A literature review on creatine monohydrate and buffered forms of creatine supplementation, with a view of covering commonly debated topics. Certain information on the subject of creatine supplementation is often misinformed due to lack of information or poorly preached information, this has in time lead to disagreements in areas including: creatine response variation (Syrotuik and Bell, 2004 and Flanagan, date unknown), the effectiveness of creatine loading (Arazi et al., 2011 and Sculthorpe et al., 2010), buffered forms vs creatine monohydrate effectiveness (Eckerson et al., 2005 and Jagim et al., 2012), creatine and carbohydrate combination effectiveness (Antonio and Ciccone, 2013, Theodorou et al., 2005, Kalman et al., 2012 and Taylor et al., 2011), the safety of creatine supplementation (Cancela et al., 2008, Francaux and Poortmans, 2006, Lugaresi et al., 2013 and Schroder et al., 2005).
Creatine monohydrate especially and buffered forms of creatine have become one of the most extensively researched and consumed supplements in today's world (Burford et al., 2007, Taylor et al., 2011, Jagim et al., 2012, Flanagan, 2007, Cooper et al., 2012 and Bemben and Lamont, 2005). 'Creatine (Cr) is a nitrogenous amino acid derivative taken in beef and fish diets, and is naturally synthesised in the body from arginine, glycine and methionine, primarily in the liver and kidney' (Cancela et al., 2008:731). When exercising intensely, intracellular creatine phosphate (PCr) is rapidly broken down to uphold adenosine triphosphate turnover (Sculthorpe et al., 2010, Flanagan, 2007, Bemben and Lamont, 2005, Eckerson et al., 2005 and Cancela et al., 2008). Creatine supplementation has been speculated on since it gained considerable recognition around the 1990's (Burford et al., 2007) and since then the speculation of its effectiveness and safety has been a vastly researched in order to answer the reports and the myths of the mass media.
