Which supplement works better to increase muscle mass: buffered creatine monohydrate or zinc magnesium aspartate (zma)?

Ratings at a Glance

Supplement	Effectiveness Rating	Confidence Rating
Buffered Creatine Monohydrate
Zinc Magnesium Aspartate (ZMA)

Effectiveness Rating: Buffered Creatine Monohydrate vs Zinc Magnesium Aspartate (ZMA)

The effectiveness rating is a measure of the supplements' ability to increase muscle mass. This rating answers the question of whether or not a supplement does what it claims. The evidence backing up buffered creatine monohydrate is great, while the evidence backing up zinc magnesium aspartate (zma) is good. Buffered Creatine Monohydrate should be able to increase muscle mass more effectively, however both supplements should provide positive results.

Confidence Rating: Buffered Creatine Monohydrate vs Zinc Magnesium Aspartate (ZMA)

Another factor to take into account when comparing supplements is the confidence rating. This rating is a measure of how valid each supplement's effectiveness rating is. Remember, the confidence rating is a measure of how much you can trust the effectiveness rating. This rating is based on how many studies are included in the database on a supplement's claims. Ideally, you want a high effectiveness AND confidence rating.

Both buffered creatine monohydrate and zinc magnesium aspartate (zma) have low confidence ratings. This means neither supplement has an adequate amount of research to back up this claim. A low confidence rating questions the validity of the effectiveness rating.