The study published in Nutrients by authors from the University of Split and Jagiellonian University assessed the bioavailability claims of new creatine formulations. They analyzed 357 reports from 343 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and found that a significant number (15.5%) did not specify the creatine form used. The authors highlighted that many RCTs focus solely on performance outcomes without measuring pharmacokinetic data, such as creatine concentrations in circulation.
Key findings from the research include:
- Creatine monohydrate was the most prevalent formulation, appearing in 80.2% of trials, but nearly 15.5% did not specify the form.
- Only 11.1% of reports mentioned bioavailability, and just 1.2% included measures to enhance it.
- Comparisons of different formulations were rare, with only 1.5% of trials doing so and only 0.9% discussing bioavailability.
Despite creatine monohydrate’s widespread use, concerns over its bioavailability led to the development of enhanced formulations like creatine citrate, which also include other nutrients. The authors suggest that studies should use equimolar dosing and appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of these compounds accurately.
In the context of cognitive health, few trials have explored creatine’s role in brain health, with only two studies investigating its effects on brain creatine concentration. The research indicates that more efficient creatine forms could improve absorption and treatment efficacy for neurological conditions.
The authors encourage future trials to improve reporting standards, consider bioavailability outcomes, and explore innovative formulations and delivery methods that might offer significant therapeutic potential, especially for brain health.
For more details, refer to the original study: Nutrients.
