No products in the cart.
Research on the action of Kre-alkaline vs. CreGAAtine
In our first text, we will make a brief review of scientific studies that have examined the effects of Kre-alkaline and CreGAAtine. In the following text, we will first analyze the data from the study on the efficacy of Kre-alkaline, and then explain what scientific data is behind CreGAAtine.
Author of the article: CreGAAtineScientific Team
Publication published: April 15, 2021
According to the manufacturers, Kre-alkalyn is a “buffer” formulation based on creatine, which ensures that creatine remains intact in the stomach and is thus expected to have greater bioavailability. Despite very bold marketing claims such as “Kre-alkalyn is up to ten times stronger than regular creatine”, or “It is the strongest creatine in the world” and the like, in fact, scientific research proves just the opposite.
A scientific study published in 2013 examined the effects of Kre-alkaline relative to standard creatine monohydrate (1). It was a double-blind randomized controlled trial performed on 36 men. Some of the important parameters used in this presented study were:
- Creatine content in muscles
- Body structure
- 1 RM Benchpress
- Anaerobic capacity in sprint
- The creatine content in the muscles in the Kre-alkalyn groups was no higher after 4 weeks of use than in the creatine monohydrate group. The market claims of better effects of Kre-alkaline preparations provided by the manufacturer did not correspond to the findings either at normal dosing doses or at doses equivalent to creatine monohydrate doses. After 4 weeks, the use of the usual dose of Kre-alkaline resulted in an increase in muscle creatine content of 4.71 +/- 27.0%, with a dose of Kre-alkaline equivalent to the dose of creatine monohydrate increasing by 9.07 +/- 23 , 2%. While creatine monohydrate increased muscle creatine by 22.3 +/- 21.0%. In both cases, there was no significant increase in muscle creatine with the use of higher or lower doses of Kre-alkaline (1).
- There were no significant differences in body water content or fat-free muscle mass in body constitution. In the group with standard doses of Kre-alkaline, the percentage of total body water after 4 weeks was 35.9%, and in the group with creatine monohydrate 33.9%. According to the change in weight without taking into account the fat, it increased by 1 kg at baseline. This was in the creatine monohydrate group as well as in the Kre-alkaline group receiving the same dose as creatine monohydrate. However, in the group receiving the usual dose of Kre-alkaline, the change in fat-free weight after 4 weeks was less than 0.5 kg (1).
- Researchers also tested the One RepetitionMaximum (1 RM) on a bench press. Consistent with previous results, Kre-alkaline did not cause a greater weight gain compared to the creatine monohydrate group. While creatine monohydrate caused an increase of 4.58 kg, intake of Kre-alkaline preparation caused an increase in thrust of only 3.3 kg in Bench press 1RM (1).
- Finally, the results of anaerobic performance tests do not support the claims for Kre-alkalyn. The results show that overall work efficiency increased by approximately 5% in the creatine monohydrate group and also in the Kre-alkalyn group taking creatine monohydrate equivalent doses. However, if Kre-alkalyn was consumed in the recommended amounts according to the manufacturer’s instructions, the change was barely noticeable and amounted to less than 0.1% (1).
In contrast to the above data, in which Kre-alkalyn was tested, the results of CreGAAtin studies are based on solid scientific bases. We briefly present a scientific study that examined the effects of the creatine-GAA combination on creatine monohydrate alone.
A randomized, double-blind superiority study examined the effect on 14 young men (2). The study analyzed creatine content in muscle and brain and bench press 1 RM. The effects were analyzed after 4 weeks of use and showed an absolute predominance of GAA-creatine over creatine monohydrate.
The results undoubtedly favor GAA-creatine when comparing changes in total muscle creatine content relative to baseline. While creatine monohydrate increased muscle creatine by about a maximum of 10%, the combination of GAA and creatine increased it by about 60%. Therefore, if we compare the average creatine values with baseline values of 16.9% compared to 2%, it means that after 4 weeks of GAA-creatine use, it produces relatively 8.5 times more creatine in the muscles. It was similar with the creatine content in the brain in the GAA-creatine group when creatine levels were measured by magnetic resonance imaging. After taking GAA-creatine, a 3.9-fold higher value was observed in the mass of gray matter and 1.9-fold higher in white matter than in the creatine monohydrate group (2).
The results of the Bench-press 1RM tests also confirmed the important advantage of the GAA-creatine combination over creatine monohydrate. The change from baseline showed an improvement of 5.8 kg in the group consuming the combination of GAA and creatine. This is 1.3 times greater progress than in the creatine monohydrate-only group (2).
In this study, the total weight of the participants at the beginning and at the end of the study was also recorded. The results confirmed the predominant role of CreGAAtine in all sports where weight is an important category of athlete. Namely, weight gain was 0.9 kg lower in the GAA-creatine group, which probably means that this combination of creatine with GAA does not cause water retention in the muscles (2).
- Jagim, A.R., Oliver, J.M., Sanchez, A., Galvan, E., Fluckey, J., Riechman, S., Greenwood, M., Kelly, K., Meininger, C., Rasmussen, C. andKreider, R.B., 2012. A buffered form of creatine does not promote greater changes in muscle creatine content, body composition, ortraining adaptations than creatine monohydrate. JournaloftheInternationalSocietyofSportsNutrition, 9(1), pp.1-18.
- Semeredi, S., Stajer, V., Ostojic, J., Vranes, M. andOstojic, S.M., 2019. Guanidinoaceticacid with creatine compared with creatine alone for tissue creatine content, hyperhomocysteinemia, and exercise performance: A randomized, double-blind superiority trial. Nutrition, 57, pp.162-166.