Is Creatine Ethyl Ester a Fraud?
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
Login  | |
|
Is Creatine Ethyl Ester a Fraud? - 2/10/2006 9:22:47 AM
|
|
|
Marc David
Posts: 9184
Joined: 4/6/2003
From: Bay Area -CA
Status: offline
|
Creatine Ethyl Ester is a fraud
Source: Elissalowe; moderator of MuscleBuildingNutrition Forums
This document: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/do...rpt0264-toc.htm is an outline of the data submitted to the FDA in support of CEE's status as a "dietary supplement." A couple of factual inaccuracies w/regard to claims made about creatine monohydrate were noted in my previous post.
I had originally assumed that the FDA data represented the entire class of products marketed as "Creatine Ethyl Ether." I was wrong. What I didn't realize at the time (I hadn't read all the dockets there), is that the "evidence" submitted to the FDA was in support of a single, branded supplement: CreEster, which is currently being marketed by MRI under the brand name of CE2 - and being sold primarily through GNC.
w/regard to CE2: data described in the FDA dockets, along with several other sources provide circmstantial evidence that - not only does the stuff not work - it may in fact be mildly toxic. For example, the owners of CreEster (their trademarked name for CEE) conducted two studies on CEE pharmacokinetics in rats, using carbon-14 labelled CEE. The details of both studies are redacted, but the second is described in some detail (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/do...-Six-vol193.pdf):
"...this second study involved the pharmacokinetics of creatine in the plasma of rats following oral administration of [14C]Creatine associated with ethanol (i.e., the ester vehicle of administration)...this study...was conducted to definitively establish the identity and time course of the products of dissociation and metabolism.
Results from this study...establish that, following oral administration the [14C]Creatine Ethyl Ester is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, with radioactivity being detected in plasma within three minutes following administration. The peak concentration of the associated form (ester) occurred at five minutes following adminstration, and accounted for less than 15% of the total radioactivity present in the plasma. This indicates that its dissociation into creatine and ethanol is rapid and nearly complete within this initial five-minute period. At ten minutes following administration, approximately 2% of the total radioactivity present in the plasma was in the associated ester form, with none detected after the ten-minute time point. The rapid dissociation of the ethy ester in the plasma was accompanied by a concurrent rapid increase in creatine and creatinine levels as suggested in the earlier study...The peak level of creatine in plasma was equivalent to about 12% of the total radiocarbon present and occurred at approximately thirty minutes following administration. The concentration gradually declined, and gave rise to creatinine levels that increased to approximately 80 - 90%, where they remained throughout the duration of this study period.. This pharmacokinetic profile is expected, since creatinine is the known major metabolite of creatine."
(emphasis mine)
The last sentence made my jaw drop, as the kinetics of creatine monohydrate in humans do not show any major increases in serum creatinine after a single, acute dose. In humans, excess creatine is largely excreted as creatine (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...870&query_hl=10). This very rapid conversion to creatinine in-vivo is definitely something to be concerned about.
The toxicology data (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/do...port-vol140.pdf) does little to allay suspicion. Rats were gavaged with the equivalent of a 30g/70kg of CEE (430 mg/kg) for seven days. Serum creatinine levels were checked and found to be within normal limits - but only after the conclusion of the study. Could prior knowledge of the clearance rate determined from the carbon-14 studies have had anything to do with the decision to not perform any analyses on the rats' blood chemistry until after the study was concluded? One wonders. In addition - one of the other measures taken was body weight: and there were "no significant changes in weight gain between the control and treatment groups over the seven day course of the study." Even acute, short-term studies on CM in humans show weight gain!
Ok - these are rats, not people. But you will search high and low for any legit studies on people. There's one toxicology test described using "five adult males ranging in age from 39 - 64 years. The daily dosage and length of exposure to the supplement ranged from 1.0 to 3.0 grams and 238 to 414 days respectively." Now there's a controlled study for you! (j/k). And even at this low dose, one of the five had a "slightly elevated measurement for serum creatinine of 1.7 mg/dL..." No weight gain or increases in strength were reported for this group, although it certainly would have been easy to obtain this data - assuming there were any changes that were worth reporting on.
The "data" on the owner's web site is a joke. The only positive data reported from their (hinted at) human studies are anecdotal reports of less muscle soreness following exercise!(http://www.gopnt.com/cgi-bin/bio_view.cgi?p=275). Oh - I forgot...on the FAQ page they also make a (completely unsupported) claim of "more defined muscle."
And, as "Porky Pig" used to say: "Th-th-th-thaaaat's all, folks!"
And all of this dreck pertains to a single brand. What about all the other CEE's on the market?
This is where the going gets wierd. Over at bb.com, for example, there's an info page on CEE (h t t p://www.bodybuilding.com/store/cee.html)...one section is titled "Is Creatine Ethyl Ester Real?" and of course it is! Really! Why they've even got links to certificates of analysis to prove it. And they dare you to click on those links! Cause CEE is too really real! And if you click on those links, then you're gonna see! Really!
So of course, I clicked on the links. And what's there is un-f**king-believable, because the tatty bits of "paper" there offer exactly zero support for the reality of CEE! There are six documents linked there:
#1: From a completely unknown lab: there is no header, no watermark, no indication of who did the test, or what tests were done to confirm the stated 98% purity. Verdict: worthless - test can't be verified.
#2: From "Shanghai Waseta Int'l Trading Co., LTD" (so this stuff's imported from Asia). The tests indicate "99.8%" purity. And what was the test performed? "Determination of Total Nitrogen." Huh? Excuse Me? Verdict: worthless - the test is irrelevant for confirming the presence/absence of CEE
#3: subdivided into 4 parts:
a) An identifiable lab, and an identifiable assay - testing for Creatine ethyl ether. Creatine ethyl ether? There's a difference between an ester and an ether linkage. But in any event, the test shows no CEE - just creatine, and a small amount of creatinine.
b) A graph of a Near Infrared spectrographic analysis. Again no CEE, just creatine, creatinine and "acids". In fact, at the bottom of the graph it clearly states: "After carefully reviewing every creatine ester available on the market place, the following results were found: All are regular creatine monohydrate mixed with an acid or without."
c) An analysis of "ThermoLife CrE2" by the same lab as in 3a) - no CEE, just creatine and creatinine
d) Another analysis of ThermoLife CrE2 by an unknown lab and method. The result? "This product contains NO Creatine ethyl ester hcl."
I've looked at a couple of other COAs as well - there's something wrong with all of them. More often than not, the test used to ID the CEE is not given, so there's no way to verify whether an appropriate method is used or not. And - you know the story...when relevant info's not given, it's almost always because there's something to hide.
How many ways can you spell F - R - A - U - D?
Sorry to go into such detail, but some of this crap is going for big bucks (the CE2 retails for nearly $80.00 for a 1 month supply). Hold onto your $$$.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This Forum Post is one of hundreds of highly knowledable responces given by the professional advisors found on Will Brink’s Private Muscle Building Nutrition Members Only Forum. You can gain access to the private members only forum and ask questions on the subject of Training, Diet and Supplementation by purchasing Will Brinks’ Muscle Building Nutrition System. Click HERE for more details.
< Message edited by Marc David -- 8/14/2006 2:34:18 PM >
|
|
|
|
RE: Creatine Ethyl Ester is a Fraud... - 2/10/2006 10:19:49 AM
|
|
|
Kang114
Posts: 40
Joined: 2/9/2006
Status: offline
|
great post. this should be a sticky.
btw, im assuming creatine ethyl ester is different from the esterified creatine ethyl malate that CELLMASS is composed of right??
_____________________________
18yrs old
senior h.s.
bench: 445lb
squat: 630
clean: 275 :(
deadlift: ? idk never really do them
bodyweight: 185lbs
2/9/06 bdywt: 196lbs
3/1/06 *NEW* bodywt: 211lbs!!!!!
fat%: 9.3 approx.
ht: 6"1
(in reply to Marc David)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creatine Ethyl Ester is a Fraud... - 2/10/2006 12:17:42 PM
|
|
|
phersan
Posts: 1564
Joined: 4/24/2005
From: PA
Status: offline
|
I quickly skimmed over that. So basically, CEE converts into creatinine as much as mono or is it even more? CEE reviews have promised and given out a bunch of ridiculous gains, but there's nothign to back it up scientifically right? And there are products out there who claim to use CEE but really it's just mono with an acid? Am I missing anything else... sorry I just read it real quickly cause I'm gonna go work out now. If anyone wants to throw in insights or comments on what they thought about this I'd like to hear it.
BTW, I've been using normal mono with a carb transport system and have been seeing decent results with no side effects...
_____________________________
Age: 20
Height: 6'1"
Weight: 170 [5/20/08]
Goals after program:
Weight: 190
Look: Sexy
I plan on tweaking the OA program a bit and starting my own version of it after I've completed an 18-week cycle.
(in reply to Old Navy)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creatine Ethyl Ester is a Fraud... - 2/10/2006 2:16:06 PM
|
|
|
Jayman30187
Posts: 1078
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Status: offline
|
I think the CEE does work. I have had good results from one product and bad from another.
(in reply to phersan)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creatine Ethyl Ester is a Fraud... - 2/10/2006 4:43:06 PM
|
|
|
psalms_soldier
Posts: 886
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
I have had better results with my cellmass that i did back when i took cell-tech but my trainign is a little better now but regardless Im confidant in my cellmass.
_____________________________
STACK- Vaso-Pump, Acai Tablets ,Oryx Goat Whey, Cell-Tech Hardcore, Universal Animal Pak, EFA's
Size-5'10 - 180lbs
20 yrs -- Body Fat -- 7%
Athletic Training
(in reply to Jayman30187)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creatine Ethyl Ester is a Fraud... - 2/11/2006 11:01:52 AM
|
|
|
Jayman30187
Posts: 1078
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Status: offline
|
I went off my Creatine Ethyl Ester awhile back for 5 days and my weight went down by 11lbs. I got back on the CEE and my weight slowly went back up. My muscles are holding water I am responding to it. It works!!
(in reply to psalms_soldier)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creatine Ethyl Ester is a Fraud... - 2/11/2006 11:17:08 AM
|
|
|
Jayman30187
Posts: 1078
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Status: offline
|
Something else I wanted to add. My Dad has been bodybuilding on and off for probably about 20 years. He has been staying with it for about 7 years straight now. He is 53 years old and roughly about the same height and build as I am. I got my Dad using Creatine Ethyl Ester about 4 months ago and he still uses it and says he will continue to use it. Even though he is 53 he is lifting more now than he ever lifted on CEE. He is amazed that his strength is going up more and more he can do more reps and more weight now. He is up to 194lbs right now and he told me he never has weighed that much either, he said the most he ever weighed was 190lbs period. Before getting on the CEE he told me he weighed like 180lbs, he eats the same amounts of food, if anything he eats healthier now than ever also with lower fat higher protein foods. I never seen my Dad the way he looks now either, even though he is getting up there in age he is built like a brick _hit house. Lots of People take creatine and are like wow Man I just gained 10lbs in muscle in 2 weeks. Which would be impossible I do believe they just gained 8-9lbs in water weight and maybe 1-2lbs in muscle if they worked really hard at it. I have tried Mono Creatine and I also gained alot of water weight, like way more than with the CEE. With Mono I get really bloated and that fat look going, with CEE I add a little water weight and have rock hard muscles. I would need more proof that CEE doesn't work. I think the FDA are full of crap to a point. If the FDA can't get there hands on it then it must not work right? Wrong!
(in reply to Jayman30187)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creatine Ethyl Ester is a Fraud... - 2/11/2006 11:31:39 AM
|
|
|
veggeep
Posts: 3043
Joined: 10/10/2005
From: Reston, VA
Status: offline
|
I'll have to admit, I didn't really do the full research on CEE before I plopped down my credit card; and then this post comes out literally 15 minutes after I log off massnutrition.com, having just purchased two bottles of MuscleTech's CEE-Pro. As a veteran Monohydrate user, I will, of course, keep everyone posted on any differences I notice -and you all know how anal I am about tracking every iota of my progress 
I've been looking for my next iteration of Creatine, and I typically buy three months worth at a time. The trouble is finding a straight creatine product that isn't loaded with every other supplement du jour, like NO precursors, and stimulants. MuscleTech CEE-Pro seemed like the best option, since it is in capsule form, divided doses, and is priced better than the unflavored GNC Mono I was using.
By the way, I'm starting a spreadsheet (for my own purposes) that tracks the best price on individual supplements, based on cost per serving. I came up with seven different online retailers who carry this stuff, and the average street price seems to be $35 per 180 ct bottle. The make-or-break comes in when you add shipping & handling. I won't write them off completely just yet, but a certain sponsor of this discussion group was $15 higher than the best deal I found (at least on this particular product), so shop around 
_____________________________
Yes, that's me in my avatar, and NO, I don't look like that today. That was taken back in Jan '07, and I lost most of that progress when I slacked off last year. I'm on my way back, tho, and I'm using that photo for inspiration.
(in reply to Jayman30187)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creatine Ethyl Ester is a Fraud... - 2/11/2006 8:03:37 PM
|
|
|
Jayman30187
Posts: 1078
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Status: offline
|
Also another good deal on Massnutrition.com is those CEX CEE capsules $21.95 for 180 wow. Gotta take 3 per serving which is 6 a day, at least on training days that is. I believe the Muscle Tech CEE Pro's are like $31.95 on Massnutrition.com for 180 also, but only need to take 2 capsules per serving = 4 a day total.
(in reply to veggeep)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creatine Ethyl Ester is a Fraud... - 8/14/2006 12:22:13 PM
|
|
|
Twin Peak
Posts: 1515
Joined: 5/9/2003
Status: offline
|
I apologize that I don't have time to fully respond now, but I have two major problems with this thread:
1) Marc, the title is poor -- as it appears that this is not open for debate but that you and this forum are calling CEE a fraud.
2) Anyone who spends that much time gathering info to slam something, but doesn't fully to do their research (or ignores fact) has an agende. What am I talking about? The blanket statement that all CEE products don't contain CEE or have lab reports.
Here is one of ours, from an INDEPENDENT AND ACCREDITED LAB:
http://www.designersupps.com/static_site2/scan_xceed1.php
More when I have time.
_____________________________
http://www.designersupps.com
Email: steve @ designersupps.com
Peak Physiques™
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS COMING, register now at
http://www.intelligentdesignmag.com
(in reply to Marc David)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creatine Ethyl Ester is a Fraud... - 8/14/2006 12:26:02 PM
|
|
|
No Quarter
Posts: 2502
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
Proving your product contains CEE doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it works
(in reply to Twin Peak)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creatine Ethyl Ester is a Fraud... - 8/14/2006 12:27:28 PM
|
|
|
GyM RaT
Posts: 616
Joined: 1/30/2006
From: The Bay Area *408*
Status: offline
|
this thread was from 6 months ago
_____________________________
Age: 17, 5'11", 213
Squat: 315
Dead: 305
Bench: 305
STACK: Leukic, ON 100% Whey, Activite
(in reply to No Quarter)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creatine Ethyl Ester is a Fraud... - 8/14/2006 1:46:36 PM
|
|
|
Twin Peak
Posts: 1515
Joined: 5/9/2003
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: No Quarter
Proving your product contains CEE doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it works
Agreed. But that is not the only claim that was made by this person.
_____________________________
http://www.designersupps.com
Email: steve @ designersupps.com
Peak Physiques™
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS COMING, register now at
http://www.intelligentdesignmag.com
(in reply to No Quarter)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creatine Ethyl Ester is a Fraud... - 8/14/2006 1:52:47 PM
|
|
|
Twin Peak
Posts: 1515
Joined: 5/9/2003
Status: offline
|
Specifically,
quote:
The result? "This product contains NO Creatine ethyl ester hcl."
I've looked at a couple of other COAs as well - there's something wrong with all of them. More often than not, the test used to ID the CEE is not given, so there's no way to verify whether an appropriate method is used or not. And - you know the story...when relevant info's not given, it's almost always because there's something to hide.
Point being, we have nothing to hide.
Again, look at OUR marketing. We don't make huge claims about CEE. Read our write up. We prefer CEE over mono based on our own use, and so we put it in a blend. We don't claim it is the holy grail, and we (as a company) would rather use CEE than mono. So we made XCEED.
For example, this is a direct quote from our write up:
quote:
Increase Lean Body Mass
Creatine monohydrate has long been the choice of bodybuilders and athletes as an ergogenic tool for increasing lean body mass and aiding strength through increased intramuscular water retention (the drawing of water and other nutrients into the cell, thereby ensuring the cell is hydrated.) Generally speaking, a well hydrated cell is an anabolic cell. While creatine monohydrate was wonderful for some, stomach cramping issues made it somewhat less than spectacular for others. In recent times, an ester of creatine (CEE) has been developed that confers all the magnificent benefits of creatine monohydrate without the stomach cramping. Additionally, the majority of CEE users have claimed that along with decreased bloat, CEE is significantly better than monohydrate for enhancing strength and building lean mass.
http://www.designersupps.com/static_site/writeup1_xceed.php
Fraud?
_____________________________
http://www.designersupps.com
Email: steve @ designersupps.com
Peak Physiques™
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS COMING, register now at
http://www.intelligentdesignmag.com
(in reply to Twin Peak)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creatine Ethyl Ester is a Fraud... - 8/14/2006 3:09:17 PM
|
|
|
Twin Peak
Posts: 1515
Joined: 5/9/2003
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marc David
Edit- Changed the title to be more of a question than a statement
LOL. I just read the title before reading this post, and thought, jeez, I guess I am uptight if I read that the wrong way. Then I saw this post and said "whew, I may be uptight, but I am not crazy." ;)
_____________________________
http://www.designersupps.com
Email: steve @ designersupps.com
Peak Physiques™
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS COMING, register now at
http://www.intelligentdesignmag.com
(in reply to Marc David)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creatine Ethyl Ester is a Fraud... - 8/14/2006 3:22:15 PM
|
|
|
No Quarter
Posts: 2502
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Twin Peak
Again, look at OUR marketing. We don't make huge claims about CEE.
What about "XCEED™ is the most advanced pre-workout drink ever developed. "
quote:
ORIGINAL: Twin Peak
Read our write up. We prefer CEE over mono based on our own use, and so we put it in a blend. We don't claim it is the holy grail, and we (as a company) would rather use CEE than mono. So we made XCEED.
We understand this, and we're not trying to attack your integrity as a company. We're just putting it out there that maybe CEE isn't all it's cracked up to be...Maybe most of its benefits are just speculation and placebo effects from biased users, and DS,or any other CEE seller hasn't officially proved otherwise....the companies simply just dodge the question instead.
(in reply to Twin Peak)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Printable Version
