Creatine Ethyl Ester vs. Creatine Monohydrate [Forum Archive]

Pages: 1

Creatine Ethyl Ester vs. Creatine Monohydrate

(CLICK HERE here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Skib

I've always taken monohydrate in the past... 1 5g scoop before and 1 5g scoop after training... I would also take 1 or 2 scoops on off days as well... but I just picked up some ethyl ester for the first time today and after hearing how awful the powder tastes opted to go the capsule route... now I notice the recommended use for ethyl ester seems to be a little different than monohydrate... first of all it says 1 serving is 4 capsules (2000mg of CEE HCl) and that I should take it prior to working out and to maximize muscle recovery take an additional serving post work out (this part sounds optional to me)

now my Q's are is before and after really necessary or will 1 serving do? I would rather not burn through this stuff if I don't have to and also, is it necessary to take on off days? it doesn't really specify...

any input would be greatly appreciated!

Posted by: Ngordyn

i tried the CEE powder and it tasted horrible , but for me i saw better results on mono hydrate 1.5g before and 1.5 after .......but that was just my results could be different from anyone else i have stuck to the mono hydrate ever since.......i never took it on off days tho and with the mono hydrate i do

Posted by: AKIRA

I take the recommended dosage on ON days, but on OFF days, I consider it optional.

Scoops? Hah! Capsules are the way to go.

Posted by: strong

What about kre-alkalin? From ultimate nutrition

Posted by: Ngordyn

Quote:

Originally Posted by strong

What about kre-alkalin? From ultimate nutrition

lol do u say anything besides kre-alkalin

Posted by: Herculess

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skib

I've always taken monohydrate in the past... 1 5g scoop before and 1 5g scoop after training... I would also take 1 or 2 scoops on off days as well... but I just picked up some ethyl ester for the first time today and after hearing how awful the powder tastes opted to go the capsule route... now I notice the recommended use for ethyl ester seems to be a little different than monohydrate... first of all it says 1 serving is 4 capsules (2000mg of CEE HCl) and that I should take it prior to working out and to maximize muscle recovery take an additional serving post work out (this part sounds optional to me)

now my Q's are is before and after really necessary or will 1 serving do? I would rather not burn through this stuff if I don't have to and also, is it necessary to take on off days? it doesn't really specify...

any input would be greatly appreciated!

CEE for me is better than monohydrate, I have taken it for the last 6 months and the gains are good. CEE is safer than Monohydrate...just follow the dosage...

Posted by: PreMier

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herculess

CEE for me is better than monohydrate, I have taken it for the last 6 months and the gains are good. CEE is safer than Monohydrate...just follow the dosage...

what the hell are you talking about?

Posted by: highpockets

Yeah! What PreMier said. We're waiting for an explanation. I'm interested; really!

Posted by: workhard1

I do not think CEE is any safer than Mono... The only benefit I have heard about CEE as opposed to Mono is that is MIGHT cause less water retention. Personally I have not don't too much research on it but I did decide to start taking creatine about 2 weeks ago. Because I don't like feeling bloated I opted with the CEE. Sadly I got the powder because I read that if you can handle the taste of the powder is could potentially be more effective (but I am not sure if that is true or not). Now I have the powder and for the first week I thought I was going to vomit while I took it with my drink.

I have learned a few tricks in the past two weeks that make the taste a little more doable. I mix it with 2 scoops of Whey and a dash of cinnamon. This seems to take some of the terrible taste off and I can now stomach the drink and as the days progress I am even beginning to enjoy the drink a little.

The only thing I will say is that I have not really felt any actual effect from the stuff. Is creatine supposed to make you feel any different? Because so far I don't really notice much if any difference.

Posted by: Prince

Anyone that doubts the benefits off CEE over CM just check out the studies performed by UniMed, it was submitted with their patent application in August 2007.

increased availability
increased absorption
less bloating, cramps and GI stress
smaller doses needed

bottom lime, CEE is superior, yes more expensive, but you take less and it has fewer sides.

Creatine Ethyl Ester HCL (CEE)

Posted by: PreMier

1000g for 30$ is cheap imo
Bulk Nutrition - 1Fast400 Creatine Ethyl Ester HCl at discount prices!

Posted by: nni

neither are dangerous, therefore one cannot be safer than the other. cee is less stable in water than mono and will turn into creatinine fast. however effectiveness is about the same. there is no reason to choose mono over cee unless you are a non responder or bloat easily.

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally Posted by nni

neither are dangerous, therefore one cannot be safer than the other. cee is less stable in water than mono and will turn into creatinine fast. however effectiveness is about the same. there is no reason to choose mono over cee unless you are a non responder or bloat easily.

actually CEE is safer because much less is needed for the same effect, creatine esters do not convert to creatinine in the stomach and are are more readily absorbed in the intestine resulting in higher concentrations in the blood therefore more creatine is available to the muscle cells.

Posted by: Ben dur

Quote:

Originally Posted by PreMier

1000g for 30$ is cheap imo
Bulk Nutrition - 1Fast400 Creatine Ethyl Ester HCl at discount prices!

this is usually refered to a 1 kg

this is amazing to me when things are labled

1000mg

or 1000g

this is not simplified, as i know you have been taught...

Posted by: Ben dur

Quote:

Originally Posted by nni

neither are dangerous, therefore one cannot be safer than the other. cee is less stable in water than mono and will turn into creatinine fast. however effectiveness is about the same. there is no reason to choose mono over cee unless you are a non responder or bloat easily.

i disagree with this statement

Posted by: nni

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

but you are ingesting more creatinine just by taking cee. the breakdown is much more rapid when compared to mono, so it is essentially a washout.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben dur

i disagree with this statement

on what grounds? there is very little data existing on cee.

Posted by: Ben dur

if something is not dangerous, something else can still be safer.
what do you mean on what grounds...

it is a logical interpretation.

Posted by: workhard1

Quote:

Originally Posted by nni

but you are ingesting more creatinine just by taking cee. the breakdown is much more rapid when compared to mono, so it is essentially a washout.

on what grounds? there is very little data existing on cee.

He was talking more about the philosophical content of your statement than the science of creatine types.

Posted by: Ben dur

Quote:

Originally Posted by workhard1

He was talking more about the philosophical content of your statement than the science of creatine types.

that and the studies have been cited

Posted by: nni

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben dur

that and the studies have been cited

there are no studies on the safety of cee, just the stability in liquid. so again, i was asking what you are basing that on, as there really is no data to back up the statement.

my stance has always been both are effective, but cee is a second option to mono, not an equal option.

Posted by: Ben dur

once again
im basing it on logical reasoning

if something is safe, something else can still be MORE safe...

i will not continue

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally Posted by nni

but you are ingesting more creatinine just by taking cee. the breakdown is much more rapid when compared to mono, so it is essentially a washout.

what, where did you get that from?

CEE is creatine monohydrate with an ester attached to it, you ingest less and its more effective because it is utilized much more efficiently, hence the reason for no bloating, no GI issues, etc.

Posted by: Gordo

Personally I stick with mono because it works fine and it's cheaper locally for me....

Quote:

Originally Posted by nni View Post
but you are ingesting more creatinine just by taking cee. the breakdown is much more rapid when compared to mono, so it is essentially a washout.

a quick google on that statement did find this (validity into scientific methods are in question though).

Creatine Ester Scam Exposed | SupplementGenius.com

same site:
Creatine Ethyl Ester Gets Kicked In The Nuts … Again! | SupplementGenius.com

Posted by: zombul

While I am loving the debate and the interesting points made I have tried both and am now back to mono myself. I can handle a little bloat and they both seem to work about the same FOR ME. But to each his own.

Posted by: Prince

I am scanning in the patent application that has the studies performed by UNeMed Corp on CEE.

CM never did a thing for me, Tri-Creatine Malate worked, but I found CEE to be superior to both in my personal use.

Posted by: Prince

here it is: Index of /temp (they are tif images)

Posted by: AKIRA

Ill tell ya from personal experience, Ive tried Creatine Mono years before and I received no results. None.

So I decided to try CEE and once again, i didnt see shit.

However, I went ahead and bought some more CEE this time around for my cut. This time I can tell that its working. Ive been on it for 3-4 days. Yesterday was a quad dominant day that was more or less equal in intensity and volume as last week's. Even with a calorie deficit, I was able to complete my day with less fatigue than the week before that had more calories.

I am now convinced.

Posted by: nni

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

i know, but the only two studies performed on cee, showed that it quickly turns into creatinine in water, therefore, even though you are taking in less, you are still getting creatinine. i dont think this is a deal killer, but it certainly puts a knock against cee. on the other hand the only performance based study was the sizeon study which found straight cee effective.

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally Posted by nni

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

here it is: Index of /temp (they are tif images)

Posted by: nni

here is one of the studies...

Creatine ethyl ester rapidly degrades to creatinine in stomach acid

Child R1 and Tallon MJ2

1Department of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom. 2University of Northumbria, Sport Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, DrChild@CR-Technologies.net

Creatine ethyl ester (CEE) is a commercially available synthetic creatine that is now widely used in dietary supplements. It comprises of creatine with an ethyl group attached and this molecular configuration is reported to provide several advantages over creatine monohydrate (CM). The Medical Research Institute (CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (CE2) provides greater solubility in lipids, leading to improved absorption. Similarly San (San Corporation, CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (San CM2 Alpha) avoids the breakdown of creatine to creatinine in stomach acids. Ultimately it is claimed that CEE products provide greater absorption and efficacy than CM. To date, none of these claims have been evaluated by an independent, or university laboratory and no comparative data are available on CEE and CM.

This study assessed the availability of creatine from three commercial creatine products during degradation in acidic conditions similar to those that occur in the stomach. They comprised of two products containing CEE (San CM2 Alpha and CE2) and commercially available CM (Creapure?). An independent laboratory, using testing guidelines recommended by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), performed the analysis. Each product was incubated in 900ml of pH 1 HCL at 37? 1oC and samples where drawn at 5, 30 and 120 minutes. Creatine availability was assessed by immediately assaying for free creatine, CEE and the creatine breakdown product creatinine, using HPLC (UV)

After 30 minutes incubation only 73% of the initial CEE present was available from CE2, while the amount of CEE available from San CM2 Alpha was even lower at only 62%. In contrast, more than 99% of the creatine remained available from the CM product. These reductions in CEE availability were accompanied by substantial creatinine formation, without the appearance of free creatine. After 120minutes incubation 72% of the CEE was available from CE2 with only 11% available from San CM2 Alpha, while more than 99% of the creatine remained available from CM.

CEE is claimed to provide several advantages over CM because of increased solubility and stability. In practice, the addition of the ethyl group to creatine actually reduces acid stability and accelerates its breakdown to creatinine. This substantially reduces creatine availability in its esterified form and as a consequence creatines such as San CM2 and CE2 are inferior to CM as a source of free creatine.

and apparently a new one just came out...

ABSTRACT
The Effects of Creatine Ethyl Ester Supplementation Combined with Resistance Training
on Body Composition, Muscle Mass and Performance, and Intramuscular Creatine
Uptake in Males
Mike Spillane, M.S.Ed.
Advisor: Darryn S. Willoughby, Ph.D.

Creatine monohydrate has become one of the most popular ingested nutritional supplements due to its potential enhancement of athletic performance. Creatine absorption from the serum into skeletal muscle occurs through the utilization of a membrane-spanning protein, CreaT1. Numerous creatine formulations have been developed primarily to maximize creatine absorption. Creatine ethyl ester (CEE) has been chemically modified by adding an ester group and is thought to increase creatine bioavailability by by-passing the CreaT1. This study examined how a seven week supplementation regimen with CEE affected body composition, muscle mass and performance, whole body creatine retention, as well physiological and molecular adaptations, associated with creatine uptake in nonresistance-trained males following a resistance-training program. Results demonstrated that CEE did not show any additional benefit to increases in muscle strength/performance or a significant increase in total muscle creatine when compared to creatine monohydrate or placebo. CEE supplementation did show a large increase in creatinine levels throughout the study.

patent applications are not scientific proof, just theory and intent.

Posted by: zombul

To the dedicated lifter life can be long. I would suggest trying both once with an open mind and alot of work and make the decision that way. Sadly this will be debated for quite some time I' m sure with some people saying this is proven and some saying that is. I truly learn more with personal experience and that of my workout partners who use alot of supps and we have almost daily feedback in the gym and funny enough we all know what each other is cycling, how it's coming along and about how long they have been on it. Creatine is a good supp to use for those who havn't been in the sport for too long and remain effective for those who have so use it.

Posted by: jk7761

I was introduced to this site while in my creatine research.
I spent two days digesting everything I could on the subject.
Seemed to be pluses and minuses on both sides.

I am 47 and have been working out (martial arts) with limited weight training for two years. I train five days a week. My problem was recovery. If I lifted, it would take me three days to recover. I new I needed lift days, but it seriously affected my other training days.

I chose CEE mainly because of the purported lack of GI upset and most of what I read suggested include some simple carbs with the mono and I can't afford the carbs.

Received my Ironmag CEE on Jan. 29, first dose Jan. 30. I am taking at half the recommended dosage for now.

Results after first week have been great. In two years I have never been more ready to work out. Muscle fatigue and soreness has definitely improved.
And So far absolutely NO side effects at all. No bloating or upset stomach.
I have always drank plenty of water, 4-6 qts. per day. i have not changed my water intake total, just timing with CEE. Also, I can already see the results in the mirror. And I am not ripped.

So do your due diligence, make your decision, see what works for your situation.

Thanks to all for educating a newb.

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally Posted by jk7761

Received my Ironmag CEE on Jan. 29, first dose Jan. 30. I am taking at half the recommended dosage for now.

Results after first week have been great. In two years I have never been more ready to work out. Muscle fatigue and soreness has definitely improved.
And So far absolutely NO side effects at all. No bloating or upset stomach.
I have always drank plenty of water, 4-6 qts. per day. i have not changed my water intake total, just timing with CEE. Also, I can already see the results in the mirror. And I am not ripped.

Posted by: nni

my stance, again, has always been, go with mono, it is the most proven supplement in existence, if you get stomache issues or bloat, go with cee. i am not one of the alarmists who sees the stability studies and freak out. cee should be taken in pills either way, so that negative aspect can be partially avoided.

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally Posted by nni

cee should be taken in pills either way, so that negative aspect can be partially avoided.

well, at least we can agree on this part.

(CLICK HERE here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Creatine Ethyl Ester vs. Creatine Monohydrate

Article Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60