creatine hydrochloride vs monohydrate

[cagefighter1]

what is the difference between these two? i take amplified creatine 189 from GNC and its hydrochloride,

 

[MMAWannabe]

what is the difference between these two? i take amplified creatine 189 from GNC and its hydrochloride,

I've taken many forms of creatine and never noticed much difference. My I usually just take whatever is in my favorite pre-workout supplement and if there is non I buy plain creatine. I'm a little creatine old-school though. I've not read much recent research. Back when they started making something different than plain old creatine they basically added kool-aid and sugar and doubled the price. Since then I just counted all the changes as crap. I'm sure someone will be able to give you a clear answer, but for my money there isn't enough of a difference between them to get too worried about. I could be wrong though.

 

[BigBadWolf]

best gains from creatine i ever got were from some cheap-ass brand of capsuled creatine, i bought from fkin walmart years ago.

 

[MDR]

Creatine mono works just fine.

 

[MMAWannabe]

Just to add to it, I was once told by some friends they had stopped using the loading phase and just start the 5mg/day. Since then I've tried it and it does seem to work, but takes longer. I would start with more the first week, but imo 25mg/day is overkill. But hell, it used to cost a fortune. As cheap as it is now, it's not that big of deal.

 

[unclem]

creatine phosphate was wat i used at first when it came out.

 

[BigBadWolf]

ive been taking Creapure's(cheap shit) preload creatine mono complex for 4 days now, no weight gain yet, but a decent pump 24-7 so far.

 

[SUPERFLY1234]

creatine is creatine. it can be repackage many different way. it still the same stuff. i wasted plenty of cash on them all. try gear.

 

[Guidedbyscience]

monohydrate every day and twice on thursday.

some are not that good,cee,etc...


monohydrate,gluconate,and a couple others are your best bet imho.

 

[cagefighter1]

creatine is creatine. it can be repackage many different way. it still the same stuff. i wasted plenty of cash on them all. try gear.

im gonna pass on the gear, im only 18

 

[twarrior]

im gonna pass on the gear, im only 18

 

[Mark Faulkner]

Dear Mr. Cagefighter,

A few comments about C-HCl and Mono...but first, for full disclosure, I am the inventor, manufacturer, and patent holder for creatine hydrochloride so while I have a lot of experience with it, I am also naturally biased in it's favor...even if my bias is well documented and backed up with solid science.

I will reply more later if this forum desires, but for the moment, a few points about these forms of creatine:

1. C-HCl has been proven to have superior plasma uptake vs. creatine monohydrate. This was demonstrated in a study done with university medical center researchers and presented to the International Society of Sports Nutritionists at their world conference in June of 2009. I can provide more details on the study if anyone is curious.

2. The efficacy of creatines vary significantly based on their conjugation. The HCl conjugation is unmatched in terms of aqueous solubility and the simple fact is, if it isn't in solution, it won't get into your blood stream and be effective.

3. You indicate you are a user of AMP 189...this is a unique approach to delivering C-HCl. Unfortunately, it is not a very efficient approach. In plasma uptake studies (aforementioned), the AMP 189 product when dosed as directed, demonstrated a lower plasma concentration of creatine as compared to Mono...and well below a pure form of C-HCl. So even though it is presented as C-HCl (which I am sure it is), the PEG system of conjugation impedes it's otherwise attractive molecular qualities.

4. The benefits of C-HCl is the superior strength, endurance and recovery it provides while eliminating negative side effects normally attributed to creatine mono and other types.

Best,

Mark Faulkner

 

[ZECH]

Dear Mr. Cagefighter,

A few comments about C-HCl and Mono...but first, for full disclosure, I am the inventor, manufacturer, and patent holder for creatine hydrochloride so while I have a lot of experience with it, I am also naturally biased in it's favor...even if my bias is well documented and backed up with solid science.

I will reply more later if this forum desires, but for the moment, a few points about these forms of creatine:

1. C-HCl has been proven to have superior plasma uptake vs. creatine monohydrate. This was demonstrated in a study done with university medical center researchers and presented to the International Society of Sports Nutritionists at their world conference in June of 2009. I can provide more details on the study if anyone is curious.

2. The efficacy of creatines vary significantly based on their conjugation. The HCl conjugation is unmatched in terms of aqueous solubility and the simple fact is, if it isn't in solution, it won't get into your blood stream and be effective.

3. You indicate you are a user of AMP 189...this is a unique approach to delivering C-HCl. Unfortunately, it is not a very efficient approach. In plasma uptake studies (aforementioned), the AMP 189 product when dosed as directed, demonstrated a lower plasma concentration of creatine as compared to Mono...and well below a pure form of C-HCl. So even though it is presented as C-HCl (which I am sure it is), the PEG system of conjugation impedes it's otherwise attractive molecular qualities.

4. The benefits of C-HCl is the superior strength, endurance and recovery it provides while eliminating negative side effects normally attributed to creatine mono and other types.

Best,

Mark Faulkner

Mark,
Can you provide any scientific studies that back up your claims? Many of these claims have been made before and are proved bogus. Please read this thread by Will Brink and respond when you have time. Thanks.
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/supplements/97198-creatine-graveyard.html

 

[cagefighter1]

Dear Mr. Cagefighter,

A few comments about C-HCl and Mono...but first, for full disclosure, I am the inventor, manufacturer, and patent holder for creatine hydrochloride so while I have a lot of experience with it, I am also naturally biased in it's favor...even if my bias is well documented and backed up with solid science.

I will reply more later if this forum desires, but for the moment, a few points about these forms of creatine:

1. C-HCl has been proven to have superior plasma uptake vs. creatine monohydrate. This was demonstrated in a study done with university medical center researchers and presented to the International Society of Sports Nutritionists at their world conference in June of 2009. I can provide more details on the study if anyone is curious.

2. The efficacy of creatines vary significantly based on their conjugation. The HCl conjugation is unmatched in terms of aqueous solubility and the simple fact is, if it isn't in solution, it won't get into your blood stream and be effective.

3. You indicate you are a user of AMP 189...this is a unique approach to delivering C-HCl. Unfortunately, it is not a very efficient approach. In plasma uptake studies (aforementioned), the AMP 189 product when dosed as directed, demonstrated a lower plasma concentration of creatine as compared to Mono...and well below a pure form of C-HCl. So even though it is presented as C-HCl (which I am sure it is), the PEG system of conjugation impedes it's otherwise attractive molecular qualities.

4. The benefits of C-HCl is the superior strength, endurance and recovery it provides while eliminating negative side effects normally attributed to creatine mono and other types.

Best,

Mark Faulkner

if all this is true what creatine supp has the best C-hcl?

 

[nni]

please post studies backing these claims up. i remember con-cret coming onto the scene and fizzling.

 

[cagefighter1]

please post studies backing these claims up. i remember con-cret coming onto the scene and fizzling.

x2

 

[Mark Faulkner]

Creatine HCl vs Mono

Thanks for the tip on Will Brink...I went and read his post and commented (see a pasting of it in here, below...sorry of the length but it deserved a thorough comment).

As for our studies on the C-HCl plasma uptake, I am happy to provide a powerpoint of the presentation of the study (it was a double blind, balanced crossover study designed by Ph.D researchers at 2 major medical universities) but I don't think I could post it in here...probably too big and I'm not sure I'd know how to if the site/forum could handle it. Please feel free to email me and I'll send it to anyone that is interested. It was a great sutdy and is VERY scientifically defensible. The docs at the ISSN meeting were, I think I can safely say, very impressed with the science and found it to be consistent with what they, as peers, would expect to see done in a formal, academic process.

As for what creatine HCl is effective.......the only other one currently* is CON-CRET and I'll counter the comment that it fizzled. It has actually become one of the top creatines at Vitamin Shoppe and other major outlets -- it just doesn't "shout" and hype as much as other brands but there are some very impressive names using it, both in the professional sports world, powerlifting, and bodybuilding.

* Another product will have C-HCL in it shortly...the new ASSAULT by MusclePharm is formulated with creatine hydrochloride.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Okay, so on the Will Brink post (Creatine Graveyard...reposted in here for your ease of finding it):

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

 

[Dark Geared God]

I take beta-al cce inter-anally

 

[Dyam1x]

I've been working out for almost 10 years now. Always had lean muscle mass. I just started taking Jack3d as my pre-workout supp about 4 months ago. I learned that it also has some creatine in it but does not specify as to what type. It gives me a boost of energy and focus before working out but I believe its mainly because of the amount of caffeine found in it. I started reading up on Creatine and which types are better. I have done plenty of research and have looked at pros and cons of the different types of creatine. When it boils down to it, I heard either Creatine blends (more than one type) and Creatine HCl are the best ones. I decided that I want to look more "buff" and put on more muscle mass instead of having the lean muscle look that I've had for a long time. I have many friends who workout too as well and who looks literally JACKED! I'm not much of the type who likes to stack supplements or take alot of them. I just like having my baseline supps which are (protein, pre-workout supp and now Creatine as my post-workout supp). I started taking Con-Cret which is C-HCl in capsule form. Been on it for a week and a half and I must say...I never had faster recovery or more energy when i was just taking Jack3d alone. I have been on a plateau as most people who work out for a long time. Upon taking this supplement, I was able to bump up 10lbs addition to my workouts without feeling sore the next day in that time and I work out almost 4-6 days a week in a 2 hour workout session each day. When I finished the bottle, I decided to do more research and find other things that may be good quality creatine as well. I heard alot of good things about Cell Mass from BSN and that its a creatine blend (thats until I tried it myself). I bought it and I returned it a week later. For the following reasons: I was sore as hell after my first intake of Cell Mass and did not go away. Therefore, I bumped down my weights. Tried to see if maybe having the supplement accumulate in my body that my recovery and the soreness would go away. It did not but got worse. My recovery took much much longer and above all the supp did not mix well. There are clumps and particles all over my bottle of grape juice after stirring for 2 min. Thats a sign of bad creatine. So I went back and bought Con-Cret in powder form Pineapple flavor. Tastes amazing, Mixes well and don't need to take much. Just 1 - 2 scoop per 100lbs of body weight. And the first day of taking it. I had ZERO soreness of my muscles and joints.
Word of Advice: Just drink plenty of water to keep yourself hydrated when taking con-cret. But if you've been taking creatine you already know the golden rule.

 

[bikeswimlive]

Don't pay for anything other than mono. It's all overpriced and really won't work any better. Just find a reputable company that produces a mono and you will be fine.

 

[bmason1122]

kre alkalyn by sci fit best ive found

 

[Flex2.0]

A few comments about C-HCl and Mono...but first, for full disclosure, I am the inventor, manufacturer, and patent holder for creatine hydrochloride so while I have a lot of experience with it, I am also naturally biased in it's favor...even if my bias is well documented and backed up with solid science.

4. The benefits of C-HCl is the superior strength, endurance and recovery it provides while eliminating negative side effects normally attributed to creatine mono and other types.

Best,

Mark Faulkner

Hey Mark, just wondering if as the inventor of Creatine HCl I see you used for your scientific study University of Nebraska Medical Center Drs. Jon Vennerstrom; Dennis Robinson and Tom McDonald - they show Creatine HCL to be 59 times more soluble than CM, I see they also did a study that showed CEE to be 30 times more soluble (are they the inventors of CEE?).

I note from your website that your HCl study was conducted on 10 people - would you consider that to be a statistically relevant quantity - has this study been published as I can only find reference to it on your website? I see in your above postings you discount a lot of studies showing CM to be superior to CEE yet put a lot of weight into your study of HCl that was conducted on 10 subjects (which to me seems a small subject field).

I also note in the presentation to the ISSN that it is suggested for optimum solubility of a 5g dose of creatine monohydrate that it would require 300mls of water and only 7ml of water for Creatine HCL? (or maybe 625mls for CM and 10ml for CHCl, sorry couldn't quite figure that out from your chart) yet in your study you only used 180mls per 5gram dose of creatine - wouldn't that have effected the outcome of your study as you would have had sufficient water to aid solubility of the creatine HCL but insufficient for the Creatine Mono to be fully soluble?

Can you tell me why would muscle pharm assault contain over 3grams of creapure creatine monohydrate, and less than 2g of creatine HCL per serve - why use Creatine Mono at all if its solubility is so inferior to HCl?

"4. The benefits of C-HCl is the superior strength, endurance and recovery it provides while eliminating negative side effects normally attributed to creatine mono and other types."
What are the negative benefits of CM?

Can you also tell me why you discount the findings by Tallon - was their research independant or funded (like yours) by a sports supplement company with something to gain from the research and subsequent results?

 

[Mark Faulkner]

See my comments in bold

Hey Mark, just wondering if as the inventor of Creatine HCl I see you used for your scientific study University of Nebraska Medical Center Drs. Jon Vennerstrom; Dennis Robinson and Tom McDonald - they show Creatine HCL to be 59 times more soluble than CM, I see they also did a study that showed CEE to be 30 times more soluble (are they the inventors of CEE?).

There are multiple patents and patent applications regarding CEE. Drs. Vennerstrom, Robinson and McDonald are inventors, in addition to others. So if you could be more specific with regard to the patent you are referring to, I could be more specific about inventors. I am not sure what you are asking with regard to the above statement about CEE being 30 times more soluble as you did not indicate soluble than what -- I assume you mean 30 times more soluble than CM. Similar solubility data has been obtained in other testing laboratories independent of University of Nebraska Medical Center...it's not difficult to perform such analysis and confirm such findings.

I note from your website that your HCl study was conducted on 10 people - would you consider that to be a statistically relevant quantity - has this study been published as I can only find reference to it on your website? I see in your above postings you discount a lot of studies showing CM to be superior to CEE yet put a lot of weight into your study of HCl that was conducted on 10 subjects (which to me seems a small subject field).

Might I ask, what you would consider to be an appropriate number of subjects? I don???t know your area of expertise (are you choosing to remain anonymous?) but typically people wishing to engage in a discussion about data would provide their name, summarize their credentials, and disclose potential conflicts of interest they may have with the topic, such as consultancy or employment or affiliation or such (other company involvements). I assume your issue is that there were not enough subjects in the study. Typically you would base the number of subjects for a study on a power analysis, which essentially guides the design of the study to insure that there are enough subjects enrolled to adequately determine statistical significance. The problem with too small a study group is that you risk rejecting the hypothesis that Creatine HCl has better bioavailability than Creatine Monohydrate due to insufficient power to statistically determine differences in the treatment groups. As the study found Creatine HCl bioavailability to be statistically greater (approximately 65%) than Creatine monohydrate, it would appear that the study was sufficiently powered and had adequate numbers of subjects. The study was also a cross-over design, meaning that the 10 subjects received both creatine monohydrate and creatine HCl following an appropriate washout period. A cross-over design, which is common in pharmacokinetic studies comparing two similar products, allows for fewer number of subjects as each is receiving both treatment arms and can serve as their own controls. Subject number may be an issue with previous studies examining other salt forms of creatine in which despite relatively large increases in bioavailability for various salt forms over creatine monohydrate (ie. Approximately 25% increase) no statistical differences were reported (Journal Intl Society for Sports Nutrition vol 4, 2007).

I also note in the presentation to the ISSN that it is suggested for optimum solubility of a 5g dose of creatine monohydrate that it would require 300mls of water and only 7ml of water for Creatine HCL? (or maybe 625mls for CM and 10ml for CHCl, sorry couldn't quite figure that out from your chart) yet in your study you only used 180mls per 5gram dose of creatine - wouldn't that have effected the outcome of your study as you would have had sufficient water to aid solubility of the creatine HCL but insufficient for the Creatine Mono to be fully soluble?

We considered several things when designing the study. One was to try to incorporate ???real-life??? conditions with the study. Given the solubility of CM, one would need to consume over half a liter of water. In polling users of creatine supplements about the amount of fluids consumed in taking their products, 6-8 fluid ounces was the predominate range selected. Furthermore, the CM and creatine HCl used was in powder form and not a tablet or capsule formulation requiring dissolution and dispersion. Thus, although consumed with 180 ml, it is delivered directly to the stomach which has a much greater volume of aqueous solution (average volume in adult of about 900 ml, albeit acidic) to dissolve in.

Can you tell me why would muscle pharm assault contain over 3grams of creapure creatine monohydrate, and less than 2g of creatine HCL per serve - why use Creatine Mono at all if its solubility is so inferior to HCl?

This would appear to be a question that perhaps you should ask someone from Muscle Pharm. I did pose this question to several people that have used a 100% creatine HCl product (CON-CRET). This included record-setting powerlifters and both professional and amateur athletes who have used both forms in the past and all the people I [informally] polled with the question of whether they would prefer to use CON-CRET or a product containing the same amount of creatine but split between creatine monohydrate and creatine HCl indicated they would prefer the CON-CRET. That has been the typical response among users for as long as the product has been offered.

"4. The benefits of C-HCl is the superior strength, endurance and recovery it provides while eliminating negative side effects normally attributed to creatine mono and other types."
What are the negative benefits of CM?

I'm mildy surprised you ask this because it seems you are well-versed enough as to know the answer...so I'll guess that the question is more rhetorical...or that you are baiting. But in case I'm incorrect, typical side effects are related to gastro-intestinal issues that one would expect if you were consuming a lot of any compound (ie 10-20 grams) that required a great deal of fluid to solubilize the compound. These would include bloating, pain, diarrhea, etc. Obviously, being able to consume less creatine and less fluid would limit these side effects observed with CM.

Can you also tell me why you discount the findings by Tallon - was their research independant or funded (like yours) by a sports supplement company with something to gain from the research and subsequent results?

Which findings of Tallon are you referring to? If it is the abstract from a scientific meeting of the International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) in 2007 suggesting CEE is not stable in acid environment of the stomach, I would say I discount these findings as I know them to be false. Our studies, as well as those of others (Biochem. Biophys. Res. Com. Vol 386, pages 363-367, 2009), indicate the half-life of CEE in acidic pH environment such as that of the stomach is on the order of days (i.e. 22 days), not minutes as reported by Child and Tallon. I would also caution that with regard to dietary supplements, there are very few studies that are not funded by companies with vested interest in the results. This alone does not make them less valid than ???independent??? studies. What makes it difficult is that many studies, especially those reported in abstract form, do not declare where the funding for the studies came from. This is beginning to change, most all the medical and pharmaceutical based conferences and journals require funding for the studies to be declared allowing the reader to judge for themselves based on the information provided the validity of the findings. Perhaps this will also become a practice followed by meetings and journals dealing with dietary supplements. We are always clear about funding and studies because we value transparency and hope others will follow.

Thanks for your inquiry and I sincerely hope this helps both for you and others.

Mark Faulkner

 

[Flex2.0]

I am not sure what you are asking with regard to the above statement about CEE being 30 times more soluble as you did not indicate soluble than what -- I assume you mean 30 times more soluble than CM.

Hi Mark, thanks for taking the time to reply. Yeah I was referring to a statement made the inventors as to CEE being 30 times more soluble than CM - probably my main pount of that is that CEE seems to have died a death, yet for something that is supposed to be 30 times more soluble than CM why would it now be seen as so unpopular and ineffective - why has CM maintained it's ground and why is CM so effective yet CEE not seen that way? No one seems to come out with a new creatine product and says it's 59x more soluble then CEE, CM is always used as a benchmark.

Now the inventors that found CEE to be 30 times more soluble than CM have found C-HCl to be 59 times more soluble than CM - I guess my point is maybe that finding something more soluble in a lab doesn't necessarily mean it is better?

I don’t know your area of expertise (are you choosing to remain anonymous?) but typically people wishing to engage in a discussion about data would provide their name, summarize their credentials, and disclose potential conflicts of interest they may have with the topic, such as consultancy or employment or affiliation or such (other company involvements). I assume your issue is that there were not enough subjects in the study.

I thought the internet allowed anonymity, and normally I maintain it so I can remain unattached to any particular issue/brand/product etc. Do you ask everybody you meet what their credentials are before you have a conversation with them? Basically I've worked in the sports nut industry for around 15years and sell the stuff on a daily basis in a retail environment dealing directly with the consumers of these products. If I'm going to sell a product I need to know it's not full of shit and that's it's actually going to do what it says on the tin. I have no credentials in this industry other than having used and sold products since I was 18yo (the last 17 years).

My conflicts of interest are that I have a bullshitometer that starts buzzing everytime a company sells its product based on the negative effects of Creatine monohydrate. Personally I like creatine monohydrate and can't say I ever really found a negative effect with Creatine Mono. I used it continuously from the mid 90's through to maybe 5 years ago when I changed from training in the gym to running on the road. When a companyn produces a "new generation creatine" and says that CM has negative side effects like bloating or water retention I wonder if maybe they are being a bit pedantic focusing on some negative effects that occur for a small percentage of users yet forgetting the high proportion of positive benefits that occurs for the majority of users. Then for some reason the "new generation" of creatine seems to die in the water even though it showed on paper or in a lab that it was "X%" more soluble, more stable, bigger, stronger, faster etc and even though several major top level sports people seemed to find it "really effective and much better than CM".

Fortunately though for the consumer then another new form of creatine comes out - normally from the same company - that is "Y x X%" more effective and we are back at the start again of a company telling us that CM is bad for us at that their new creatine blah blah blah is better.......that's my conflict of interest.

We considered several things when designing the study. One was to try to incorporate “real-life” conditions with the study. Given the solubility of CM, one would need to consume over half a liter of water...........Thus, although consumed with 180 ml, it is delivered directly to the stomach which has a much greater volume of aqueous solution (average volume in adult of about 900 ml, albeit acidic) to dissolve in.

Surely then based on your research you could stand up and tell people that CM might be better used if people drink 500ml of water as opposed to 6oz's. And you can't really know what is in someones stomach already unless you had full control over what their diet contained. The fluid in the stomach shouldn't have been reason to then not mix the CM in an amount of water that would allow full solubility. You may as well then not get them to predissolve it at all and just stick it straight in their mouth and swallow it - which actually does occur in "real-life" as many of our customers tell us they do with CM.

I'm mildy surprised you ask this because it seems you are well-versed enough as to know the answer...so I'll guess that the question is more rhetorical...or that you are baiting. But in case I'm incorrect, typical side effects are related to gastro-intestinal issues that one would expect if you were consuming a lot of any compound (ie 10-20 grams) that required a great deal of fluid to solubilize the compound. These would include bloating, pain, diarrhea, etc. Obviously, being able to consume less creatine and less fluid would limit these side effects observed with CM.

It was based on my answer above and a little bit of baiting I guess, and my opinion that the positive benefits of CM far outweigh the negative...do you foresee that when C-HCl has been on the market for 20 years that there will have been no negative side effects reported with its use?