Content uploaded by Fabio Santos Lira
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Fabio Santos Lira on Dec 29, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Food and Nutrition Sciences, 2015, 6, 1624-1630
Published Online December 2015 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/fns
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/fns.2015.617167
How to cite this paper: de França, E., et al. (2015) Creatine HCl and Creatine Monohydrate Improve Strength but Only
Creatine HCl Induced Changes on Body Composition in Recreational Weightlifters. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 6, 1624-
1630. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/fns.2015.617167
Creatine HCl and Creatine Monohydrate
Improve Strength but Only Creatine HCl
Induced Changes on Body Composition
in Recreational Weightlifters
Elias de França1, Bruno Avelar1, Caroline Yoshioka1, Jeferson Oliveira Santana1,
Diana Madureira1, Leandro Yanase Rocha1, Cesar Augustus Zocoler1,
Fabrício Eduardo Rossi2, Fabio Santos Lira2, Bruno Rodrigues3,
Érico Chagas Caperuto1,4*
1University São Judas Tadeu, São Paulo, Brazil
2Exercise and Immunometabolism Research Group, Department of Physical Education, Universidade
Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Presidente Prudente, Brazil
3Faculty of Physical Education, University of Campinas (FEF/Unicamp), Campinas, Brazil
4University Presbiteriana Mackenzie, São Paulo, Brazil
Received 9 December 2015; accepted 25 December 2015; published 28 December 2015
Copyright © 2015 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract
Background: Creatine supplementation is a subject that is very well studied. New forms of creatine
are suggesting improvements in this supplement performance. Creatine HCl is supposed to have
better solubility and absorption than creatine. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of
two different doses of creatine HCl with creatine monohydrate on the strength and body composi-
tion in recreational weightlifters and to verify the relationship between strength and body com-
position. Methods: 40 subjects were divided in four groups: Creatine Monohydrate (CMG) 5 g/daily;
Creatine HCl-1 (HCl-1) 5 g/daily, Creatine HCl-2 (HCl-2) 1.5 g/daily and Control group (CG) = 5 g of
resistant starch/daily. All groups performed a resistance training program during 4 weeks. Body
composition and strength were evaluated pre and post intervention. Results: The 1 RM at the Leg
press was increased significantly in all groups (CMG: pre = 264.4 ± 83.8 × post = 298.1 ± 90.9;
HCl-1: pre = 295.0 ± 88.3 × post = 338.3 ± 86.8 and HCl-2: pre = 274.3 ± 57.1 × post = 305.7 ± 59.4;
p < 0.05), Bench press 1 RM was increased significantly only in HCl-2 (pre = 72.4 ± 25.7 × post =
76.0 ± 25.0; p = 0.003), however, there was no statistically significant difference between groups.
Fatmass was significantly decreased in HCl-1 (pre = 14.5 ± 8.0 × post = 13.3 ± 8.3; p = 0.034) and
*Corresponding author.
E. de França et al.
1625
HCl-2 (pre = 13.8 ± 5.8 × post = 12.7 ± 5.6; p = 0.005) but fat-free mass was increased only in HCl-1
(pre = 52.2 ± 8.9 × post = 53.8 ± 8.9; p = 0.031), with no differences between groups again. We ob-
served strong correlations between upper limb strength and fat mass (r = −0.93, p < 0.05), and
between lower limb strength and FFM (r = 0.93, p < 0.05) only in HCl-1 group. Conclusions: We
concluded that creatine HCl and creatine Monohydrate improve performance but only creatine
HCl induces changes on body composition in recreational weightlifters with differences between
creatine HCl doses.
Keywords
Creatine Hidrochloride, Creatine, Resistance Training, Fat Free Mass, Fat Mass
1. Background
Creatine monohydrate (CrM) is one of the most studied sport supplements of the last decade. The American
College of Sports Medicine [1], and a recent meta-analysis conducted by Lanhers et al. [2], showed results from
articles published with CrM and the different effects about strength, muscle mass, and improvement on perfor-
mance in repeated short bouts of intense exercise. However, although CrM seems to be a consensus in terms of
efficacy to certain performance aspects and safety, some adverse effects of that supplementation have been re-
ported.
The main reports were on weight gain and water retention [1] [3] [4] with some studies reporting gastrointes-
tinal stress [1] [3] [5] and one of these studies reporting a strong correlation between diarrhea and the CrM doses
ingested [6]. These adverse effects of CrM are probably related to the mechanism of action of the substance and
the dose used to ensure the efficacy of the supplement. CrM is usually supplied in a large dose, a loading proto-
col, in order to completely fill muscle storages, being absorbed in the intestine. This protocol usually generates
an excess of creatine in the system that is partially responsible for the side effects associated with CrM supple-
mentation.
In order to minimize these negative effects, Creatine Hydrocloride (CrHCl) was introduced in the market by
Dash et al. [7], which is a molecule that is supposed to be 41 times more soluble in water than creatine monohy-
drate [8]. Moreover, it appears that its permeability in the intestinal tract is also greater than CrM [9]. According
to Gufford et al. [8] the amount of water to dilute 5 to 10 g of CrM is around 400 to 600 ml while CrHCl would,
for the same amount, need 21 ml of water. The authors then propose that greater solubility and permeability
could decrease the amount of creatine needed to fill the muscle. That would mean more absorption, less creatine
excretion, and less gastrointestinal discomfort. Furthermore, its effect on the strength and body composition may
be different and the doses can affect the results in athletes.
Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the effects of two different doses of CrHCl (1.5 g and 5 g) with
CrM on the strength and body composition in recreational weightlifters and to verify the relationship between
upper and lower limb strength and body composition in the different groups. We hypothesized that, CrHCl im-
proves performance similarly to CrM, but promotes different results in body composition.
2. Methods
2.1. Experimental Approach to the Problem
This controlled study was carried out from May to October of 2014 at the University São Judas Tadeu, São
Paulo, SP, Brazil. Evaluations were performed at baseline and after the training program and involved the fol-
lowing: screening for inclusion in the study, anthropometric measurements, body composition and performance
tests. Evaluations were performed one week before the beginning of the intervention and in the first week after
the intervention.
The CrM Group (CMG) = 5 g of creatine monohydrate/day; Creatine HCl-1 (HCl-1) = 5 g of creatine
HCl/day, Creatine HCl-2 (HCl-2) = 1.5 g of creatine HCl/day, and the Control group (CG) = 5 g of resistant
starch/day. All groups performed 4 weeks of strength training and they were asked to maintain 4 weeks without
participating in any regular physical exercise before the start of the training program.
E. de França et al.
1626
2.2. Subjects
All experimental procedures were approved by the University São Judas Tadeu ethical research committee
(CAAE: 21463313.9.0000.0089).
The participants contacted the researchers by phone and an appointment was made in order to carry out a
more detailed interview. All measurements were taken at the University Laboratory. The inclusion criteria were:
1) Subjects had at least 1year of weight lifting experience; 2) no using supplements of creatine for at least 2
months; 3) signing the consent form. The exclusion criteria were: 1) Subjects that didn’t do 25% of the training
sessions; 2) No ingestion of the supplements in the way prescribed or changed the diet; 3) Subjects that didn’t do
the last evaluation or had any health problems that made it impossible to keep the study.
40 healthy individuals, both genders between 20 and 40 years were selected. They were randomly divided in
four groups. Each group was composed of approximately 60% to 70% men and 30% to 40% women and 10 par-
ticipants were excluded of analyzes because didn´t attended the criteria of exclusion.
2.3. Procedures
2.3.1. Anthropometric Measurements and Body Composition
Body weight was measured using an electronic scale (Tanita HD-357 Digital Weight Scale, USA), with a preci-
sion of 0.1 kg. The participants were barefoot and wearing light clothing so as not to interfere with the mea-
surement.
The body composition was evaluated by skinfold thicknesses and were measured at the Chest, triceps, subs-
capular, suprailiac, abdominal, midaxillary and thigh skinfolds on the right side of the body with a Lange caliper
(Beta technology, USA) and three sets of measurements were taken to the nearest millimeter at each site; the
median of the three values was used [10]. The percentage of fat (%BF) was calculated according to Jackson and
Pollock [11] and fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) in Kilograms were calculated. Subjects were assessed
before and after the experimental protocol by the same evaluator.
2.3.2. Maximum Repetition Procedures
The test of one maximum repetition (1MR) was performed in the Leg press and Bench press. The 1MR test con-
sisted of a warm-up with 15 repetitions of 50% of estimated 1 MR, followed by 8 repetition with 70% of esti-
mated 1MR. The load was increased gradually during the test until the participants were no longer able to per-
form the entire movement, and five attempts were considered to meet the corresponding 1MR load and an inter-
val of 5 minutes between attempts was given for recovery [12].
2.3.3. Supplementation Protocol
Before the beginning of supplementation program, all groups had their diet homogenized by the research team
Nutritionist. Individuals were supposed to be at least 2 months without taking any creatine supplement. Whey
protein and other amino acid supplements were also managed to fit in the protein amount of the diet. All expe-
rimental groups did a specific training protocol, supplemented for 28 days and were divided like this: Control
group (CG) ingested capsules with resistant starch. CrM group (CMG), ingested 5 g of CrM. CrHCl1 (HCl-1)
ingested 5 g of CrHCl. CrHCl 2 (HCl-2) ingested 1.5 g of CrHCl. (Creatine monohydrate, Crea caps, Universal
Nutrition; Creatine HCl-HydroCrea, GT USA; Resistant Starch, Orion Pharmacy).
CrM dosages were based on the study published by Hultman et al. [13] that shows that 5 g of CrM during 28
days, is enough to promote the ergogenic effects of the supplement. CrHCl dose of 1.5 g is the dose proposed by
the manufacturer as enough to promote the same effects of 5 g of CrM.
Supplements were distributed in a double-blind manner and the supplements were supplied to the subjects in
individualized bottles with no identification of its content.
2.3.4. Strength Training Procedures
The subjects performed strength training, four times per week, during 4-weeks. The training program consisted
of four routines (A, B, C and D). On the 1st to 3rd week, the subjects performed A and B training and on the 2nd
and 4th week, performed C and D training. The program were composed of four exercises of chest and back
muscles, three to shoulder muscles, four to legs muscles, three to biceps and triceps, and two abdominal exer-
cises. Subjects performed four sets of 10 to 12 reps (80% to 90% of 1 MR) of each exercise and the sets were
E. de França et al.
1627
executed until momentary exhaustion.
2.3.5. Statistical Analysis
The Levene test was used to analyze homogeneity of the data set and parametric statistics were carried out. To
identify the similarity of the groups at baseline and after the intervention, one-way ANOVA with Tukey
Post-hoc was used. The “mean differences” (post exercise value minus baseline value) was calculated and final-
ly, Pearson correlation was used to analyze the relationship between the mean differences in upper limb strength
and lower limb strength with body composition. All analysis was performed using the statistical software SPSS
version 17.0 (SPSS, IBM) and the significance was p < 0.05.
3. Results
Table 1 presents the general characteristics of the groups at baseline in mean values and standard deviation of
body weight, body composition, and upper and lower limb strength. It can be seen that there were no statistical
differences for all variables investigated.
Table 2 presents the changes in the values of weight, body composition and strength variables after 4-week of
training and supplementation in the CG, HCl-1, HC-2 and CMG group.
The 1 RM at the Leg press was increased significantly in all groups after the intervention (p < 0.05), but at the
Bench press 1 RM was increased significantly only in HCl-2 (p = 0.003), however, there was no statistically
significant difference between groups.
When body composition was analyzed, FM was significantly decreased in HCl-1 (p = 0.034) and HCl-2 (p =
0.005) but FFM was increased only in HCl-1 (p = 0.031), however, there was no statistically significant differ-
ence between groups again.
Table 3 presents the values of Pearson correlation between upper and lower limb strength (1 RM) and body
composition in recreational weightlifters and different groups of creatine supplementation.
We observed strong negative correlations between upper limb strength and FM (r = −0.93, p < 0.05), and
strong positive correlations between upper limb strength and FFM (r = 0.93, p < 0.05) only in HCl-1 group.
There was no correlation in the other groups analyzed.
4. Discussion
The results of the present study demonstrated that CrHCl (without an ethil esther group) and CrM improved the
upper and lower limb strength after 4 weeks of resistance training but only CrHCl induced changes on the body
composition in recreational weightlifters. Furthermore, there seems to be a difference between CrHCl doses
when the body composition was analyzed.
The notion that a bigger amount of water is needed to dissolve CrM when compared to CrHCl [8], implicates
in an excess of water available, that might be related to water retention in the individuals that supplement with
CrM, as described in the literature [14] [15] with a consequent increase in body weight [16]. This can be consi-
dered one of the main advantages of CrHCl compared to CrM, which is to promote the same ergogenic effects,
without the weight gain.
Only the groups supplemented with CrHCl showed significant changes in %BF and FFM. Although CrM can
Table 1. The general characteristics of the groups at baseline in mean values and standard deviation of body weight, body
composition, and upper and lower limb strength.
Variables Placebo (n = 6) HCL 1.5 g (n = 7) HCL 5.0 g (n = 6) Monohidrate (n = 8) p-value
Weight (Kg) 69.67 ± 11.5 71.14 ± 15.4 67.33 ± 15.1 71.13 ± 13.1 0.954
Fat mass (Kg) 15.167 ± 7.8 13.857 ± 5.8 14.500 ± 8.0 16.375 ± 4.8 0.895
Fat mass (%) 21.67 ± 9.3 19.57 ± 7.8 20.67 ± 7.2 22.88 ± 3.7 0.832
Fat-free mass (Kg) 53.667 ± 9.0 56.429 ± 13.2 52.167 ± 8.9 53.750 ± 9.5 0.900
Leg Press (Kg) 260.00 ± 118.6 274.29 ± 57.1 295.00 ± 88.3 264.38 ± 83.8 0.899
Bench Press (Kg) 61.33 ± 26.1 72.43 ± 25.7 85.67 ± 40.7 71.88 ± 29.9 0.605
E. de França et al.
1628
Table 2. The changes in the values of weight, body composition and strength variables after 4 weeks of training and
supplementation in the CG, HCl-1, HC-2 and CMG group.
Placebo (n = 6) HCL 1.5 g (n = 7) HCL 5.0 g (n = 6) Monohidrate (n = 8)
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Weight (Kg) 69.7 ± 11.5 69.8 ± 11.5 71.1 ± 15.4 71.1 ± 16.3 67.3 ± 15.1 67.67 ± 14.4 71.1 ± 13.1 71.9 ± 12.5
Fat mass (Kg) 15.2 ± 7.8 14.3 ± 8.0 13.8 ± 5.8 12.7 ± 5.6* 14.5 ± 8.0 13.3 ± 8.3* 16.4 ± 4.8 15.6 ± 3.7
Fat mass (%) 21.7 ± 9.3 20.5 ± 10 19.6 ± 7.8 18.0 ± 7.7* 20.7 ± 7.2 18.7 ± 8.2 22.9 ± 3.7 21.7 ± 2.9
Fat-free
mass (Kg) 53.7 ± 9.0 54.8 ± 9.5 56.4 ± 13.2 57.4 ± 13.9 52.2 ± 8.9 53.8 ± 8.9* 53.7 ± 9.5 55.4 ± 9.9
Leg Press (Kg) 260 ± 118.6 293.3 ± 111.1* 274.3 ± 57.1 305.7 ± 59.4* 295.0 ± 88.3 338.3 ± 86.8** 264.4 ± 83.8 298.1 ± 90.9*
Bench
Press (Kg) 61.3 ± 26.1 64.5 ± 27 72.4 ± 25.7 76.0 ± 25.0* 85.7 ± 40.7 90.5 ± 37.0 71.9 ± 29.9 78.7 ± 33.4
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.001.
Table 3. The values of Pearson correlation between upper and lower limb strength (1RM) and body composition in
recreational weightlifters and different groups of creatine supplementation.
Independent variables Placebo (n = 6) HCL 1.5 g (n = 7) HCL 5.0 g (n = 6) Monohidrate (n = 8)
Relationship with ULS (Pearson Correlation [r])
Weight (Kg) −0.34 −0.06 0.15 0.18
FM (Kg) 0.64 −0.14 −0.93* −0.08
FFM (Kg) −0.20 0.21 0.93* 0.27
Relationship with LLS (Pearson Correlation [r])
Weight (Kg) 0.00 −0.43 −0.06 0.55
FM (Kg) 0.00 0.43 −0.64 0.28
FFM (Kg) 0.57 −0.39 0.64 −0.15
*p < 0.05. FM = fat mass; FFM = fat free mass; ULS = upper limb strength; LLS = lower limb strength.
be considered a consensus in the literature regarding muscle mass increase and performance improvement [2]
[16]-[18], the 5 g a day protocol is a protocol that promotes its gains after 1 month of supplementation [2]. At
the same time, CrM supplementation metabolic pathway is already well studied and the side effects to body
composition (water retention with weigh gain) are described [1] [3] [4] [14] [15]. Our results suggest that the
difference between these molecules might be the main responsible for the observed changes in the subject’s
body composition.
All groups have improved Leg press 1 MR test although no difference was shown between the groups. For the
Bench press 1MR test, the only group that showed significant improvements was HCl-2, although no difference
was shown between the groups again. These changes reflect the effects of training and supplementation. When
we consider the results of body composition and along with these results, we can suggest that CrHCl improves
performance the same way that creatine monohydrate with better results for body composition.
All this raises an important thought about the different dosages and effects of the different creatine supple-
ments. It seems that the smaller dosage of CrHCl (1.5 g) tested in this study is as good as 5 g of Cr in promoting
strength gains. However, when we look to the body composition results, different dosages of creatine HCl did
not gave different results, although these results were different from CrM. So that led us to different lines of
thinking.
Because the CrM supplementation promotes increase in total body hydration status [14] [15], there might be
an overestimation of fat-free mass values after its supplementation protocol [19].
We speculate that different body hydration (promoted by creatines) might be primarily responsible for the
observed changes in body composition of individuals in our study and the significant correlations between
changes in %BF/FFM and strength in HCl-1 group.
E. de França et al.
1629
Several methods, such as the method used in this study (Skinfold) and hydrostatic weighing, DXA, plethys-
mography or even total body potassium count consider the body hydration as a constant (i.e., it considers that
the body water is 73% for any individual), however, body hydration fluctuates considerably in the normal popu-
lation (18%) [20]. That is even more important when a creatine supplement is being used. So, we suggest future
studies with both CrM and CrHCl supplementation that assess body composition, considering in their formulas,
changes in body hydration status promoted by both creatines.
Classically increased body mass (due FFM increase) is related to the short term CrM supplementation proto-
col (i.e. 20 g day−1, for 5 - 7 days) [19], but it is not clear in the long term Protocol (i.e. 5 g day−1 for 30 days or
more) [16] [21]. This is important because athletic performance can be affected negatively by sudden changes in
body weight (such as gain of 3% or loss of 2% in body mass) [22]. When we consider body composition, CrM
had no effects, meanwhile CrHCl allowed some positive changes to happen. It would therefore be interesting to
study the short-term protocol and verify if CrHCl, would promote acute changes in fat-free mass and body mass
(due to water retention).Furthermore, it is valid in future studies to observe if this increase in FFM (in 5 g CrHCl
group long-term supplementation) could be associated with an increased protein homeostasis in the muscle tis-
sue (effect already demonstrated with CrM supplementation) [23].
Despite these results being of great relevance, it is necessary to mention that the intervention time of this
study could have been insufficient to promote greater decreases of %BF and increases in FFM and lower limb
strength. Other studies conducted over a longer period of time (similar to Larson-Meyer et al. [21] study proto-
col) and using other variables, such as metabolic ones would contribute to field.
5. Conclusion
We can conclude that CrHCl and CrM improve performance but only CrHCl induces changes on the body
composition in recreational weightlifters. We also noted that there was a stronger correlation between strength
and body composition only when 5 g of CrHCl was used and there seems to be a difference between CrHCl
doses when the body composition was analyzed. These results are important especially for those coaches or ath-
letes with weight limitation, such as fighters or gymnastic athletes that need performance improvement.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank GT Nutrition USA for providing the supplements used in the study and Orion Pharmacy
for providing resistant starch and arranging them in a double blind fashion.
Declaration of Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ Contribution
All authors participated equally in all steps of the study, but EF, BA, JOS, DM, LYR helped mainly in the data
collection phase, CY helped to organize and control the participant’s diets and CASZ, FER, FSL, BR and ECC
were responsible for the organization and discussion of the data. All authors agree with the information and data
presented in this study.
References
[1] Terjung, R.L., Clarkson, P., Eichner, E.R., Greenhaff, P.L., Heel, P.J., Israel, R.G., Kraemer, W.J., Meyer, R., Ariet,
L.L., Tarnopolsky, M.A., Wagenmakers, A.J. and Williams, M.H. (2000) American College of orts Medicine Roundt-
able: The Physiological and Health Effects of Oral Creatine Supplementation. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exer-
cise, 32, 706-717.
[2] Lanhers, C., Pereira, B., Naughton, G., Trousselard, M., Lesage, F.X. and Dutheil, F. (2015) Creatine Supplementation
and Lower Limb Strength Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. Sports Medicine, 45, 1285-1294.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0337-4
[3] Groeneveld, G.J., Beijer, C., Veldink, J.H., Kalmijn, S., Wokke, J.H. and Vandenberg, L.H. (2005) Few Adverse Ef-
fects of Long-Term Creatine Supplementation in a Placebo-Controlled Trial. International Journal of Sports Medicine,
26, 307-313.
E. de França et al.
1630
[4] Benzi, G. (2000) Is There a Rationale for the Use of Creatine Either as Nutritional Supplementation or Drug Adminis-
tration in Humans Participating in a ort? Pharmacological Research, 41, 255-264.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/phrs.1999.0618
[5] Graham, A.S. and Hatton, R.C. (1999) Creatine: A Review of Efficacy and Safety. Journal of the American Pharma-
ceutical Association (Wash), 39, 803-810, quiz 875-877.
[6] Ostojic, S.M. and Ahmetovic, Z. (2008) Gastrointestinal Distress after Creatine Supplementation in Athletes: Are Side
Effects Dose Dependent? Research in Sports Medicine, 16, 15-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15438620701693280
[7] Dash, A.K., Miller, D.W., Huai-Yan, H., Carnazzo, J. and Stout, J.R. (2001) Evaluation of Creatine Transport Using
Caco-2 Monolayers as an in Vitro Model for Intestinal Absorption. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 90, 1593-1598.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jps.1109
[8] Gufford, B.T., Sriraghavan, K., Miller, N.J., Miller, D.W., Gu, X., Vennerstrom, J.L. and Robinson, D. (2010) Physi-
cochemical Characterization of Creatine N-Methylguanidinium Salts. Journal of Dietary Supplements, 7, 240-252.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/19390211.2010.491507
[9] Gufford, B.T., Ezell, E.L., Robinson, D.H., Miller, D.W., Miller, N.J., Gu, X. and Vennerstrom, J.L. (2013) Dependent
Stability of Creatine Ethyl Ester: Relevance to Oral Absorption. Journal of Dietary Supplements, 10, 241-251.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/19390211.2013.822453
[10] Lohman, T.G. (1986) Applicability of Body Composition Techniques and Constants for Children and Youths. Exercise
& Sport Sciences Reviews, 14, 325-357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1249/00003677-198600140-00014
[11] Jackson, A.S. and Pollock, M.L. (1978) Generalized Equations for Predicting Body Density of Men. British Journal of
Nutrition, 91, 161-168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/bjn19780152
[12] Brown, L.E. and Weir, J.P. (2003) Recomendação de procedimentos da Sociedade Americana de Fisiologia do
Exercício (ASEP) I: Avaliação precisa da força e potência muscular. Revista Brasileira de Ciência e Movimento,
Brasília, 11, 95-110.
[13] Hultman, E., Söderlund, K., Timmons, J.A., Cederblad, G. and Greenhaff, P.L. (1996) Muscle Creatine Loading in
Men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 81, 232-237.
[14] Francaux, M. and Poortmans, J.R. (1999) Effects of Training and Creatine Supplement on Muscle Strength and Body
Mass. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 80, 165-168.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s004210050575
[15] Powers, M.E., Arnold, B.L., Weltman, A.L., Perrin, D.H., Mistry, D., Kahler, D.M., Kraemer, W. and Volek, J. (2003)
Creatine Supplementation Increases Total Body Water Without Altering Fluid Distribution. Journal of Athletic Train-
ing, 38, 44-50.
[16] Branch, J.D. (2003) Effect of Creatine Supplementation on Body Composition and Performance: A Meta-Analysis. In-
ternational Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 13, 198-226.
[17] Bembem MG, Lamont HS. Creatine supplementation and exercise performance: recent findings. orts Med. 2005; 35(2),
107-125.
[18] Devries, M.C. and Phillips, S.M. (2014) Creatine Supplementation during Resistance Training in Older Adults—A
Meta-Analysis. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 46, 1194-1203.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000220
[19] Kilduff, L.P., Lewis, S., Kingsley, M.I., Owen, N.J. and Dietzig, R.E. (2007) Reliability and Detecting Change Fol-
lowing Short-Term Creatine Supplementation: Comparison of Two-Component Body Composition Methods. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 21, 378-384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/00124278-200705000-00015
[20] Moon, J. (2013) Body Composition in Athletes and Sports Nutrition: An Examination of the Bioimpedance Analysis
Technique. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 67, S54-S59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2012.165
[21] Larson-Meyer, D.E., Hunter, G.R., Trowbridge, C.A., Turk, J.C., Ernest, J.M., Torman, S.L. and Harbin, P.A. (2000)
The Effect of Creatine Supplementation on Muscle Strength and Body Composition during Off-Season Training in
Female Soccer Players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 14, 434-442.
[22] Sundgot-Borgen, J. and Garthe, I. (2011) Elite Athletes in Aesthetic and Olympic Weight-Class Sports and the Chal-
lenge of Body Weight and Body Compositions. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29, S101-S114.
[23] Tang, F.C., Chan, C.C. and Kuo, P.L. (2013) Contribution of Creatine to Protein Homeostasis in Athletes after Endur-
ance and Sprint Running. European Journal of Nutrition, 53, 61-71.
