The Creatine Graveyard...

WillBrink · 02-20-2009, 11:23 AM

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

PreMier · 02-20-2009, 11:28 AM

ut oh

**nni** · 02-20-2009, 11:28 AM

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.

**Prince** · 02-20-2009, 11:28 AM

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.

WillBrink · 02-20-2009, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nni

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.

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.

WillBrink · 02-20-2009, 11:44 AM

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.

**nni** · 02-20-2009, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

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.

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.

WillBrink · 02-20-2009, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nni

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.

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

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

KelJu · 02-20-2009, 12:04 PM

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.

WillBrink · 02-20-2009, 12:07 PM

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.

KelJu · 02-20-2009, 12:42 PM

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!

WillBrink · 02-20-2009, 12:48 PM

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:

KelJu · 02-20-2009, 12:53 PM

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.

**Prince** · 02-20-2009, 02:02 PM

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.

zombul · 02-20-2009, 03:18 PM

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!

zombul · 02-20-2009, 03:19 PM

This will do 4Ever Fit Creatine 1000 g

WillBrink · 02-20-2009, 04:28 PM

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.

**Prince** · 02-20-2009, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

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.

science is not always right, and cannot explain everything.

WillBrink · 02-20-2009, 05:47 PM

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.

workhard1 · 02-20-2009, 05:50 PM

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

WillBrink · 02-20-2009, 06:12 PM

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?

**Prince** · 02-20-2009, 06:28 PM

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.

strong · 02-21-2009, 06:30 AM

Ok WillBrink what do you think about kre-alkaline?

WillBrink · 02-21-2009, 06:51 AM

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....

strong · 02-21-2009, 07:03 AM

Ok is on the list but why?

strong · 02-21-2009, 07:04 AM

you say nothing about kre-alkalin

WillBrink · 02-21-2009, 07:13 AM

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?

strong · 02-21-2009, 07:32 AM

OK thanks

Ben dur · 02-21-2009, 09:28 AM

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

AKIRA · 02-21-2009, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillBrink

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.

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.

02-20-2009, 11:23 AM	#1
WillBrink Registered User Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: MA Posts: 1,098	The Creatine Graveyard... 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 - Will @ BrinkZone The No#1 Science Based Performance, Fitness, and Bodybuilding Resource on the 'net....

02-20-2009, 11:28 AM	#2
PreMier happy sumo Elite Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 21,962 Photos: 2	ut oh P-side Inc. "the post-workout high is more profound than any drug-induced rush imaginable." -Dante B.

02-20-2009, 11:28 AM	#4
Prince IronMagLabs Owner Administrator Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Colorado Posts: 37,397 Photos: 356	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. BOARD SPONSORS: MassNutrition.com - Discount Supplement Superstore IronMagLabs.com - Bodybuilding Nutrition AlltheWhey.com - Bulk Protein Powders & Supplements CEMProducts.com - Research Chemicals & Supplements MusclesProd.com - Steroids, Bodybuilding & Training Blog Maximizer.com - Maximum Strength for Maximum Performance MikeGetsRipped.com - The Original 'Get Ripped' Blog ProteinRoutine.com - Experiments in Healthy Living Follow on Twitter Join Facebook Group Befriend on Myspace

02-20-2009, 06:28 PM	#22
Prince IronMagLabs Owner Administrator Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Colorado Posts: 37,397 Photos: 356	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. BOARD SPONSORS: MassNutrition.com - Discount Supplement Superstore IronMagLabs.com - Bodybuilding Nutrition AlltheWhey.com - Bulk Protein Powders & Supplements CEMProducts.com - Research Chemicals & Supplements MusclesProd.com - Steroids, Bodybuilding & Training Blog Maximizer.com - Maximum Strength for Maximum Performance MikeGetsRipped.com - The Original 'Get Ripped' Blog ProteinRoutine.com - Experiments in Healthy Living Follow on Twitter Join Facebook Group Befriend on Myspace

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-20-2009, 12:04 PM	#9
KelJu Thats Dr. Keke to you! Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: In my imagination. Posts: 10,160 Photos: 2	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.

02-20-2009, 03:19 PM	#16
zombul Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Power Rack Posts: 2,270	This will do 4Ever Fit Creatine 1000 g

02-20-2009, 05:50 PM	#20
workhard1 Registered User Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: South Carolina Posts: 142 Photos: 10	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

02-21-2009, 06:30 AM	#23
strong Registered User Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: macedonia Posts: 22 Photos: 1	Ok WillBrink what do you think about kre-alkaline?

02-21-2009, 07:03 AM	#25
strong Registered User Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: macedonia Posts: 22 Photos: 1	Ok is on the list but why?

02-21-2009, 07:04 AM	#26
strong Registered User Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: macedonia Posts: 22 Photos: 1	you say nothing about kre-alkalin

02-21-2009, 07:32 AM	#28
strong Registered User Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: macedonia Posts: 22 Photos: 1	OK thanks