Thread: Creatine Ethyl Ester vs. Creatine Monohydrate

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

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

Scoops? Hah! Capsules are the way to go.

What about kre-alkalin? From ultimate nutrition

Originally Posted by strong

What about kre-alkalin? From ultimate nutrition

lol do u say anything besides kre-alkalin

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...

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?

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

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.

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)

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

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.

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.

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...

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

Originally Posted by Prince

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ben dur

i disagree with this statement

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

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

it is a logical interpretation.

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.

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

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.

once again
im basing it on logical reasoning

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

i will not continue

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by Prince

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.

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.

Originally Posted by nni

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.

Originally Posted by Prince

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