A specific product comparison generated the evidence
The report included an open-label pharmacokinetic crossover phase in 10 healthy men and an eight-week double-blind comparison in 52 active men. Researchers reported higher plasma exposure and favorable changes in several performance and body-composition measures with the tested formulation. [1]
Both products were creatine monohydrate. The comparison therefore was not between monohydrate and an entirely different chemical form. [1]
Formulation findings need independent confirmation
The study was small, male-only and brief. Body composition used bioelectrical impedance, and intramuscular creatine was not measured. Higher plasma exposure alone cannot establish greater muscle uptake. [1]
Lasons India paid trial and product expenses, and one author disclosed employment there. These relationships and the limited design make independent replication important. The study does not justify paying more for any product merely because its label says micronized, nor does it establish that particle size alone caused every reported difference. [1]
Match the conclusion to the actual products
Imagine preparation A outperforms preparation B in one trial. It does not follow that all products sharing one label word with A will outperform every alternative.
| Detail | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| 10-person pharmacokinetic phase | Blood exposure |
| 52-person eight-week phase | Selected performance outcomes |
| Micronized label alone | Not proof of equivalent results |
Sources for this article
- Comparative Efficacy and Pharmacokinetic Parameters of Micronized Creatine Monohydrate (KleanCREATINE™) in Active Men: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Study - PMC
Source consulted: 2026-09-19. This is a reference resource, not a claim that we conducted the studies or tested a product.