Dr. Darren Candow

So

I know monohydrate has been boring.

It's been around since the 1990s.

But in my opinion, why mess with a good thing?

And probably because the efficacy and safety behind it.

I think 99% of it is marketing.

I think people get conned into buying something that's more expensive or flashy.

And maybe they're making some errors with the monohydrate they're taking and probably from the loading phase.

So creatine monohydrate has been shown to increase intracellular water.

So it's based on the doorway.

It sort of brings water with it.

And some people get GI tract irritation.

or some weight gain and other forms of creatine are marketed to not do that.

I argue if it doesn't do that, it's probably not creatine.

In other words, creatine is osmotic.

If you're taking a form of creatine that doesn't increase intracellular water a little bit, I would question the validity of that type of creatine.

So I'm in the camp of 100% monohydrate based on the mechanisms, the structure of the molecule, and the efficacy behind it.

Do you need to spend more on a fancy type of creatine?

If it works for you, I'm all for it.

But at the end of it, I don't think you need to.