Is Creatine Mono Still the Gold Standard or Are New Forms Worth It?
Feels like every supplement company is pushing some “next-level” creatine lately HCL, nitrate, buffered blends, you name it. Monohydrate has always been simple and cheap, but with all these newer options around, is it still the best choice or have any of you actually noticed real benefits from switching?
Re: Is Creatine Mono Still the Gold Standard or Are New Forms Worth It?
Creatine mono still does exactly what it’s supposed to. Cheap, effective, zero drama.
Re: Is Creatine Mono Still the Gold Standard or Are New Forms Worth It?
I tried HCL for a few months. Less bloating maybe, but strength gains were the same as mono.
Re: Is Creatine Mono Still the Gold Standard or Are New Forms Worth It?
That’s kinda what I’m wondering. Hard to justify paying more if results don’t change.
Re: Is Creatine Mono Still the Gold Standard or Are New Forms Worth It?
Most of the new forms feel like marketing to me. Mono has decades of proof behind it.
Re: Is Creatine Mono Still the Gold Standard or Are New Forms Worth It?
If mono messes with your stomach, then yeah, other forms make sense. Otherwise I wouldn’t bother.
Re: Is Creatine Mono Still the Gold Standard or Are New Forms Worth It?
I went back to mono after wasting money on blends. Pumps and numbers stayed identical.
Re: Is Creatine Mono Still the Gold Standard or Are New Forms Worth It?
Companies gotta sell something new every year. Creatine just happens to be easy to repackage.
Re: Is Creatine Mono Still the Gold Standard or Are New Forms Worth It?
Facts. Every label says “better absorption” but nobody shows real-world results.
Re: Is Creatine Mono Still the Gold Standard or Are New Forms Worth It?
Only upgrade I made was buying micronized mono. Mixes better, still cheap.
Post Reply