATINE MONOHYDRATE OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF CREATINE. THE BEST ONE FOR SURE IS HYDROCHLORIDE ALSO KNOWN AS CREATINE HCI.

lastlieutenant
03-08-2012, 11:21 AM
Bumping this for information on the first page. Posted in this thread awhile back and was pleased to see my post while doing a google search for the effects of HCL. I just picked up some Con-Cret was curious about HCL.

charizardbrah
03-08-2012, 11:25 AM
Creatine HCl in no way implies an ethyl ester...

This is probably the worst creatine idea I've ever seen. Creatine HCl? HCl is an acid (when mixed in solution), so technically all it would do is lower your stomach pH, and help to convert creatine to creatinine.

Horrible idea.

Also, you'd be able to tell if it were CEE by the smell... the stuff reeks.

creatine has been shown in research to be stable in acidic solutions for much longer than it takes to go from your mouth to your urethra

brett12155
05-10-2012, 12:36 PM
Mr. Faulkner,
I am in no way meaning to bag this product but the statistics are a little sketchy. I first want to point out that research shows the average person holds anywhere between 100-150 grams of naturally occurring creatine in their body. We also know that will supplementation a person can increase this amount by up to 50%. A container of con-cret only holds 36g of creatine which is nowhere near enough to max out one's creatine stores especially at .75g per serving. No matter what the efficiency of this product is it is not intended to produce the results that a regular monohydrate does. Also creatine naturally causes water retention in a person's muscles. Once it enters the muscle it doesn't matter what kind of creatine it is they all act the same so how is it possible that creatine hcl does not do this? Please provide some follow up to clear the air around this skepticism.

jjtitus
08-23-2012, 05:20 AM
I've been following a lot of the different threads on creatine and came across this additional response from Faulkner... just thought I'd add it to the discussion (see below). I'm also curious to hear the answer to brett12155's question above...

"
Creatine HCl vs Mono
Thanks for the tip on Will Brink...I went and read his post and commented (see a pasting of it in here, below...sorry of the length but it deserved a thorough comment).

As for our studies on the C-HCl plasma uptake, I am happy to provide a powerpoint of the presentation of the study (it was a double blind, balanced crossover study designed by Ph.D researchers at 2 major medical universities) but I don't think I could post it in here...probably too big and I'm not sure I'd know how to if the site/forum could handle it. Please feel free to email me and I'll send it to anyone that is interested. It was a great sutdy and is VERY scientifically defensible. The docs at the ISSN meeting were, I think I can safely say, very impressed with the science and found it to be consistent with what they, as peers, would expect to see done in a formal, academic process.

As for what creatine HCl is effective.......the only other one currently* is CON-CRET and I'll counter the comment that it fizzled. It has actually become one of the top creatines at Vitamin Shoppe and other major outlets -- it just doesn't "shout" and hype as much as other brands but there are some very impressive names using it, both in the professional sports world, powerlifting, and bodybuilding.

* Another product will have C-HCL in it shortly...the new ASSAULT by MusclePharm is formulated with creatine hydrochloride.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Okay, so on the Will Brink post (Creatine Graveyard...reposted in here for your ease of finding it):

Dear Will, et al,

A few comments on CEE and the articles published on it. I would encourage everyone to actually read the manuscripts being discussed and look critically at the actual data. In the most recent "damning" article on CEE published by Spillane and other mono-fans (and yes, for disclosure, I am a fan of CEE and C-HCl over mono), essentially in terms of muscle content and performance, there was no significant difference between the CEE and CM treatment groups. So if CEE “failed” in terms of increasing muscle creatine content and increasing exercise performance, then CM also failed as it is statistically no different than CEE. But a few direct comments on the most recent study:

1. “Creatine monohydrate showed statistically higher blood serum creatine
concentrations compared to CEE, certainly a good thing in favor of creatine
monohydrate over CEE and goes directly against the marketing tactics of
CEE’s supposed superiority of bioavailability over creatine monohydrate.
A definite strike against CEE's efficacy.”

I think it’s interesting to note that a university researcher at Ohio Univeristy (or maybe Ohio State, I can’t recall off the top of my head) who read the study wrote a letter to the publication board of the ISSN commenting on the design and data interpretation flaws of the article and how he rejected it’s conclusions based on format and data assessment abnormalities, but the ISSN journal wouldn’t publish it as a letter to the editor response and the researcher didn’t care to pay the journal fee to get his letter published – anyway, the first chart on serum concentrations misses several important items. First off, to determine bioavailability of a compound one would need to take samples over an extended time following dosing to get the complete area under the plasma concentration curve (i.e. baseline and then change in concentrations observed over time after dosing). Not one blood draw. NOTHING can be said regarding bioavailability based on one blood draw. This paper does not indicate when the blood sample was taken for the subjects (this is basic pharmacokinetic information that should be part of any study)…was it immediately after dosing or 8 hours after dosing or ?? Based on the values for CM (approximately 300 uM) the blood sampling time could easily be 4 hours after dosing, because based on the doses given, one would expect the blood concentrations, even of CM, to be about 800 uM. We know from other studies that creatine spikes in the blood about an hour after dosing and that most of the excretion curve is observed from 0 minutes to 2 hours…so a blood draw after this would completely miss most of the increases in creatine to be gained from the ingested dose (that stands true whether you are talking CM or CEE). Furthermore, there seems to be a great deal of variability in the data, such that when you look at Figure 1 and take into consideration the standard deviations, it is surprising that statistical significance was achieved. CM may have resulted in significantly greater creatine in the blood based on Tukey post hoc comparisons, but it fails the obvious test that everyone who looks at the graph can see which is to say taking into account the range of values around the mean, there is really no difference between the CM and CEE group. In fact, looking at the 90% confidence intervals in the CM and CEE groups, these 2 treatment groups overlap.

2. “When creatine is metabolized, it is broken down into a waste product called creatinine, which our body excretes. The researchers found that CEE actually increased creatinine levels 3x greater than creatine monohydrate, again not a good thing. Another strike two against CEE.”

Well, it is pretty clear from previous studies (Enzymatic hydrolysis of creatine ethyl ester Nicholas S. Katseres, David W. Reading, Luay Shayya, John C. DiCesare, Gordon H. Purser, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 2009, that CEE in an aqueous solution of pH 7, such as serum, will readily convert (half-life of minutes) to creatine/creatinine. Thus by the time a blood sample is collected and plasma/serum is obtained there is likely to be significant conversion of CEE to creatinine. However, in acid aqueous solutions, like that present in the stomach, this same study showed that the half-life for CEE is quite stable i.e. 2-3 days. This is despite the abstract from Tallon several years ago at the ISSN meeting that garnered headlines, but which has never been published as a peer-reviewed manuscript.

To expound on this, it is true that the ester bond in CEE is rapidly broken down at neutral pH and that cyclization following water hydrolysis results in creatinine. However, I would argue that what this assumes, and that studies such as this construct, is not normal physiological conditions because as Katseres showed, CEE is stable in the physiological conditions of the stomach (low pH) and hence why it is suggested to dose in capsule form (to get it straight into the stomach) – or you can mix CEE in orange juice (low pH) or such.……but once it is taken up from the G.I. track, it is in an efficacious form.

As stated, in acidic conditions, the ester is very stable with half-lifes measured in hours and days instead of minutes. The cytosolic pH of a working muscle cell is around 6.3, at this pH (enough below neutral to matter) the CEE would have good stability. At pH of 2-3, which is the pH of the stomach, again the CEE is stable. Both of the preceding conditions are normal "physiological conditions”. So for people to say, as did the some of aforementioned researchers, that there would be no compartment or tissue where CEE would not be instantaneously converted to creatinine is not true.

But with regard to the 3x greater creatinine found in the serum of CEE users, I would suggest 2 things:

A. If CEE were to stay in the aqueous compartment of the blood, rather than being taken up by red blood cells, then it will have a very fast conversion to creatinine, but there is no prevailing reason to think that CEE would remain in the aqueous compartment of the blood. And most likely, by the time you take a sample and prep it and spin out the red blood cells, any CEE that had been left in the aqueous compartment of the blood or spun into such, then it would be converted into creatinine…but this comes from study design, not some physiological condition. But one should rightly ask, “so how then do you measure the presence of CEE vs. creatinine if the process of measuring destroys the CEE and increases the creatinine??” Well, you have to use methods that stabilize the serum so that it gives a true snap shot of what was happening at the time of the draw…and this is more than putting preservatives into blood tubes. I know researchers that are working on this but I am not sure what results they have had yet.

B. And just for fun, to play devil’s advocate, it is not out of line that one might argue the reason for a greater creatinine level in the CEE sample is that there was actually more CEE in the system and that therefore, with muscle work, more creatine was able to be used and therefore more creatinine was produced (i.e. a car that doesn’t go far doesn’t produce much exhaust as one that runs it’s engine hot and long and thereby produces much more exhaust). I am NOT arguing that to be the case, but one easily could.

One issue that might support B. though is that CEE not only has better stomach stability but also better cellular penetration. The improved cell penetration is indicated by the fact that CEE has about a 2.5 fold partitioning into octanol (lipid solvent) compared to CM. That is significant! So, once CEE makes it into the cell membrane, which it does 2.5 times better, it should be stable there (since there is little water available for hydration). At that point its breakdown would shift from non-enzymatic water hydrolysis to enzymatic hydrolysis by various esterases in the cell. And no, you don’t need specific CEE esterases – the body is very adept and there are not specific esterases for all sorts of compounds and drugs – the body adjusts well to process them.


3. “Very importantly, muscle creatine levels with creatine monohydrate were significantly higher than CEE. And creatine monohydrate showed increases in muscle creatine levels at day 6, while it took CEE 27 days to show a similar increase. This should come as no surprise, as a previous study (Tallon) showed much of CEE gets converted in the stomach acid into the waste product creatinine. So by the time it reached the blood serum, there would be less available to be transported into skeletal muscle and raise muscle creatine concentrations. Another strike against CEE and again this data goes directly the marketing claims from CEE containing products, that CEE works faster than creatine monohydrate.”

First on Tallon…and as already stated, because of the ester stability in acidic situations as shown in the Katseres study, the stability of CEE in the stomach actually would be better than CM, despite the Tallon abstract at ISSN couple years ago.

Back to the other…in the article it says "Total muscle creatine content was significantly higher in CRT (p = 0.026) and CEE (p =0.041) compared to PLA, with no differences between CRT and CEE."

"

Cont...

jjtitus
08-23-2012, 05:23 AM
Regardless of what is going on with CRT in the blood, the amount in the muscle is similar to CM so if this study somehow condemns CEE, it is equally condemning CM (that€™s what the data shows!). And remember that it is the plasma and muscle content that is important for delivering the strength aspects of creatine. As for differences with CM at 6 days vs 27 for CEE, again, take a look at the actual data. The study design talks about a loading phase (for CM) vs. previously recommended guidelines / dosing regimens for CEE (i.e. no loading). So after 5 days of taking 20 grams of CM it would be a huge surprise if the on day 6 there weren€™t still a significant bolus level of creatine in the system from such large doses of CM. Suffice to say that Day 6 is a very opportunistic day to sample if you€™re a CM fan. Look at the data in Figure 2 for yourself. Other than at the loading phase, there is no difference in the levels€and Day 48 shows none of the groups are different from control. (which is sort of humorous on it€™s own!!)

A further very telling item in this muscle data is what Table 3 (body composition) shows. First of all it struck me as sort of funny that the group of guys used for the CEE portion of the study are by far the lightest (basically they put all the €œ90 lb weaklings€ in the CEE group) and the bigger guys in the CM and placebo portion of the study. And then they measured thigh mass as an indication of performance but they had no real ability comment because as one would expect, if you work out, you gain mass€BUT€something they don€™t point out€look at the starting vs. ending numbers for each group and BY FAR, the largest delta (change) came in the CEE group which leaves one to either say that being small, they had more room for improvement or that simply, the CEE produced more results (hmmm, another vote for B. above...??? chuckle...I'm just saying...!).

Sorry for the length of this but you brought up a topic worth commenting on! And again, while there are some characteristics of CEE that I like and find unique, I mostly don€™t like people giving ANYTHING a bad rap if it€™s not deserved. As for myself, and yes I€™m biased, I€™m a hockey player and I use C-HCl (CON-CRET) before games because it works better (for me) than the other forms. I€™m old enough that I can tell a significant difference!

Best,

Mark Faulkner
"

I'm not sure if I agree with everything he says, but at least he's approaching this discussion scientifically and I think he has a few good points worth mentioning... Personally, I like creatine HCL, I just don't like the price...

Rhodblock
09-28-2012, 12:50 PM
I just started using hydro creatine a few weeks ago and have noticed some gains of lean muscle without the water weight i have seen others gain from mono creatine. I am taking the amp 189 supplement from GNC and i have been happy with it so far

Steve37732
10-04-2012, 09:57 AM
Order Creatine - mhlnk.com/000A54E0
the order arrived last week no problems, the effect well

camptzak
04-15-2013, 07:37 PM
Hey guys,
I am a very amateur weightlifter, but I do know something about chemistry and when I saw this discussion take a turn towards organic chemistry I couldn't resist.

The guanidine functional group on creatine will accept the proton from Hydrochloric acid and form a salt. The proton on the guanidine group will no longer be acidic, the protonated guanidine salt has a pKa of 12.5

The only difference that this seems to make within the chemistry of the molecule is that it will shift the creatine /creatinine equilibrium towards creatine.

that is all I am absolutely certain of

I saw that the person who produced this supplement was discussing it briefly, I do not understand why monohydrate makes you bloat and this does not, why is this?

k_josi
07-16-2013, 11:45 PM
Creatine HCL (hydrochloride) is made by attaching a hydrochloride group to creatine, thereby creating a salt. In attaching this hydrochloride group, the solubility of the molecule increases greatly compared to creatine monohydrate (the existing basic form of creatine). This results in some improved qualities over the already great creatine monohydrate credit: mrsupplement.com.au/creatine-hcl-hydrochloride
Salt is a highly soluble product and adheres to water without hesitation. Since humans are 60-70% water, the solubility of C. HCL is unmatched. It is also highly concentrated, 1 gram of C. HCL is equal to 5 grams C. mono.
I have tried creatine nitrate and it works great, but it hurts my stomach and bloats me. Since C. HCL is highly soluble, little or none of it is turned into creatinine (I think this is what the waste product is called), which is the culprit behind those unsavory side effects.
Also, from what I understand in that article, loading is unnecessary. It also says that cycling it in and out of your diet may be unnecessary as well.
Im not an expert, but I read a lot about products since I am sensitive to a lot of things.

k_josi
07-16-2013, 11:50 PM
Hydrochlorothiazide is a thiazide diuretic (water pill) that helps prevent your body from absorbing too much salt, which can cause fluid retention
Hydrochloride is a quaternary salt formed by the addition of hydrochloric acid to an organic base, such as aniline hydrochloride, [C6H5NH3]+Cl-

when speaking chemically, a small difference in a few letters signifies a totally different word or chemical. so, it is safe to use per NCAA regulations.


Hello--
Maybe you can help me...My NCAA athlete brother took the product ISO MASS Xtreme...I was told it was nothing with NCAA banned substances, only to learn it has "hydrochloride" in it...then learned NCAA bans "hydrochlorizide".
1. Are these the same thing?
2. My bro was NCAA tested 4 days ago, hasnt been usinng ISO MASS Xtreme for 1.5 months. Will he test positive? Could the effects of the ISO Mass already be out of body?

Noone is helping me here---if you had info I'd be greatful. Thanks.

shail4u3691
10-22-2013, 03:24 PM
Mr Faulkner, I have been using nitrotech which is premixed with 3 gram CM per serving. I recently bought con-crete. Please advise if I can use them simultaneously or is it not advisable? thank you in adavnce

RyouBakua
10-22-2013, 05:43 PM
Mr Faulkner, I have been using nitrotech which is premixed with 3 gram CM per serving. I recently bought con-crete. Please advise if I can use them simultaneously or is it not advisable? thank you in adavnce

i am not mr faulkner but you are able to use them at the same time

most people take 3-5g of CM so use your best judgement

shail4u3691
10-22-2013, 10:47 PM
Thank you for the response. I guess my question was can I consume creatine monohydrate and creatine chloride simultaneously? Can someone please confirm

RyouBakua
10-22-2013, 11:25 PM
yes, youre able to mix CM and Creatine Hydrochloride (Con-Cret) without any problems

NenaSimone
12-03-2013, 02:53 PM
I had the same initial question. I looked at several studies. I will post one. Creatine HCL is a better form of creatine, because of absorption & no bloating or water retention. Many bodybuilders who are also nutritionists recommend this form of creatine...
I was unable to post the link... Sorry

Rob16437
03-13-2015, 05:36 PM
Wow, It looks like I am resurrecting an old thread 2009 jeez.. Just popped open a bottle of Amp Creatine 189 after a few years of not taking any supplements at all besides multivitamins. Currently I am 37 yo and a bit thick 230 but semi-muscly 5'7'' with a bit of a pot belly and I lift regularly. I have been cycling carb days to try to stimulate fate loss and with my latest push I decided to give creatine another try. I've been pretty focused and hitting weights extra hard for about the 6 weeks. Prior injuries really killed my motivation the last few years even though I went to the gym to at least go through the motions. I'll update this thread at some point when the 140 serving bottle nears empty. I plan on doing double dose for one week then maintenance doses from then on. I'll break the tabs up a bit as suggested in this thread. 4 months til summer so I am motivated,even with a sore shoulder rotator and a nearly healed full rupture Gastroc from late 2013. Gotta fight through that **** too. haven't tried this supp before so here goes.

DavidGainz999
07-31-2015, 08:32 AM
creatine HCL didnt do anything for me even at 8 grams

rjpomp
07-31-2015, 09:08 PM
check out jymsupplementscience.com he goes over HCL

RMJ1989
11-15-2015, 07:33 PM
Hey,
So im a chem engineering major and power lifter. Creatine hydrochloride is just creatine with a hydrogen aronously attached to it. Meaning the compud is able to be produced in microbales or salt or smaller grain. This on turns lessen the serving size and increase the costs. For no reason! The effect are all the same. Even the saturation period. If the mono is cheaper please go with that.