Serum LDL decreased slightly in response to creatine loading in the CrM group but returned to baseline after ingesting Epigenetics inhibitor maintenance doses of CrM suggesting these changes were transient. Additionally, no significant differences were observed among groups in markers of catabolism (BUN, BUN:CRN, AST, ALT, Total Protein, TBIL), markers of bone status (bone mineral content, ALB, GLOB, ALB:GLOB, calcium, ALK) or whole blood markers (WBC, RBC, Hematocrit, Smad inhibitor Hemoglobin, MCV, MCH, MCHC, RBCDW, platelet counts). Moreover, values remained within normal levels for active individuals. These findings are consistent with other studies that have examined the safety of creatine supplementation in active individuals

[1, 3, 21, 26, 27, 38]. Consequently, present findings do not support claims learn more that KA is a safer form of creatine to ingest than creatine monohydrate.

Conclusion In summary, supplementation of the diet with recommended doses of a purported buffered form of creatine (1.5 g/d) for 28-days or equivalent loading (20 g/d for 7-days) and maintenance doses (5 g/d for 21-days) of CrM did not promote greater increases in muscle creatine content or training adaptations in comparison to creatine monohydrate (20 g/d for 7-days, 5 g/d for 21-days). Additionally, there was no evidence to support claims that the buffered form of creatine was associated with fewer side effects or was a safer form of creatine to consume than creatine monohydrate. While it could be argued that supplementing the diet with any form of creatine may provide some health and/or 3-mercaptopyruvate sulfurtransferase ergogenic benefits over time as long as it delivers sufficient amounts of creatine to increase muscle creatine content; present findings do not support claims

that KA is a more efficacious and/or safer form of creatine than creatine monohydrate. With this said, some limitations of this study should be noted. For example, this study did not have a control group and depended on participants to self-report side effects. Therefore, while the safety profile of short and long-term creatine monohydrate supplementation has been well established, safety and efficacy could only be compared to ingesting different levels and forms of creatine and not controls. There is also variability in conducting muscle and blood assays as well as variability in conducting performance tests. In some instances, large mean differences among groups were either not statistically significant or only approached significance. It is possible that some of these differences would have been significant if a control group was included in the study design and/or more subjects were studied to increase statistical power. Nevertheless, results from the present study do not support claims that KA is a more efficacious and/or safer form of creatine to consume than creatine monohydrate. Funding Supported by AlzChem AG, Germany.