07:37
creatine
Citing a newly published randomized study in resistance-trained men, Layne Norton argues that creatine hydrochloride offers no measurable advantage over creatine monohydrate on strength, lean mass, or any other outcome despite typically costing 2-4x more, because monohydrate is already virtually 100% bioavailable and higher solubility does not translate into better results.
The new study used 4 arms in resistance-trained men: placebo, creatine HCl (0.3 g/kg/day, no loading), creatine monohydrate with a 5-day loading phase (0.3 g/kg/day) then maintenance, and creatine monohydrate with no loading — tracked over 8 weeks.
Creatine monohydrate has ~30-40 years of evidence behind it as, per the video, the most effective supplement on the market for lean mass, strength, and performance, with a strong safety record.
Norton argues the supplement industry periodically promotes 'new' creatine forms (creatine salts, ethyl ester, buffered creatine, now HCl) because monohydrate's ubiquity has driven its price down, leaving no profit margin on it.
Creatine ethyl ester, an earlier 'improved' form, was shown to be less effective than monohydrate at raising phosphocreatine levels despite being marketed as superior.
Buffered creatine (brand name 'Crealine'/Kre-Alkalyn) was marketed on the claim it survives stomach acid better, but monohydrate is already virtually 100% bioavailable, and buffered creatine showed the same effectiveness as monohydrate despite costing about 4-5x more.
HCl's marketing claim is that greater solubility makes it more bioavailable, so less of it is needed for the same results.
Norton disputes that premise directly: being more soluble doesn't make something more bioavailable, and monohydrate is already virtually 100% bioavailable.
The study intentionally used a low dose (~2.1 g/day maintenance, ~21 g/day during the 5-day loading phase) to give HCl's claimed solubility advantage the best chance of showing up, since the claim implies any edge should appear most at lower doses.
Results: all creatine groups outperformed placebo on leg press strength, bench press strength, and cross-sectional area increases, with small increases in some hormones that Norton says don't meaningfully explain anabolism — but no single measure showed a difference between HCl and monohydrate.
The loading-phase group showed no difference from the non-loading groups on any measure, meaning loading is optional if you're willing to wait a couple of weeks for muscle saturation instead.
Practical solubility fix: dissolve creatine monohydrate in something acidic (e.g., orange juice), since it is more soluble and stable in acidic solution; alternatively, micronized creatine mixes better if grittiness is the concern.
Norton discloses he sells a creatine monohydrate product (Outwork Nutrition Recovery) but states he held this same opinion before he had a supplement company, and frames using only monohydrate in his product as the ethical choice since it delivers the most effective results at the lowest cost.
Creatine Monohydrate — The original, most-studied form of creatine, used for 30-40 years and described in the video as the most effective supplement for lean mass, strength, and performance. Apply: Take about 0.3 g/kg/day, with or without a 5-day loading phase, as the default, lowest-cost, most effective creatine supplement.
Creatine Hydrochloride (HCl) — A creatine salt marketed as more soluble and therefore more bioavailable than monohydrate, requiring a smaller dose for equal results. Apply: In the study it was dosed at 0.3 g/kg/day with no loading phase; the video advises against paying its usual 2-4x price premium since it performed identically to monohydrate on every measure.
Creatine Ethyl Ester — An earlier 'improved' creatine form marketed similarly to HCl as an upgrade over monohydrate. Apply: Avoid it — the video states it was actually shown to be less effective than monohydrate at raising phosphocreatine levels.
Buffered Creatine (brand name Crealine / Kre-Alkalyn) — A pH-buffered creatine marketed on the claim that it survives stomach acid better than monohydrate. Apply: Avoid paying its 4-5x markup — the video states monohydrate is already virtually 100% bioavailable and buffered creatine showed the same effectiveness.
Creatine Loading Phase protocol — A front-loaded dosing protocol (0.3 g/kg/day for 5 days in the study) meant to saturate muscle creatine stores quickly before dropping to a maintenance dose. Apply: Use it only if faster saturation matters to you — the study found no outcome difference versus skipping it, so it's optional if you're willing to wait a couple of weeks instead.
Non-loading (maintenance-only) protocol — Taking a steady maintenance dose (about 2.1 g/day in the study) from day one without a loading phase. Apply: Use as a simpler default that reaches the same strength and cross-sectional-area outcomes as loading, just with slower muscle saturation.
Micronized Creatine — Creatine monohydrate processed into finer particles for better mixing. Apply: Choose this variant if grittiness or mixing is the concern, rather than switching to a pricier form like HCl.
Acidic-solution dissolution trick — Creatine monohydrate is more soluble and remains stable when dissolved in an acidic liquid. Apply: Mix creatine monohydrate into something acidic, like orange juice, to improve solubility without needing to switch to a different creatine form.
The video's framing exposes a recurring incentive structure behind 'new creatine' marketing cycles: monohydrate's very commoditization (everyone makes it, prices are driven down) is what creates the opening for new forms — the same rhetorical move ('this form fixes a problem monohydrate has') has been recycled across ethyl ester (efficacy), buffered/Kre-Alkalyn (stomach-acid stability), and now HCl (solubility/bioavailability), each time against a different alleged flaw.
The study's choice to test at 'the lowest effective dose' rather than a high dose functions as part of the argument: it's structured to maximize the chance of detecting HCl's claimed solubility/bioavailability edge if it were real, since a high-dose ceiling effect could otherwise mask any difference — making the null result more probative than a same-outcome result at high doses would be.
Norton's suggested solubility fix (dissolve monohydrate in something acidic) directly undercuts HCl's core selling point, since it demonstrates the cheaper product already solves the stated problem for anyone who wants it solved, without needing a different creatine form.
The study reframes the loading phase as a matter of convenience rather than necessity: its only demonstrated effect is faster time-to-saturation, not superior end results, since the loading and non-loading monohydrate arms converged on identical strength and cross-sectional-area outcomes by week 8.
«don't like creatin monohydrate because it is very widespread everyone knows it's great and everyone makes it therefore prices get driven down so you really can't make much money from selling creative monohydrate because it's not a novel ingredient»
— 01:27
«ethylester which funny enough was actually shown to be less effective at increasing phosphor creatin levels»
— 02:02
«just because something is more soluble doesn't make it more bioavailable»
— 02:57
«were there differences between hydrochloride and monohydrate not one single measure was there a difference»
— 04:54
«you don't need to load as long as you don't mind waiting maybe a couple weeks to saturate your muscle cells and hydrochloride is not better than creatin monohydrate regardless of solubility it is not»
— 05:21
«there isn't really a good justification to spend two to three to four times the amount of money on creatin hydrochloride»
— 06:01
«the only creatin I've ever used in any of my products is Crea monohydrate because I want to provide the most effective product at the lowest cost to you the consumer because that is what is ethical business-wise»
— 06:59
Reception
Audience largely dismisses the video's conclusions as biased, arguing that HCL's practical benefit of eliminating GI issues makes it genuinely better despite higher cost.
The argument leans on a single new randomized trial that aligns with decades of prior creatine-monohydrate research, which is a reasonably strong evidentiary base, though Norton's disclosed commercial stake in a monohydrate product is worth weighing against the certainty of his framing.
07:37