Facebook    Twitter    YouTube    Instagram

Creatine Ethyl Ester (CEE) the best form of creatine?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
  1. #1
    I Run This Place
    ADMINISTRATOR
    Prince's Avatar


    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    69,767

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    375
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    660
    Thanked in
    478 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647


    Question Creatine Ethyl Ester (CEE) the best form of creatine?

    By Paul Cribb


    Q: I have a question regarding a new product called Creatine Ethyl Ester. The company that sells this product claims that it is delivered to muscles more effectively than creatine monohydrate. Would you please enlighten me on this new supplement?


    A: I can't find a single research paper that documents creatine-ethyl-esters. The only information available on creatine-ethyl-esters is the advertising, marketing spin produced by the companies that sell it.

    If someone can obtain something science-based that may substantiate some of the claims about this product, I like to see it because some of the claims are quite amusing. One of the claims made by marketers of creatine-ethyl-esters is that it’s proven to be better than creatine monohydrate. In what way, I’m not sure because I can’t even obtain a document showing me this compound is for real, let alone research results that may suggest this product is better than pure creatine monohydrate. If this product is proven to be better than creatine monohydrate then the evidence should be readily available to consumers.

    The lack of scientific evidence on creatine-ethyl-esters might tell you something about the integrity of the companies that sell this product. If we take a closer look at some of the other claims about this product then the scientific spin starts to become transparent.

    From a biochemical perspective, there is no need to “attach” an ester group to the creatine molecule. This attachment will not make creatine any more bioavailable. Additionally, this attachment won't prevent degradation by the liver; creatine is actually synthesized in the liver.

    Another claim is that due to the ester attachment, this type of creatine is able to permeate the muscle cell membrane (outershell) and thus more creatine can enter muscle cells. This is a straight out lie. The only way creatine and other amino acid compounds enter cells is via transporters. The real research shows on the topic of creatine absorption and transport shows that regular creatine is absorbed in to the blood stream without a problem. A 5 gram dose of creatine monohydrate saturates blood plasma for up to an hour. Creatine transport (into muscle cells) occurs when the concentration outside the cell is greater than inside the cell.

    I believe the whole “ester” thing is a scam, a by-product of the steroid (make it sound like a drug) stigma and it is you, the consumer who is paying for the sham. When companies advertise claims such as “absorbed faster than regular creatine”, “20 times anabolic that regular creatine” or "40 times more potent and absorbable than regular creatine" - they are making very specific claims. Therefore, the company making the claim should have research that can substantiate the claim. If they can't back this claim up with supporting science that means they are simply making it up out of thin air. As a consumer, you have the power to call the company on their bluff and ask them to produce the evidence.

    The truth is that these companies won't accommodate your request. They can't accomidate your request. As with most supplement scams; no scientific research has ever been conducted on the product and there is no evidence to support the very specific marketing claims that are made about the product.



  2. #2
    Registered User


    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    3,040

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    10

    Interesting post, but given how new CEE is it's hardly surprising there isn't a wealth of clinical studies yet. It's not even approved by the FDA yet. The lack of solid research also applies to other \creatine forms too, like di/tri malates. The "20 times more anabolic" is obviously crap, but for mono non-responders it's worth exploring IMO.

  3. #3
    I Run This Place
    ADMINISTRATOR
    Prince's Avatar


    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    69,767

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    375
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    660
    Thanked in
    478 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647


    Quote Originally Posted by redspy
    The lack of solid research also applies to other \creatine forms too, like di/tri malates. The "20 times more anabolic" is obviously crap, but for mono non-responders it's worth exploring IMO.
    true, but there is quite a bit of difference between CEE and TriCreatine Malate.



  4. #4
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER
    musclepump's Avatar


    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    America! Fuck yeah!
    Posts
    6,671

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    9323879

    I'm going to try CEE just because I don't think I do well with regular monohydrate. Speaking of non-responders though, is there anywhere to find more detail on this? If creatine is natural and all bodies use it/receive it, why don't all respond?





  5. #5
    Gatekepper
    ELITE MEMBER
    Pirate!'s Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    41
    Posts
    6,578

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    17101876

    I "respond" to creatine mono, but I much prefer CEE. I don't need any scienctific studies to tell me how well it works. If I went by scientific studies, I'd be wasting my money on NO2, Myostatin blockers or the newest Get-Pumped type products that looks good on paper. Real world feedback holds much more weight in an industry striving to fuel itself with hype.

  6. #6
    Registered User


    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    3,040

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    10

    These products that look good on paper are often backed with in-house research that's highly suspect and written by the marketing dept. Relying exclusively on user logs isn't always that reliable either. As an example in the PH world MethylDien was pitched as the x times more anabolic than M1T and early reports suggested it was great. Widespread use proved this was horseshit. M14,ADD was supposedly the "new" Dbol, but it fell flat. Rigorous real world feedback combined with legitimate clinical trials is the ideal.

  7. #7
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,501

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    3303946

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateFromHell
    I "respond" to creatine mono, but I much prefer CEE. I don't need any scienctific studies to tell me how well it works. If I went by scientific studies, I'd be wasting my money on NO2, Myostatin blockers or the newest Get-Pumped type products that looks good on paper. Real world feedback holds much more weight in an industry striving to fuel itself with hype.
    I agree, I don't need science to tell me what works. I've used mono, I've used swole (DiCreatine, i think) and "responded" to both, but CEE is a far better choice for me.

  8. #8
    NGA/IFPA Pro Bodybuilder
    ELITE MEMBER
    gopro's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    GLOBAL!
    Age
    49
    Posts
    11,169

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    33417782

    But there IS research on CEE, done by the University of Nebraska. No, the ethyl attachment does not allow improved uptake from bloodstream to muscle, but DOES allow FAR BETTER uptake from stomach to bloodstream, allowing there to be far more creatine AVAILABLE FOR TRANSPORT into muscle.





  9. #9
    I Run This Place
    ADMINISTRATOR
    Prince's Avatar


    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    69,767

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    375
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    660
    Thanked in
    478 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647


    any chance you have a link to that...would like to read it if you do.

    I was very interested in CEE but the more I read the less I wast to use it in one of my own products. I am very happy with the feedback I am getting on TriCreatine Malate, i.e. Maximum Pump.



  10. #10
    WantItBad
    WantItBad's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Age
    33
    Posts
    1,149

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    110

    Rob is that ur arm on the max pump add? if so lol
    "Strength is the product of struggle"

    "Your greatest challenge isn't another person. Its the burning in your lungs and the burning in your legs, its the voice in your head screaming STOP you cant do anymore. But you dont listen. You push harder and you start to hear a the whisper of YOU CAN. You realize you are not the person you thought you were is no match for the person you are."

  11. #11
    Registered User


    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    3,040

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    10

    Quote Originally Posted by gopro
    But there IS research on CEE, done by the University of Nebraska. No, the ethyl attachment does not allow improved uptake from bloodstream to muscle, but DOES allow FAR BETTER uptake from stomach to bloodstream, allowing there to be far more creatine AVAILABLE FOR TRANSPORT into muscle.
    GP: Do you have a link to the study? As a CEE user I'm interested, but can't it referenced at pubmed, medscape, scholar.google.com, AJCN or any other sites.

  12. #12
    I Run This Place
    ADMINISTRATOR
    Prince's Avatar


    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    69,767

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    375
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    660
    Thanked in
    478 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647


    Quote Originally Posted by WantItBad
    Rob is that ur arm on the max pump add? if so lol
    no, this is:




  13. #13
    NGA/IFPA Pro Bodybuilder
    ELITE MEMBER
    gopro's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    GLOBAL!
    Age
    49
    Posts
    11,169

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    33417782

    Wow, a link, huh? I will see what I can do to find it. I know their research was somewhat guarded, but I know I saw the link somewhere.

    Anecdotally I can tell you that CEE gets TREMENDOUS feedback.





  14. #14
    Follow @TheUnzippedFly
    soxmuscle's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    do work son
    Age
    30
    Posts
    11,378

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    85429855


    Thanks in advance GP for the link. And Rob, whose arm is that if its not yours? Where do you find people with arms like that?
    Age: 27 | Height: 5'8" | Weight: 165 lbs | Penis: 2.5 inches

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    4,956

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    25470444

    Quote Originally Posted by soxmuscle
    Thanks in advance GP for the link. And Rob, whose arm is that if its not yours? Where do you find people with arms like that?

    they are mine
    Quote Originally Posted by ForemanRules
    I will not kill innocents.

Similar Threads

  1. Creatine Monohydrate vs. Creatine Ethyl Ester
    By Biggzy in forum Supplements
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-02-2010, 08:34 PM
  2. Creatine Ethyl Ester vs. Creatine Monohydrate
    By Skib in forum Supplements
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 02-06-2009, 04:28 PM
  3. Creatine Monohyderate VS Creatine Ethyl Ester
    By faaazi in forum Supplements
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-30-2006, 11:35 AM
  4. Creatine Ethyl Ester
    By Purdue Power in forum Supplements
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-16-2004, 09:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Copyright© 2001-2017 IronMag® Bodybuilding Forums