Jagim et al. 2012: Buffered Creatine vs Monohydrate — No Advantage Found

TL;DR — Jagim et al. 2012

Jagim and colleagues published a double-blind RCT comparing buffered creatine (Kre-Alkalyn) against creatine monohydrate.

The study found no advantage for the buffered form in any measured outcome — muscle creatine content, body composition, strength, or endurance were equivalent between groups (Jagim et al., 2012) .

These results reinforced the ISSN position that creatine monohydrate remains the gold standard form with no evidence supporting the superiority of alternative formulations.

Background

Buffered creatine, marketed as Kre-Alkalyn, claims to have a higher pH that prevents conversion to creatinine in the stomach, theoretically improving absorption and reducing side effects.

These marketing claims suggested that lower doses of buffered creatine could match or exceed the effects of standard monohydrate doses.

However, both the 2007 ISSN position stand by Buford et al. (Buford et al., 2007) and the 2017 update by Kreider et al. (Kreider et al., 2017) concluded that no alternative form of creatine has been shown to be superior to monohydrate.

Jagim et al. designed this study to directly test the buffered creatine claims.

Study Design

• Type: Double-blind, randomized controlled trial
• Groups:
  • Creatine monohydrate: 20 g/day loading for 7 days, then 5 g/day maintenance
  • Buffered creatine (manufacturer dose): as directed on label
  • Buffered creatine (equivalent dose): matched to monohydrate group dosing
• Duration: 28 days
• Measurements: Muscle creatine via muscle biopsy, body composition via DXA, strength tests, endurance tests, blood chemistry, reported side effects

Key Findings

1. Muscle creatine content was equivalent

Muscle biopsy analysis showed that all three groups achieved similar increases in intramuscular creatine content. The buffered form did not produce superior muscle loading despite marketing claims of better absorption.

2. Performance outcomes were identical

No significant differences were observed between groups for:

• Bench press 1RM
• Leg press 1RM
• Muscular endurance
• Sprint performance

3. Side effects were comparable

Both forms were well tolerated. Reports of bloating, cramping, and gastrointestinal discomfort were minimal and not significantly different between groups.

This contradicted the marketing claim that buffered creatine eliminates the side effects associated with monohydrate.

4. Creatinine levels were similar

Blood creatinine levels did not differ significantly between groups, challenging the claim that buffered creatine prevents the conversion of creatine to creatinine.

Practical Implications

1. Stick with monohydrate: No evidence supports paying a premium for buffered or pH-adjusted creatine formulations
2. Marketing claims are unsubstantiated: Buffered creatine’s purported advantages in absorption and side effect reduction were not confirmed by direct scientific comparison
3. The ISSN position is supported: Monohydrate remains the most researched, most effective, and most cost-effective form of creatine
4. Cost matters: Monohydrate is typically 3-5 times cheaper per serving than proprietary formulations

Malaysian Relevance

Malaysian consumers encounter numerous creatine forms on Shopee, Lazada, and in supplement shops. Buffered creatine products are often marketed with premium pricing and claims of superior absorption.

This study provides clear evidence that standard creatine monohydrate — available for as little as RM 0.50 per serving — performs identically to more expensive alternatives.

As Harris et al. (1992) first demonstrated, the monohydrate form reliably increases muscle creatine stores (Harris et al., 1992) .

Limitations

• 28-day study may not capture long-term differences
• Relatively small sample size per group
• Only compared one alternative form (Kre-Alkalyn)
• Single manufacturer’s product tested

Full Citation

Jagim AR, Oliver JM, Sanchez A, et al. A buffered form of creatine does not promote greater changes in muscle creatine content, body composition, or training adaptations than creatine monohydrate. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition.

2012;9(1):43. doi:10.1186/1550-2783-9-43

Where This Fits in the Evidence

Jagim et al. (2012) is one of several head-to-head trials pitting a “next-generation” creatine against plain monohydrate — and, like the rest, it found no advantage. That consistency is why the ISSN position stand still treats monohydrate as the reference form: the burden of proof sits with the newer formulations, and buffered creatine has not met it. If a product costs more than monohydrate, this study is a fair reason to ask what the premium actually buys. For the wider evidence base, see our research library.

Sources & References

This article is based on the RCT by Jagim et al. published in JISSN (2012) and contextualized with Buford et al. (2007), Kreider et al. (2017), and Harris et al. (1992).

All citations reference PubMed-indexed publications.

Further Reading

• creatine dosage guide
• creatine safety profile
• creatine monohydrate
• creatine for muscle building
• buying creatine in Malaysia
• creatine research library