Tier 1 — highest

Efficacy of Alternative Forms of Creatine Supplementation on Improving Performance and Body Composition in Healthy Subjects: A Systematic Review

Carly Fazio, Craig L Elder, Margaret M Harris
J Strength Cond Res 2022 36(9):2663-2670

Bibliography

PubMed
PMID 36000773
Funding
No explicit funding statement was located in the accessible PubMed or publisher records during Biohack Blueprint's 2026-10-02 audit. This is an audit-status statement, not confirmation that the study received no funding.
Competing interests
No explicit competing-interests statement was located in the accessible PubMed or publisher records during Biohack Blueprint's 2026-10-02 audit. This is an audit-status statement, not confirmation that no competing interests existed.

Study snapshot

DesignSystematic review
ModelHuman
SampleAlternative-creatine-form studies in healthy participants
InterventionAlternative creatine forms compared with creatine monohydrate or control
DurationVaried by included study
EndpointsPerformance; Body composition; Creatine retention

What the study showed, in plain terms

Systematic review addressing the marketing claim that newer creatine salts and formulations outperform creatine monohydrate.

Key findings

Available evidence did not consistently show alternative creatine forms to outperform creatine monohydrate for performance or body composition.

What this study can and cannot tell us

Few direct head-to-head studies, varied formulations and dosing, and some alternative forms had very limited human data.

Citation network

Articles citing this research paper

9 articles

Biohack Blueprint analyses that reference this study in their evidence base.

Editorial review

Reviewed by the Biohack Blueprint research team

Last verified