Creatine Monohydrate vs HCL: What Are the Differences?
Those who are exercising and maintaining a healthy lifestyle know that, in addition to diet and exercise, supplementation may help to enhance athletic performance and workout results. Creatine is one of the most well-researched and widely used supplements for improving athletic performance and muscle growth.
Our bodies create amino acids to facilitate the production of creatine, which supports muscle growth and protein synthesis, and enhances energy production and cognitive function. Creatine is primarily stored in skeletal muscle and is also found in foods such as cow's milk, fish and meats. 1 While the body does produce creatine, supplementation can be a good option for those who don't get enough from their diet or who work out a lot. Evidence has shown that creatine supplementation may increase muscle performance and help muscles recover more swiftly after exercise.2
The two main types of creatine supplements are creatine monohydrate and creatine hydrochloride (HCl). Knowing the differences between creatine monohydrate and HCl can help you decide which supplement may be able to help you achieve your workout goals.
What Are the Differences?
Both creatine monohydrate and creatine HCl increase the speed with which our bodies produce adenosine triphosphate (ATP), a form of energy used by the muscles which is quickly depleted during high-intensity exercise. While creatine monohydrate has been in use longer than creatine HCl, and therefore has been studied more thoroughly, this does not necessarily mean that one creatine supplement is better than the other.
A key difference between creatine monohydrate and creatine HCl lies in each supplement’s chemical makeup. Creatine monohydrate combines a creatine molecule with a water molecule. Creatine HCl, on the other hand, combines creatine with salt (hydrochloric acid), making it more water soluble and potentially improving its absorption.3 Because of its chemical makeup, some begin taking creatine monohydrate with a loading phase, with higher initial amounts taken to encourage more creatine storage in the muscles, then reducing to smaller amounts (called a maintenance phase) after six weeks of supplementation. Creatine HCl’s chemical composition means that it may be taken in smaller amounts yet may produce the same results as creatine monohydrate, without the loading phase creatine monohydrate requires.
Although creatine monohydrate has been more thoroughly studied than creatine HCl, research continues to compare the two types of creatine supplements and to determine their relative benefits.
Who Should Take Monohydrate vs. HCL?
Creatine monohydrate is preferred by some athletes and exercisers as it has been on the market longer than creatine HCl. Taking creatine monohydrate just after working out may help your muscles recover more quickly.4 Short-term usage of creatine monohydrate may help to increase performance and maximize strength. Long-term usage of creatine monohydrate may aid performance in high-intensity exercise and help to gain fat-free mass.5
Some prefer taking creatine HCl, citing a bloated feeling after taking creatine monohydrate. Studies have shown that, due to the loading dose required with creatine monohydrate, it may cause increased water retention in the first several days of use.6
Which type of creatine you choose is up to you. Although taking a workout supplement such as creatine is not vital to a healthy workout, it may help to maximize your workout benefits. Both types of creatine have been found to be relatively safe, with few adverse effects reported when recommended dosages are taken.6 Check out our line of creatine supplements to decide which type may benefit you.
You be well, now
Swanson
*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
Sources
1. Dr. LeWine, H., What is Creatine? Harvard Health Publishing. March 20, 2024. Read Source
2. Antonio, J., et al. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 18, 13 (2021). Read Source
3. Eghbali, E., et al. (2024). Physiological Research, 73(5), 739–753. Read Source
4. Antonio J, Ciccone V. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2013 Aug 6;10:36. Read Source
5. Richard B. Krieder, Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry. Read Source
6. Matthew DO Hall and Thomas H Trojian, Current Sports Medicine reports. 12(4):p 240-244, July/August 2013. Read Source
