According to the manufacturer, Kre-alkalyn is a ’’buffered’’ creatine-based formulation, which is suppossed to guarantee that creatine remains intact in stomach and has higher bioavailability.
Despite the very bold marketing claims, such as “up to ten times more powerful than ordinary Creatine”; “the world’s most potent creatine’’, science proves quite the opposite.
A scientific study published in 2013 examined the effects of Krealkalyne vs. standard creatine-monohydrate. It was a double-blind randomized controlled study conducted on 36 male subjects. Some of the important parameters analysed in the trial were:
- Muscle creatine content
- Body structure
- Bench press
- Anaerobic sprint performance capacity
Krealkalyne was not superior in none of these categories. We will break it down into details in the text that follows.
Muscle creatine content is not higher in Krealkalyne groups after 4 weeks of adminitration in comparison to creatine-monhydrate group. Neither when it is applied in the standard doses suggested by the manufacturer, nor in the doses equvalent to creatine-monohydrate which are a typicall regimen, Krealkalyn effects does not seem to correspond to to the marketing claims. After 4 weeks, Krealkalyne standard dose administration results in a muscle creatine content rise of 4.71 +/- 27.0 %, Krealkalyne dose equivalent to creatine-monohydrate dose gives an increase of 9.07+/- 23.2 %, while creatine-monohydrate elevated muscle creatine by 22.3 +/- 21.0%.
When it comes to the body structure, there were no significant differences in total body water nor in the fat-free mass. In the Krealkalyn standard dose group, percentagy of total body water after 4 weeks was 35.9%, while in creatine-monohydrate group it was 33.9%. Regarding the fat free mass change from baseline, it was approximately an increase of 1 kg in the groups receiving creatine monohydrate and Krealkalyne dose equivalent to the creatine-monohydrate. In a standard dose Krealkalyne group, the change in fat-free mass was less than 0.5 kg after 4 weeks.
The researchers also conducted a one repetition maximum (1 RM) test on bench press in all study arms. Coherent with the previous results, Krealkalyne did not cause a greater improvement in comparison to creatine-monohydrate arm. While creatine-monohydrate causes a rise of 4.58 kg, Krealkalyne intake results in an increase of 3.3 kg in bench press 1RM.
Finally, the results of the anaerobic capacity test do not favor Krealkalyne neither. The results show that total work capacity increase by cca 5% in creatine-monohydrate and Krealkalyne arm receiving doses equivalent to creatine-monohydrate. When Krealkalyne was taken as suggested, the change was barely noticable with less than 0.1%.
In contrast, CreGAAtine is founded on firm scientific ground. Here we will report the scientific study that examined the effects of creatine-GAA combination vs. sole creatine-monohydrate. A randomized double-blind crossover superiority trial investigated the effects on 14 young men. The study analysed muscle and brain creatine content and bench press 1 RM. The results are reported after 4 weeks of administration and they showed absoulte superiority of GAA-creatine combo over creatine-monohydrate.
When it comes to changes in total muscle creatine content from baseline, the results undoubtedly favor GAA-creatine. While creatine-monohydrate increased muscle creatine by maximum of cca 10%, GAA-creatine combo led to a maximum upsurge of cca 60%. When average values of the creatine change from baseline are compared, 16.9% vs. 2%, that gives a relative difference of 8.5 times more creatine in the muscles upon the 4-week administration of GAA-creatine. Similarly, creatine content in brain is higher in GAA-creatine arm when measured via magnetic resonance imaging. Specifically, 3.9 times greater change is seen in gray matter when GAA-creatine is taken, while the rise in white matter is 1.9 times higher in the same group.
The bench press 1 RM test results give significant advantage to GAA-creatine combo over creatine-monohydrate. The change from baseline in GAA-combo arm reached 5.8 kg, which is 1.3 times greater change from the result in creatine-monohydrate group.
This trial also investigated the total weight of the study participants at the beginning and the end of the trial. The results indicate a dominant role of CreGAAtine in all weight-sensitive sport disciplines. Namely, the body weight increase is lower in GAA-creatine arm by 0.9 kg which probably implies that this combination does not result in water retention.
Jagim, A. R., Oliver, J. M., Sanchez, A., Galvan, E., Fluckey, J., Reichman, S., Talcott, S., Kelly, K., Meininger, C., Rasmussen, C., & Kreider, R. B. (2012). Kre-Alkalyn® supplementation does not promote greater changes in muscle creatine content, body composition, or training adaptations in comparison to creatine monohydrate. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 9(Suppl 1), P11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1550-2783-9-S1-P11
Semeredi, S., Stajer, V., Ostojic, J., Vranes, M., & Ostojic, S. M. (2019). Guanidinoacetic acid with creatine compared with creatine alone for tissue creatine content, hyperhomocysteinemia, and exercise performance: A randomized, double-blind superiority trial. Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.), 57, 162–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2018.04.009