The Creatine Graveyard... [Forum Archive]

Pages: 1

The Creatine Graveyard...

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

Posted by: Will Brink

The Creatine Grave Yard
By Will Brink © 2009

Looks like another “high tech” form of creatine has got one foot planted firmly in the creatine grave yard. What is the creatine graveyard? It’s where forms of creatine - other then monohydrate - go when either science has shown them inferior to monohydrate, and or it’s life cycle of hype has come to and end.

I refer specifically to creatine ethyl ester (CEE). As with the many “high tech” forms of creatine before it, all manner of claims were/are made about how superior it is to creatine monohydrate (CM). It always starts the same. First the company will invent a long list of negatives about CM such as “poorly absorbed” or “causes bloat” or “is not stable” and then goes onto claim their form of creatine has solved all those invented negatives. The problem is, the data already shows CM does not suffer from virtually any of the negatives they invent, nor do they show their form “cures” those negatives. Sellers of CCE for example claimed CEE was better absorbed and utilized vs. CM, and that has been shown to be nonsense. There have been several in vitro (test tube) studies pointing to the fact CEE is inferior to CM, but a recent study done in humans puts a final nail in the coffin as far as I am concerned. This study is titled “The effects of creatine ethyl ester supplementation combined with heavy resistance training on body composition, muscle performance, and serum and muscle creatine levels” The full study is public access and can be read here:

Cont:

The Creatine Grave Yard | Brinkzone Blog

Posted by: PreMier

ut oh

Posted by: nni

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

The Creatine Grave Yard
By Will Brink © 2009

Looks like another “high tech” form of creatine has got one foot planted firmly in the creatine grave yard. What is the creatine graveyard? It’s where forms of creatine - other then monohydrate - go when either science has shown them inferior to monohydrate, and or it’s life cycle of hype has come to and end.

I refer specifically to creatine ethyl ester (CEE). As with the many “high tech” forms of creatine before it, all manner of claims were/are made about how superior it is to creatine monohydrate (CM). It always starts the same. First the company will invent a long list of negatives about CM such as “poorly absorbed” or “causes bloat” or “is not stable” and then goes onto claim their form of creatine has solved all those invented negatives. The problem is, the data already shows CM does not suffer from virtually any of the negatives they invent, nor do they show their form “cures” those negatives. Sellers of CCE for example claimed CEE was better absorbed and utilized vs. CM, and that has been shown to be nonsense. There have been several in vitro (test tube) studies pointing to the fact CEE is inferior to CM, but a recent study done in humans puts a final nail in the coffin as far as I am concerned. This study is titled “The effects of creatine ethyl ester supplementation combined with heavy resistance training on body composition, muscle performance, and serum and muscle creatine levels” The full study is public access and can be read here:

Cont:

The Creatine Grave Yard | Brinkzone Blog

the recent study does debunk it as far as creatinine levels in the blood, but not performance. performance wise it was on par with mono with respect to strength and body composition. so either they both dont work, or they both do, you can just choose which parts of the study you will accept.

Posted by: Prince

I read the study, how are you going to explain all of the CM non-responders that respond to CEE? Placebo effect? Bullshit, I am a CM non-responder and CEE works for me, and there are MANY more bodybuilders that will make the same claim.

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by nni

Read what I said closely and or read the study, the placebo group had the same response. Thus, this study does not show its on par with CM, is shows CEE and CM were on par with placebo, likely due to using untrained subjects. I don't accept selective parts of studies and am clear what the drawbacks are.

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

I read the study, how are you going to explain all of the CM non-responders that respond to CEE? Placebo effect? Bullshit, I am a CM non-responder and CEE works for me, and there are MANY more bodybuilders that will make the same claim.

You may want to read the rest of my comments. It's simple, makers of CEE and other forms covered, can do a study showing they get less non responders, etc, but anecdotal "it works for me" is not science. I have had people tell me that with great passion about Serum Creatine also, which we know does not work period. So, perhaps CEE is approx the equal of CM (this study would say not but..) and or works better on CM non responders. It's unknown at this time.

Posted by: nni

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

i was talking more with respect to the study, i didnt read your report yet. but if it is addressed then it is responsible, i have seen at least 3 different self appointed authorities ignore that fact.

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by nni

That's why I'm Will Brink, and they are not.

But seriously, "self appointed" being the key term there.

Posted by: KelJu

Well Fuck!

But wait, let me ask this. They didn't do a study of proven mono-hydrate non-responders tested to see if they benefited from CEE. That would be of interest to me.

Two groups of mono-hydrate non responders:
One group given mono
Another group given CEE.

I would love to know how those numbers would break down. I bet the creatine serum levels would be higher in the CEE group.

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelJu

Well Fuck!

But wait, let me ask this. They didn't do a study of proven mono-hydrate non-responders tested to see if they benefited from CEE. That would be of interest to me.

Two groups of mono-hydrate non responders:
One group given mono
Another group given CEE.

I would love to know how those numbers would break down.

If you got the $$$$, I can make it happen

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelJu

I bet the creatine serum levels would be higher in the CEE group.

I would bet you $100, that would not be the case. It's less stable period, and leads to big increases in creatinine, not serum creatine or tissue creatine levels.

Posted by: KelJu

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

If you got the $$$$, I can make it happen

I would bet you $100, that would not be the case. It's less stable period, and leads to big increases in creatinine, not serum creatine or tissue creatine levels.

If you stop, you are going to ruin my god damn placebo!

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by KelJu

If you stop, you are going to ruin my god damn placebo!

I can get you a bottle of this stuff real cheap:

Posted by: KelJu

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

I can get you a bottle of this stuff real cheap:

I want a bottle that has that for the label. That would be a great conversation piece.

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

but anecdotal "it works for me" is not science. I have had people tell me that with great passion about Serum Creatine also, which we know does not work period.

you're right its not science, but after 20 years of bodybuilding I am capable of tracking my own progress and discerning which supplements work for me and which ones do not.

Posted by: zombul

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

I can get you a bottle of this stuff real cheap:

Haha. Iv seen that bottle and if it's what I think you couldn't have picked a better one to put a shitty label on.
I have went back to mono for awhile because I personally didn't see anything special with CEE as I'v posted a few times lately, but thats my personal experiece with it and may be different for others. I have heard people shit on things that did work for me so I know we all vary some. But I'm back to mono and grape juice!

Posted by: zombul

This will do 4Ever Fit Creatine 1000 g

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

you're right its not science, but after 20 years of bodybuilding I am capable of tracking my own progress and discerning which supplements work for me and which ones do not.

I'll take your 20 years and raise you 5 more, and there's nothing inherently wrong with experimentation and anecdotal reports, but it's not science. Objective info always trumps anecdotal reports and always should. n = 1 observation tells me nothing other then you think X does Y for you, which can't be separated from placebo, other variables not accounted for (new supps, change in diet, changes in training, drugs, etc, etc) which is why controlled objective research attempts to control for that and give us a true picture. There's a balance to be struck between data and "real world" experiences, and I can say for everyone who has claimed CEE did something, just as many didn't notice squat from it.

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

science is not always right, and cannot explain everything.

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

science is not always right, and cannot explain everything.

Nope, but it's still the best we have for explaining things.

Posted by: workhard1

I have never done CM before, but I do use CEE and within about 2 weeks of using the CEE I started to feel a lot better after workouts and my lifts began going up again after being at a plateau for about 2 months. I did not change my diet or training or anything, just simply started taking the CEE and started to see gains again. Does this prove CEE works? No, but it sure as hell makes me think it does. Even if it was a placebo effect I would not care. If it is helping me I will continue to take it. However, I do not believe a placebo effect can all the sudden make you start lifting more.

I do believe there is still a lack of research out there. At this point I would say their argument that CEE is inferior when compared to CM is not much more than a hypothesis. When we see 3 or 4 other studies that support this claim maybe we can accept it as a legitimate theory, but until then I believe the verdict is still unknown

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by workhard1

I have never done CM before, but I do use CEE and within about 2 weeks of using the CEE I started to feel a lot better after workouts and my lifts began going up again after being at a plateau for about 2 months. I did not change my diet or training or anything, just simply started taking the CEE and started to see gains again. Does this prove CEE works? No, but it sure as hell makes me think it does.

This study does not prove CEE does not work. It shows CEE is inferior to CM in various respects. Even though CEE converts to creatinine, etc (see my report) it's also clear some still makes it to muscle tissue. Thus, CEE should still "work." Work as well as CM? Do the same thing for more $$$? The issue is not is CEE works, the issue is if CEE is superior to CM as claimed, which is clearly not the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by workhard1

Even if it was a placebo effect I would not care. If it is helping me I will continue to take it. However, I do not believe a placebo effect can all the sudden make you start lifting more.

I do believe there is still a lack of research out there. At this point I would say their argument that CEE is inferior when compared to CM is not much more than a hypothesis. When we see 3 or 4 other studies that support this claim maybe we can accept it as a legitimate theory, but until then I believe the verdict is still unknown

(1) there are several studies now that all point to CEE as inferior to CM

(2) the burden of proof is on those who make the claims, not waiting for others to disprove claims. Sellers of CEE make specific claims. Those specific claims have been shown to be false. So, we don't need 3 - 4 studies showing CEE is inferior, we need 3-4 studies showing it's superior to CM as claimed.

For example:

I say "X grows horns on your head. Prove me wrong"

You correctly say "no, I don't have to prove you wrong, YOU have to prove X grows horns on your head."

Again, the burden of proof is one those who make the claims.

Capiche?

Posted by: Prince

Will, that is all great, however CM never did a thing for me and CEE does, period. I don't need science to tell me anything.

Posted by: strong

Ok WillBrink what do you think about kre-alkaline?

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by strong

Ok WillBrink what do you think about kre-alkaline?

I'm assuming you didn't read the report above. See list....

Posted by: strong

Ok is on the list but why?

Posted by: strong

you say nothing about kre-alkalin

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by strong

you say nothing about kre-alkalin

Why it's on the list is explained. The claims made by the company are 100% BS, and what exists for data, show's it's nothing special. A good write up here:

Review: Kre-Alkalyn Buffered Creatine: Better Than Regular Creatine Monohydrate?

Posted by: strong

OK thanks

Posted by: Ben dur

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

Review: Kre-Alkalyn Buffered Creatine: Better Than Regular Creatine Monohydrate?

according to these studies
creatine monohydrate is stable in solution for much longer than originally thought

thoughts?

---------back on topic-----------
when i take creatine mono i add weight
when i take cee i "dont bloat" but then my weight doesnt change significantly either

just my experience

Posted by: AKIRA

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

Ok.

I am a pretty big criticizer of products. I have no problem saying I was a fool and wasted my money. That being said, Ill now respond to your thread/quote.

I took CM years ago in two different forms. As a droplet and a powder. Neither worked. I was convinced that Creatine was a bunch of bullshit altogether. I didnt put on weight, lose weight(achieve leaness), or get stronger anywhere.

I took CEE a year ago during a bulk, but due to injury, I couldnt get a real handle on if I was getting stronger. Dont forget, that even if I did get stronger, I would blame it on added calories and not some pill shit.

However..

Now I am cutting. With the addition of CEE and the subtraction of caloric dense foods, I have gotten stronger in a few exercises and maintained strength in the others. With the exception of Thursday's squats..

Sleep has been the same, no injuries, my mindset is roughly the same. The only difference is CEE.

I am convinced I am either a non-responder to CM. OR. CEE is superior to CM.

I am no scientist or bullshit artist. I am not a self-acclaimed specialist or bodybuilder. I am just a consumer with a weightlifting lifestyle that cannot deny strength numbers put down on paper after adding CEE to my regime.

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben dur

according to these studies
creatine monohydrate is stable in solution for much longer than originally thought

thoughts?

CM has always been known to be very stable. Again, read my report closely. Reports of it not being stable were invented marketing of those selling competing forms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben dur

---------back on topic-----------
when i take creatine mono i add weight
when

Which means it's working: increasing intra cellular water which is an anabolic stimulus and WHY people use creatine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben dur

i take cee i "dont bloat"

You never did bloat. You gain weight as you were supposed where you were supposed to. Again, invented marketing term of those competing with CM. Why would anyone take creatine in any form if they didn't want to gain weight in the form of intra (inside) cellular water which is an anabolic stimulus which = more muscle and more strength?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben dur

but then my weight doesnt change significantly either

Which means, as expected, it didn't do what creatine is supposed to. It didn't work...

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKIRA

Ok.

I am no scientist or bullshit artist. I am not a self-acclaimed specialist or bodybuilder. I am just a consumer with a weightlifting lifestyle that cannot deny strength numbers put down on paper after adding CEE to my regime.

What ever makes you happy. I just supply the facts as they exist as a consumer advocate and industry insider. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think...matters not to me.

Good luck.

Posted by: Ben dur

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

CM has always been known to be very stable. Again, read my report closely. Reports of it not being stable were invented marketing of those selling competing forms.

Which means it's working: increasing intra cellular water which is an anabolic stimulus and WHY people use creatine.

You never did bloat. You gain weight as you were supposed where you were supposed to. Again, invented marketing term of those competing with CM. Why would anyone take creatine in any form if they didn't want to gain weight in the form of intra (inside) cellular water which is an anabolic stimulus which = more muscle and more strength?

Which means, as expected, it didn't do what creatine is supposed to. It didn't work...

i was just reinforcing the article with my personal experience

good thread

Posted by: AKIRA

Will, I have watched your vids and seen your input on Police related threads.

What exactly do you do ?

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben dur

i was just reinforcing the article with my personal experience

It's all good. I was just trying to show you what was actually happening physiologically speaking that explained your experiences.

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKIRA

Will, I have watched your vids and seen your input on Police related threads.

What exactly do you do ?

A lot of different things. My general bio on the brinkzone:

BrinkZone.com - The Final Frontier in Bodybuilding, Health & Fitness

Specific to what I do with tactical law enforcement/SWAT:

Optimal Swat

Hope that answers your question.

Posted by: PreMier

i like to err on the side of science.. and i will be the first to say that i get better results from CM, compared to CEE.

i respect the fact that people 'feel' somethings working, but its not proof. its like gopro with glutamine. he swears by it, but just because he 'feels' it working doesnt mean it is. 'yup, my baseline protein synthesis levels just returned to normal, this glutamine is miracle stuff!'.

if the studies are showing CM is more effective, then it probably is. im not going to deny however that CEE might be working better for some. there really is no such thing as absolutes

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by PreMier

i like to err on the side of science.. and i will be the first to say that i get better results from CM, compared to CEE.

i respect the fact that people 'feel' somethings working, but its not proof. its like gopro with glutamine. he swears by it, but just because he 'feels' it working doesnt mean it is. 'yup, my baseline protein synthesis levels just returned to normal, this glutamine is miracle stuff!'.

if the studies are showing CM is more effective, then it probably is. im not going to deny however that CEE might be working better for some. there really is no such thing as absolutes

Well said.

Posted by: Stewart14

I have been using CM for just about as long as I have been seriously lifting weights, so let's say that's close to 10 years now.

I have no fricken idea if the stuff is "working" or "not working" for me anymore! I never really did a "loading" phase, I would always just throw a teaspoon in my pre workout drink and another teaspoon in my post.

At this point, how would I know if it were working or not? My weight has been roughly the same give or take a few pounds for a couple of years now. Maybe initially I gained some weight from it, but I really don't remember if it was due to CM or not.

I just assume that it is just silently doing it's thing as far as workout capacity and strength goes, and I am not getting weight gain due to not loading properly.

I guess the only way to know for sure would be to stop taking it for a while and then restart it huh?

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewart14

I have been using CM for just about as long as I have been seriously lifting weights, so let's say that's close to 10 years now.

I have no fricken idea if the stuff is "working" or "not working" for me anymore! I never really did a "loading" phase, I would always just throw a teaspoon in my pre workout drink and another teaspoon in my post.

At this point, how would I know if it were working or not? My weight has been roughly the same give or take a few pounds for a couple of years now. Maybe initially I gained some weight from it, but I really don't remember if it was due to CM or not.

I just assume that it is just silently doing it's thing as far as workout capacity and strength goes, and I am not getting weight gain due to not loading properly.

I guess the only way to know for sure would be to stop taking it for a while and then restart it huh?

Stop using it for awhile and/or switch to CEE and see if you notice a difference.

Posted by: Ngordyn

well seeing as how everyone seems to have different results id say it matters more on how your body specifically responds than what is "inferior"

if u respond to CEE and not to CM or KA then take CEE

personally i respond to kre-alkalyn rather well

and i say this with using CEE and CM under the exact same diet and exact same training routine and the exact same protein and multi-vitamin i experienced a faster rate of strength gains on KA

i do respect the study and realize for a general population it is probably better but there is NO WAY it is that way for everyone

after reading the study however i will now recommend people to start with CM and see if they respond or not , i do like science for general population i just don't rely on

Posted by: Ben dur

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ngordyn

well seeing as how everyone seems to have different results id say it matters more on how your body specifically responds than what is "inferior"

if u respond to CEE and not to CM or KA then take CEE

personally i respond to kre-alkalyn rather well

and i say this with using CEE and CM under the exact same diet and exact same training routine and the exact same protein and multi-vitamin i experienced a faster rate of strength gains on KA

i do respect the study and realize for a general population it is probably better but there is NO WAY it is that way for everyone

after reading the study however i will now recommend people to start with CM and see if they respond or not , i do like science for general population i just don't rely on

id like to slap you
but
maybe...

nothing is absolute

Posted by: camarosuper6

I find it amusing how personally some people take the idea that what they are taking/doing/understanding could be something other than complete truth and nothing but the truth.

Nobody is saying that CEE has no value. Rather it seems to be that CM, when all things are equal, is still the pound for pound creatine champion.

That being said, science has always been slow to catch what bodybuilders have said worked for years with only empirical evidence to go on (anabolic steroids is a good example). And without question the jury on CEE seems to be quite strong in favor for.

Posted by: Ngordyn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben dur

id like to slap you
but
maybe...

nothing is absolute

lol ill stick to my results , and you stick to your's

Posted by: baz964

Hiya

Thinking of trying a supplement, been looking into the creatine facts and myths...huge subject!

It seems a minefield of information and mis-information.
So many opinions difficult to know which way to jump!

Brad

Posted by: Ngordyn

if its your first time start with CM easy cheap , and if it works for you great

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

Above URL no longer works. Correct URL is:

The Creatine Grave Yard | Brinkzone Blog

Posted by: lendbz

what about Kre-alkalyn??

Posted by: ZECH

Did you read the report?????

Posted by: Will Brink

Just more confirmation for what I said in the Graveyard.....

Just confirms what I said in the Creatine Graveyard a while back:

Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications
Volume 388, Issue 2, 16 October 2009, Pages 252-255

Non-enzymatic cyclization of creatine ethyl ester to creatinine
Matthew W. Giese, a, and Carl S. Lechera

aDepartment of Chemistry, Marian University, 3200 Cold Spring Rd., Indianapolis, IN 46222, USA

Received 28 July 2009. Available online 4 August 2009.

Abstract

Creatine ethyl ester was incubated at 37 ?C in both water and phosphate-buffered saline and the diagnostic methylene resonances in the 1H NMR spectrum were used to identify the resultant products. It was found that mild aqueous conditions result in the cyclization of creatine ethyl ester to provide inactive creatinine as the exclusive product, and this transformation becomes nearly instantaneous as the pH approaches 7.4. This study demonstrates that mild non-enzymatic conditions are sufficient for the cyclization of creatine ethyl ester into creatinine, and together with previous results obtained under enzymatic conditions suggests that there are no physiological conditions that would result in the production of creatine. It is concluded that creatine ethyl ester is a pronutrient for creatinine rather than creatine under all physiological conditions encountered during transit through the various tissues, thus no ergogenic effect is to be expected from supplementation.

Posted by: bio-chem

I've got to admit I've moved back to creatine monohydrate and have been just as happy. this has to be one of the best creatine threads ever. its not an advertisement and its not a kid asking what everyone uses. good job Will

Posted by: Prince

all I can say is that CM did nothing for me and gave me nasty side effects, e.g. GI issues, I tried CEE and never turned back, CEE does work, I only have to take 3 grams per day and I have zero side effects. I have stopped using CEE as a test and there are noticeable difference in my muscle fullness, strength and endurance in the gym. And there are thousands of CEE users that will attest to this as well. I always tell people try CM and if it works for you great, if you don't respond to it and/or have GI issues switch to CEE.

Posted by: IJ300

I have taken both cee and regular monohydrate. I ran out of cee like 3 weeks ago and I look/feel the same and my numbers are still going up. When I got off mono for like a year I got the same results. So maybe I just don't respond to both.

Posted by: suprfast

Not to bring up an old thread(a month isnt so bad) but i keep reading on "RESULTS". What the hell should i be looking for.

Will, i respect what you are doing with Science. I completely understand what you are saying when reading your blog and through here. You are just a fact checker against these companies claiming ridiculous results.

Also, when non CM users switch to CEE what results are they having.

How do i know im a non responder to CM and a responder to CEE or vice versa.

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by suprfast

Not to bring up an old thread(a month isnt so bad) but i keep reading on "RESULTS". What the hell should i be looking for.

An increase in strength and weight. I noticed both quickly when I first started taking creatine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by suprfast

Will, i respect what you are doing with Science. I completely understand what you are saying when reading your blog

Actually, the saga continues on that and I just put up a new blog post with new CEE related research:

Creatine Ethyl Ester (CEE) converts to creatininine

Quote:

Originally Posted by suprfast

Also, when non CM users switch to CEE what results are they having.

You would have to ask them. Users of course can only give anecdotal reports, which are going to be highly subjective due to reasons I think have been covered already. The objective research that exists, says what it says about CEE, which is that it's inferior to CM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by suprfast

How do i know im a non responder to CM and a responder to CEE or vice versa.

If you are reading my work, you know as far as I am concerned, there are no "responders" to CEE, or at least responders who are going to respond in a superior manner then they would to CM. Some users of CEE feel otherwise, which you will see in this here thread, so I wont rehash it or waste the time here. You may not respond to creatine because you are a genuine non responder, or it may be you simply don't fully mix it before drinking it, not taking enough carbs with it (which was found to reduce % of non responders), have not been taking it long enough, etc, and other variables.

Posted by: suprfast

Im positive its mixing properly, but i mix it with my protein at two times.

Preworkout is 25g whey isolate(lactose intolerant, so i cant use any other whey), 25g oatmeal(complex carbs) with one teaspoon of regular old walmart / body fortress creatine monohydrate.

Post workout i take 25g whey isolate with one teaspoon of same CM. In a separate cup i mix 2tb powder gatorade with just water. Now i know it mixes perfectly because i mix the protein and CM with my vita-mix. ZERO CHUNKS(no not a plug for a vita-mix, just stating it cant mix any better than this).

Now is there a brand preference for CM, or will any old 100% CM be fine.

This is what i take.
http://www.bodyfortress.com/images/s...cts/064950.pdf
Nothing special about my snake oil.
kris

Posted by: quark

Quote:

Originally Posted by suprfast

Now is there a brand preference for CM, or will any old 100% CM be fine.

I'm interested in your opinion on this too Will as I've read only to use CREAPURE ® creatine.

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by suprfast

Im positive its mixing properly, but i mix it with my protein at two times.

Preworkout is 25g whey isolate(lactose intolerant, so i cant use any other whey), 25g oatmeal(complex carbs) with one teaspoon of regular old walmart / body fortress creatine monohydrate.

Post workout i take 25g whey isolate with one teaspoon of same CM. In a separate cup i mix 2tb powder gatorade with just water. Now i know it mixes perfectly because i mix the protein and CM with my vita-mix. ZERO CHUNKS(no not a plug for a vita-mix, just stating it cant mix any better than this).

Then it may not actually be fully dissolving. Mix in warm or hot water till totally dissolved, then add to your mix or simply take alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by suprfast

Now is there a brand preference for CM, or will any old 100% CM be fine.

Short answer: I recommend Creapure as the CM source. Various companies use it.

Long answer:

Creatine, do you know what chemicals you are eating? Click here!

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchappj

I'm interested in your opinion on this too Will as I've read only to use CREAPURE ® creatine.

Yup. See above.

Posted by: quark

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

Long answer:

Creatine, do you know what chemicals you are eating? Click here!

Great write-up Will, thanks!

Posted by: suprfast

Took this off the "creapure" website.

Quote:

Creapure® is a registered trademark and a registered logo. Companies are free to use the logo as a seal of quality after signing a brand license agreement. High quality - and, therefore, safe - creatine products bear the Creapure® logo.

Looks like two brands here in the states are allowed.

PROLAB and OPTIMUM NUTRITION

Posted by: bio-chem

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

Creatine, do you know what chemicals you are eating? Click here!

loved the article, very informative. my problem is when the research is from an unknown source. I work in research and when you can't say what company did the research red flags go off everywhere for me. "a reputable company" then say the name. It lends legitimacy. Your reputation in my eyes is without question from what I've seen and read from you so far, but this seems to be a glaring weakness in the article.

Posted by: suprfast

I do agree, same red flags were going off.

Appeal to authority?

Posted by: bio-chem

Quote:

Originally Posted by suprfast

I do agree, same red flags were going off.

Appeal to authority?

I'm sure Will will address the issue. it's his nature. i doubt it will be the answer we are looking for, but he will do his best. He seems to me to be a good guy who is legit.

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by bio-chem

And the reasons for not disclosing the company are given. I didn't disclose the name of the company that tested well either for some years, only recently disclosing the fact it was Creapure. For years I got letters and emails asking "What's the name of the German brand that tested so well Will?" and only 'till fairly recent was that info disclosed for both reasons mentioned in the article, and a few reasons that were not, but it does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

There are times when one can disclose a source, and times you can't, but I don't blame you for asking...

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by suprfast

Took this off the "creapure" website.

Looks like two brands here in the states are allowed.

PROLAB and OPTIMUM NUTRITION

Lots of mail 'net based places also. I get mine from the Life Extension personally but a google search will usually turn up a fair number of companies.

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by suprfast

I do agree, same red flags were going off.

Appeal to authority?

Which authority? :-)

Posted by: suprfast

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

Which authority? :-)

You big guy. I believe you truly are telling the truth. While its not easy to sit back and just listen to BECAUSE MY RESEARCH SAYS SO, its also nice to know you are doing what it takes to debunk claims using SCIENCE.

My theory on not disclosing probably has to do with sales. Im sure company has some sort of stake in making money, and if there name gets out it could be detrimental.

Either way, thanks for the heads up. Ill be looking for new creatine next week, since the stuff i have only has a few days left. Ill pick up something with creature and give it a shot.
kris

Posted by: bio-chem

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

There are times when one can disclose a source, and times you can't, but I don't blame you for asking...

let me get this right. this study is years old? has there been a follow up study to test where things are now? It's not too hard to imagine a scenario where Creapure is now the worst creatine out there.

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by bio-chem

let me get this right. this study is years old?

(1) yes (2) it's not a study (3) follow up testing was done a few years later and found the same results:

Creatine, do you know what chemicals you are eating? Learn the facts here

BTW, due to how much trouble the first article caused, none of the mags would touch the second.

This is fairly common knowledge in the industry, and it was me who brought it to the attention of the industry and end users.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bio-chem

has there been a follow up study to test where things are now? It's not too hard to imagine a scenario where Creapure is now the worst creatine out there.

One could imagine a scenario where creatine is now made from cocaine, but but it's not very likely... A more probable scenario would be that Chinese and US manufacturers of creatine have improved to the point the differences are negligible, but I don't have up to date tests to show it. The Chinese have a history or poor quality control with supps in general, and knowing the company as I do that produces Creapure, etc, etc, that's the brand I will use and recommend until I see new tests that say other wise.

Posted by: quark

Let's hope they don't buy the German company!! That would be the scenaro I could envision!!

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchappj

Let's hope they don't buy the German company!! That would be the scenaro I could envision!!

Stranger things have happened I guess. I'll know it if it happens and will report that too.

Posted by: Ben dur

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

The Chinese have a history or poor quality control with supps in general

i think its safe to say that MOST of the PRODUCT (not just sups) that come from china are subject to LOW QUALITY CONTROL

point in case
MELAMINE and FORMALDEHYDE in Chinese milk, including baby formulas exported to the US, as well as a laundry list of other milk products

ANTIBIOTICS in breaded foods such as fish and pultry including product exported to the US

PESTICIDES in MANY "pharmaceutical grade" drugs and food additives

lets keep in mind that there is likely NO "FDA" type organization in china. quality control is of MINIMAL concern, PROFIT, and quantity, as well as the lowest possible cost are the major components of most of their products

and for our FDA or Customs to control the quality of the imported products is an unreal expectation.
lets say they tested 1 per 1000 shipments of Chinese exports to the US, in that scenario alone they would be completely FLOODED

it is likely that far less than 1% of all manufacturers of consumables from china are EVER even tested, BY ANY authority, CHINESE OR US

It would not be surprising to me if many of the supps we get from china be tested and reveal ALL KINDS of toxic, carcinogenic compounds, not to mention POOR QUALITY.

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben dur

i think its safe to say that MOST of the PRODUCT (not just sups) that come from china are subject to LOW QUALITY CONTROL

.

Agreed. I avoid eating anything from China be it supps, food, meds, etc.

Posted by: Ben dur

edit

breeding
not "bread"

example
farmed fish
genetically mutated farmed chicken
rabbit
etc

although most could also be breaded
example
KFC
fried mullet
etc

further edit
KFC chicken is 100% US chicken

Posted by: suprfast

Will,
sorry to ask you so many questions but you are the creatine man.

Just ordered a big container of Optimum Nutrition micronized creatine "CREAPURE".

Approximately what should i dose and when? Before/after workout(or both). different time? 1t(5g) twice or just once, or smaller.

Thanks
kris

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by suprfast

Will,
sorry to ask you so many questions but you are the creatine man.

Just ordered a big container of Optimum Nutrition micronized creatine "CREAPURE".

Approximately what should i dose and when? Before/after workout(or both). different time? 1t(5g) twice or just once, or smaller.

Thanks
kris

3-5g per day seems about right for most people. For timing, etc:

Pre & Post Workout Nutrition - It's All In The Timing

For extensive info:

The Creatine Report - Fact, Effects, Side Effects, Benefits, Information and more...

Posted by: suprfast

Thanks Will.
On top of things as always.
kris

Posted by: Dale Mabry

What about Kre-Alkalyn?

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

What about Kre-Alkalyn?

I'm thinking you didn't read the "creatine graveyard" blog that started the thread? Kre-Alk can be found there...

Posted by: soxmuscle

I was bummed out that I couldn't afford SizeOn until I read this thread entirely.

Well done.

Posted by: fredlabrute

My nutritionist told me there's absolutely no science proving that the new form of creatine are superior to creatine monohydrate.

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredlabrute

My nutritionist told me there's absolutely no science proving that the new form of creatine are superior to creatine monohydrate.

Your nutritionist would be correct.

Posted by: theCaptn'

So what about NeoVar, the Next Generation Creatine? I hear that get's you uber jacked . . have I been mislead and lied to by Applied Nutraceuticals?

Posted by: Khoiktran

I think all creatine is the same. Just my thoughts.

Posted by: Will Brink

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khoiktran

I think all creatine is the same.

That would be incorrect

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khoiktran

I think all creatine is the same. Just my thoughts.

how so?

Posted by: Mark Faulkner

Dear Will, et al,

A few comments on CEE and the articles published on it. I would encourage everyone to actually read the manuscripts being discussed and look critically at the actual data. In the most recent "damning" article on CEE published by Spillane and other mono-fans (and yes, for disclosure, I am a fan of CEE and C-HCl over mono), essentially in terms of muscle content and performance, there was no significant difference between the CEE and CM treatment groups. So if CEE “failed” in terms of increasing muscle creatine content and increasing exercise performance, then CM also failed as it is statistically no different than CEE. But a few direct comments on the most recent study:

1. “Creatine monohydrate showed statistically higher blood serum creatine
concentrations compared to CEE, certainly a good thing in favor of creatine
monohydrate over CEE and goes directly against the marketing tactics of
CEE’s supposed superiority of bioavailability over creatine monohydrate.
A definite strike against CEE's efficacy.”

I think it’s interesting to note that a university researcher at Ohio Univeristy (or maybe Ohio State, I can’t recall off the top of my head) who read the study wrote a letter to the publication board of the ISSN commenting on the design and data interpretation flaws of the article and how he rejected it’s conclusions based on format and data assessment abnormalities, but the ISSN journal wouldn’t publish it as a letter to the editor response and the researcher didn’t care to pay the journal fee to get his letter published – anyway, the first chart on serum concentrations misses several important items. First off, to determine bioavailability of a compound one would need to take samples over an extended time following dosing to get the complete area under the plasma concentration curve (i.e. baseline and then change in concentrations observed over time after dosing). Not one blood draw. NOTHING can be said regarding bioavailability based on one blood draw. This paper does not indicate when the blood sample was taken for the subjects (this is basic pharmacokinetic information that should be part of any study)…was it immediately after dosing or 8 hours after dosing or ?? Based on the values for CM (approximately 300 uM) the blood sampling time could easily be 4 hours after dosing, because based on the doses given, one would expect the blood concentrations, even of CM, to be about 800 uM. We know from other studies that creatine spikes in the blood about an hour after dosing and that most of the excretion curve is observed from 0 minutes to 2 hours…so a blood draw after this would completely miss most of the increases in creatine to be gained from the ingested dose (that stands true whether you are talking CM or CEE). Furthermore, there seems to be a great deal of variability in the data, such that when you look at Figure 1 and take into consideration the standard deviations, it is surprising that statistical significance was achieved. CM may have resulted in significantly greater creatine in the blood based on Tukey post hoc comparisons, but it fails the obvious test that everyone who looks at the graph can see which is to say taking into account the range of values around the mean, there is really no difference between the CM and CEE group. In fact, looking at the 90% confidence intervals in the CM and CEE groups, these 2 treatment groups overlap.

2. “When creatine is metabolized, it is broken down into a waste product called creatinine, which our body excretes. The researchers found that CEE actually increased creatinine levels 3x greater than creatine monohydrate, again not a good thing. Another strike two against CEE.”

Well, it is pretty clear from previous studies (Enzymatic hydrolysis of creatine ethyl ester Nicholas S. Katseres, David W. Reading, Luay Shayya, John C. DiCesare, Gordon H. Purser, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 2009, that CEE in an aqueous solution of pH 7, such as serum, will readily convert (half-life of minutes) to creatine/creatinine. Thus by the time a blood sample is collected and plasma/serum is obtained there is likely to be significant conversion of CEE to creatinine. However, in acid aqueous solutions, like that present in the stomach, this same study showed that the half-life for CEE is quite stable i.e. 2-3 days. This is despite the abstract from Tallon several years ago at the ISSN meeting that garnered headlines, but which has never been published as a peer-reviewed manuscript.

To expound on this, it is true that the ester bond in CEE is rapidly broken down at neutral pH and that cyclization following water hydrolysis results in creatinine. However, I would argue that what this assumes, and that studies such as this construct, is not normal physiological conditions because as Katseres showed, CEE is stable in the physiological conditions of the stomach (low pH) and hence why it is suggested to dose in capsule form (to get it straight into the stomach) – or you can mix CEE in orange juice (low pH) or such.……but once it is taken up from the G.I. track, it is in an efficacious form.

As stated, in acidic conditions, the ester is very stable with half-lifes measured in hours and days instead of minutes. The cytosolic pH of a working muscle cell is around 6.3, at this pH (enough below neutral to matter) the CEE would have good stability. At pH of 2-3, which is the pH of the stomach, again the CEE is stable. Both of the preceding conditions are normal "physiological conditions”. So for people to say, as did the some of aforementioned researchers, that there would be no compartment or tissue where CEE would not be instantaneously converted to creatinine is not true.

But with regard to the 3x greater creatinine found in the serum of CEE users, I would suggest 2 things:

A. If CEE were to stay in the aqueous compartment of the blood, rather than being taken up by red blood cells, then it will have a very fast conversion to creatinine, but there is no prevailing reason to think that CEE would remain in the aqueous compartment of the blood. And most likely, by the time you take a sample and prep it and spin out the red blood cells, any CEE that had been left in the aqueous compartment of the blood or spun into such, then it would be converted into creatinine…but this comes from study design, not some physiological condition. But one should rightly ask, “so how then do you measure the presence of CEE vs. creatinine if the process of measuring destroys the CEE and increases the creatinine??” Well, you have to use methods that stabilize the serum so that it gives a true snap shot of what was happening at the time of the draw…and this is more than putting preservatives into blood tubes. I know researchers that are working on this but I am not sure what results they have had yet.

B. And just for fun, to play devil’s advocate, it is not out of line that one might argue the reason for a greater creatinine level in the CEE sample is that there was actually more CEE in the system and that therefore, with muscle work, more creatine was able to be used and therefore more creatinine was produced (i.e. a car that doesn’t go far doesn’t produce much exhaust as one that runs it’s engine hot and long and thereby produces much more exhaust). I am NOT arguing that to be the case, but one easily could.

One issue that might support B. though is that CEE not only has better stomach stability but also better cellular penetration. The improved cell penetration is indicated by the fact that CEE has about a 2.5 fold partitioning into octanol (lipid solvent) compared to CM. That is significant! So, once CEE makes it into the cell membrane, which it does 2.5 times better, it should be stable there (since there is little water available for hydration). At that point its breakdown would shift from non-enzymatic water hydrolysis to enzymatic hydrolysis by various esterases in the cell. And no, you don’t need specific CEE esterases – the body is very adept and there are not specific esterases for all sorts of compounds and drugs – the body adjusts well to process them.

3. “Very importantly, muscle creatine levels with creatine monohydrate were significantly higher than CEE. And creatine monohydrate showed increases in muscle creatine levels at day 6, while it took CEE 27 days to show a similar increase. This should come as no surprise, as a previous study (Tallon) showed much of CEE gets converted in the stomach acid into the waste product creatinine. So by the time it reached the blood serum, there would be less available to be transported into skeletal muscle and raise muscle creatine concentrations. Another strike against CEE and again this data goes directly the marketing claims from CEE containing products, that CEE works faster than creatine monohydrate.”

First on Tallon…and as already stated, because of the ester stability in acidic situations as shown in the Katseres study, the stability of CEE in the stomach actually would be better than CM, despite the Tallon abstract at ISSN couple years ago.

Back to the other…in the article it says "Total muscle creatine content was significantly higher in CRT (p = 0.026) and CEE (p =0.041) compared to PLA, with no differences between CRT and CEE."

Regardless of what is going on with CRT in the blood, the amount in the muscle is similar to CM so if this study somehow condemns CEE, it is equally condemning CM (that’s what the data shows!). And remember that it is the plasma and muscle content that is important for delivering the strength aspects of creatine. As for differences with CM at 6 days vs 27 for CEE, again, take a look at the actual data. The study design talks about a loading phase (for CM) vs. previously recommended guidelines / dosing regimens for CEE (i.e. no loading). So after 5 days of taking 20 grams of CM it would be a huge surprise if the on day 6 there weren’t still a significant bolus level of creatine in the system from such large doses of CM. Suffice to say that Day 6 is a very opportunistic day to sample if you’re a CM fan. Look at the data in Figure 2 for yourself. Other than at the loading phase, there is no difference in the levels…and Day 48 shows none of the groups are different from control. (which is sort of humorous on it’s own!!)

A further very telling item in this muscle data is what Table 3 (body composition) shows. First of all it struck me as sort of funny that the group of guys used for the CEE portion of the study are by far the lightest (basically they put all the “90 lb weaklings” in the CEE group) and the bigger guys in the CM and placebo portion of the study. And then they measured thigh mass as an indication of performance but they had no real ability comment because as one would expect, if you work out, you gain mass…BUT…something they don’t point out…look at the starting vs. ending numbers for each group and BY FAR, the largest delta (change) came in the CEE group which leaves one to either say that being small, they had more room for improvement or that simply, the CEE produced more results (hmmm, another vote for B. above...??? chuckle...I'm just saying...!).

Sorry for the length of this but you brought up a topic worth commenting on! And again, while there are some characteristics of CEE that I like and find unique, I mostly don’t like people giving ANYTHING a bad rap if it’s not deserved. As for myself, and yes I’m biased, I’m a hockey player and I use C-HCl (CON-CRET) before games because it works better (for me) than the other forms. I’m old enough that I can tell a significant difference!

Best,

Mark Faulkner

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

The Creatine Graveyard...

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