Which supplement works better to increase strength: n-methyl-d-aspartic acid or polyethylene glycosylated (peg) creatine?

Ratings at a Glance

Supplement	Effectiveness Rating	Confidence Rating
N-Methyl-D-Aspartic Acid
Polyethylene Glycosylated (PEG) Creatine

Effectiveness Rating: N-Methyl-D-Aspartic Acid vs Polyethylene Glycosylated (PEG) Creatine

The effectiveness rating is a measure of the supplements' ability to increase strength. This rating answers the question of whether or not a supplement does what it claims. The evidence shows polyethylene glycosylated (peg) creatine is better than n-methyl-d-aspartic acid in its ability to increase strength. Polyethylene Glycosylated (PEG) Creatine should provide some positive results while n-methyl-d-aspartic acid will not.

Confidence Rating: N-Methyl-D-Aspartic Acid vs Polyethylene Glycosylated (PEG) Creatine

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 n-methyl-d-aspartic acid and polyethylene glycosylated (peg) creatine 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.