Creatine Monohydrate vs HCL: The Truth No One Explains

The 20-gram loading protocol is the most extensively studied method in sports nutrition. The speaker cites the classic loading-to-maintenance model and notes that many people overlook its cognitive upside. By front-loading for about a week, users achieve peak intramuscular creatine levels, which can translate into greater strength gains and training volume earlier in a programme. He then sets maintenance at 2–5 grams, emphasising that 2.5 grams on the low end still sustains saturation once achieved. The suggestion to always start with a loading phase for brain function adds a novel dimension not always highlighted in mainstream sports discussions.

The speaker presents this as the standard, evidence-based maintenance protocol for creatine monohydrate. He explicitly says 'most of the studies on creatine are pretty clear' on this range, confirming that even the lower 2.5 g/day is sufficient for many people once saturation is achieved. This straightforward regimen underpins the cost-effectiveness argument: a five-gram daily dose of monohydrate costs only pennies, whereas the same dose of hydrochloride would be significantly more expensive without added benefit.

The investigators recruited around 45 resistance-trained young men and randomly assigned them to monohydrate, hydrochloride, or placebo groups. All participants followed a supervised resistance training program while the two creatine groups underwent a loading phase. Outcomes included leg press and bench press one-repetition maximums, squat strength, thigh muscle circumference, and hormonal markers like testosterone, growth hormone, IGF‑1, and testosterone-to-cortisol ratio. Both creatine groups improved significantly more than placebo, but there was no significant difference between monohydrate and hydrochloride on any endpoint. The study authors concluded that solubility does not affect creatine’s bioavailability and that claims of hydrochloride superiority are unsupported. This aligns with a systematic review by Kreider et al. that found monohydrate to be the most effective and well-studied form. The speaker emphasizes that since hydrochloride costs significantly more and all commercial HCl is sourced from China—raising purity concerns—there is no rational argument for choosing it over monohydrate.

The paper cited in the video, along with earlier work by Kreider and colleagues, systematically assessed the pharmacokinetics and performance outcomes of various creatine forms. They found that when creatine monohydrate is consumed, intestinal absorption is close to 100%, meaning that any additional solubility conferred by the hydrochloride salt does not increase the amount of creatine reaching the bloodstream or muscle. The study’s authors explicitly state that 'claims that the creatine hydrochloride is more bioavailable and more effective than creatine monohydrate are not supported.' The speaker adds that the German raw material manufacturer AlzChem looked into making HCl but chose not to because there was no human evidence of superiority, underscoring that even the most quality-focused suppliers see no added value.

The speaker explains that creatine is synthesized from essential amino acids arginine and glycine (with methionine) and that high-quality synthesis, particularly the European route, yields a product with near-zero contaminant levels. He names two specific impurities—dicyandiamide and dihydrotriazine—that are more common in Chinese material, along with elevated creatinine. He adds that Chinese HCl material has also shown contamination with arsenic and possibly mercury. He therefore insists on third-party testing for these specific analytes plus heavy metals. His own supplement brand, Myoscience, exclusively uses German raw material from AlzTech (AlzChem), citing their higher purity and refusal to produce inferior forms like HCl. He also notes that consumers can find European-sourced monohydrate in micronized versions, which enhance water solubility without the purity trade-offs.