What is the best creatine

Author Message
DiscussBodybuilding.com
Master Lifter
7 Stars

  • Total Posts : 5274
  • Reward points : 10
  • Joined: 6/20/2003
  • Status: online

 
gunshowkeough

  • Total Posts : 125
  • Reward points : 10
  • Joined: 6/29/2006
  • Location: Mass
  • Status: offline
What is the best creatine - Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:06 PM ( #1 )
The first and most generic creatine is creatine monohydrate. There has been advances on the creatine molecule since then. Anavol has developed a creatine that consists of combination of Creatine Alpha-Ketoglutarate and Glutamine Alpha-Ketoglutarate. CE2 has been developed at the University of Nebraska with the Medical Research Institution.  It is Creatine with Ethyl Ester HCL (Hydrogen Chloride). There is the CEM creatine that is made which is creatine ethyl ester malate. Why is creatine monohydrate not as effective? What is the best creatine

Creatine monohydrate is not as effective on the molecular level. It does not penetrate your muscle cells. Creatine monohydrate is a hydrophilic molecule (retains water)Because of this, it does not penetrate the lipid layers around the muscle cell. Creatine monohydrate requires energy transporters which are other nutrients. Creatine monohydrate is a semilipophilic molecule which means it does not use lipids efficiently to transport through. lipids are on the outside of every muscle cell and creatine has to penetrate these lipid layers. This causes the side effects known as "creatine bloating"

Esterfying creatine makes it more lipophilic. This means in theory, Creatine ethyl ester would be able to penetrate the muscles lipid cell wall layers.

When I did monohydrate, I got no increases and was extremely dehydrated after my workout. My recomendations for creatine are either anavol which is creatine with alpha particles or CE2 which is a creatine ethyl ester. I have found great success with both of these types of creatine. I have made size and strength gains. Creatine ethyl ester is probably the best stuff though.

There has been no official study that proves that Creatine Ethyl Ester is more effective then creatine monohydrate but the molecular chemistry of both forms of creatine support this theory.

Many people mistake the ethyl ester part of CEE as a toxic chemical. Esters are found in animal fat tissue so they are not toxic.

Heres a link to the guy who developed CE2
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/byrd_ed_18365447.aspx

Heres a link where CE2 is discussed by people who thinks its legit and other people who don't agree with it.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/south96.htm

Heres are links supporting creatine ethyl ester and it is not trying to sell the product I don't think
http://www.bodyandfitness.com/Information/Fitness/Research/creatine-e.htm
http://www.fitness.com/articles/2/benefits_of_creatine_ethyl_ester.php

Heres a wikepedia definition of creatine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine

I tried to find sites that were not advertising the product because it would be obvious that they would support it.

You can also buy the Ed Byrd books at GNC for a dollar. Although he is trying to sell his product and obviously he would hype it up, it is coming from a credible source (MRI), (University of Nebraska), and it has molecular science to explain the effectiveness of the molecule.
<message edited by gunshowkeough on Sunday, September 17, 2006 2:26 PM>
body weight: 250
Bench: 365
Squat: 555 w/ briefs and knee wraps
Deadlift:585

- tps strongman   


danmirage

  • Total Posts : 6290
  • Reward points : 10
  • Joined: 11/20/2005
  • Status: offline
RE: What is the best creatine - Friday, August 11, 2006 12:17 PM ( #2 )
Sorry, this is total bunk.

Creatine Monohydrate is the form of Creatine proven effective in over 300 published and peer reviewed research papers.

The other forms EE and Alkalyn are based on guessing and there is no science behind them.  THe research that is often cited...can not be found anywhere by legit researchers...if it was good research it would be everywhere....hmmmm

Creatine is a nutrient and may soon be classified as such.  The body knows EXACTLY what to do with it.  It is supplied in food and the body has specific mechanisms for getting it into the muscle where it is wanted.

Pure Creatine Monohydrate would be preferable to these other form as it is effective and known to be safe.

CEE or Creatine Ethyl Ester  has NO research to show its safety and even some research that brings it's safety into question.  The Ethyl Ester is an alcohol!  There is preliminary evidence that CEE may become a toxin...

The general rule is - if it may be unsafe..don't use it.  Especially when there is something that WORKS and is proven SAFE.  Even when looking at kidney, liver and other functions.

Creatine may soon be considered an essential nutrient instead of a supplement!

Endurance athletes use carbs for energy.
Strength athletes use creatine (the phosphate energy system)
Take creatine away and people lose function, put it back and function improves...looks essential.

Creatine is a nutrient.

New published research points out that taking Pure Creatine Mono 1-hour prior to resistance training may have additional benefits!  It takes an hour to peak in the blood and the force of blood flowing to the muscles delivers it effectively where it is most desired.

All forms of creatine provide Creatine Monohydrate.  Creatine Monohydrate is the active constituent and mono is the one that has long term clinical research to back it up.  

Kre-Alkalyn and CEE have NO research to support their claims!

At least 3-5g of creatine Mono should be supplied by your chosen source...note that ethel esters and buffered only list total amount of the COMPOUND not the amount of creatine supplied.  This is not good.  Something that supplies 1.5 grams of a Buffered Creatine Compound (say creatively called the Muscle Volumizing Matrix or Kre-Alkalyn - 1.5 Grams (buffered creatine US patent# 6,399,661) )  Will supply less than 1.5 grams of Creatine!

One of the arguments for the high priced EE and Alkalyn is that by providing a lowering dose (to lower than the dose found effective in over 200 clinical trials) it will not cause undesirable side effects.

Recent research compared the CEE to monohydrate.  The CEE simply delivers the creatine bound to ethyl alcohol, that is then separated to liberate the Creatine Mono.  CEE takes some time to split and does involve the liver (alcohol), where mono is not involved in the liver.  I am uncertain about the amount of Creatine actually delivered from 3G of CEE HCl...and only this one as yet unpublished piece of research has reached me about it. 

It tested an amount of CEE delivering 5 grams of Creatine vs. 5 Grams of pure Monohydrate...the results (lean body mass, body fat, bone mass) for both were the same, however there was some puzzling blood work in the CEE subjects, leading them to test for toxin metabolites...which has not yet been completed.

When comparing costs, consider the amount of creatine provided in the product.
 

Want to hear one of the leaders in Sports Nutrition and Athletic research from Folorida Atlantic University talk about Creatine? Dr. Jeffery Stout...

Listen to this.  The creatine discussion starting at about 16 minutes going to 25 minutes...
http://www.performancenutritionshow.com/pastshows/06_0208.html

Also this with Tim Ziegenfuss, Ph.D. (the Chief Executive Officer of The Ohio Research Group of Exercise Science and Sports Nutrition..etc) starting at about 16 minutes going to 22 minutes...
http://www.performancenutritionshow.com/pastshows/06_0705.html
<message edited by danmirage on Saturday, August 12, 2006 7:26 AM>
gunshowkeough

  • Total Posts : 125
  • Reward points : 10
  • Joined: 6/29/2006
  • Location: Mass
  • Status: offline
RE: What is the best creatine - Sunday, September 17, 2006 1:01 AM ( #3 )
Dan mirage, I have a dispute here with something that you said.
 
"Creatine is a nutrient and may soon be classified as such.  The body knows EXACTLY what to do with it.  It is supplied in food and the body has specific mechanisms for getting it into the muscle where it is wanted."
 
Creatine monohydrate is eventually absorbed by the body but the statement the body knows exactly what to do with it is not neccessarilly true.
 
I am a college student in human anatomy and physiology and we are learning about membrane transport.
 
Danmirage, let me bring some cell biology to light. This may clarify my point better.
 
All types of cells, muscle cells included have cellular membranes that are composed of mostly lipid, and proteins which aid in active transport. Molecules that are small and nonpolar not having a charge can pass through these membranes. Creatine monohydrate happens to be a large molecule and it is polar (contains a molecular charge). This means that creatine monohydrate needs to undergoe some type of active transport aided by proteins and ATP. So the body does not neccessarilly know exactly what to do with just creatine monohydrate.
 
I am not saying that creatine monohydrate is not effective, but with sport nutrition advances there have been more versions of it created.
 
I read this article in muscle fitness and this is how it read. It was not an add for a type of creatine and this is what Jim Stoppani phD and mens fitness writer had to say about creatine monohydrate.
 
"One problem with creatine monohydrate is its absorption in the intestines. When this product is consumed, it sits in the intestines before being aborbed into the bloodstream. Because creatine pulls in water (as it does in muscle cells) it can pull water into the intestines, causing diahrea in people who don't absorb creatine monhydrate well. However, most new versions are absorbed much more easily, preventing gastrointestinal problems associated with creatine monohydrate."
 
This is what he had to say about creatine ethyl ester.
 
"It's formed by the addition of an alcohol and an acid to the creatine molecule. Adding the ester group enhances creatine molecules ability to pass across cell membranes in the intestines (resulting in easier absorption) as well as muscle cells."
 
So theres a source that supports my claim. So before you call my writing BUNK again I challenge you danmirage to pick up Joe Weiders Muscle and Fitness magazine the september 2006 issue. The article is on page 209. And I also challenge you to try CEE or Anavol which is creatine AKG.
body weight: 250
Bench: 365
Squat: 555 w/ briefs and knee wraps
Deadlift:585

- tps strongman   


danmirage

  • Total Posts : 6290
  • Reward points : 10
  • Joined: 11/20/2005
  • Status: offline
RE: What is the best creatine - Sunday, September 17, 2006 7:59 AM ( #4 )

So theres a source that supports my claim. So before you call my writing BUNK again I challenge you danmirage to pick up Joe Weiders Muscle and Fitness magazine the september 2006 issue.

First, lets be clear the Muscle and  Fitness is an advertisement.  Having worked in publication, I am aware that most articles are advertorial content arranged by the supplement companies, etc to sell product.  So, you will have to find something in Peer reviewed literature that supports CEE, C-AKG, Buffered Creatine, etc.

Researches who have worked with creatine for decades were asked about these "designer forms of creatine.  They searched for literature to support their claims.  Their was none.  So they designed their own research.  They found the claims are not justified.  All of these forms are broken down to ...say ethyl alcohol and Creatine monohydrate or whatever separate molecules are there..again leaving you with CM to process.  The down side in some cases is you also now have additional metabolites..which are still under investigation.


Adding the ester group enhances creatine molecules ability to pass across cell membranes in the intestines (resulting in easier absorption) as well as muscle cells."

Investigation and soon to be published studies found this not to be true. 

You can hear Stout and Ziegenfuss discuss these findings.  Once they are published...you can read the research. 

While your discussion of membrane transport is interesting...it stops BEFORE discussing the method of transport that the body DOES use for Creatine Monohydrate.  Which it does do and it has been observed that it does it well enough fro CM to be highly effective.

I feel a search of all published research and a reading of the findings on CM would clear up your misgivings.


And I also challenge you to try CEE or Anavol which is creatine AKG.

Why would I pay more money for a product that is not proven safe and effective? 

When the science shows that in fact a supplement does have a safe and more effective delivery system (I actually do know of one more effective CM delivery system - but it is not commercially possible) and that information is used to SAVE money for the consumer (ie the cost per assimilated gram of creatine is lower)...then I will feel trying the new supplement is reasonable.

I don't look at supplements as anything more than the extra.
I know that I can get great results for every one of my clients without any supplements.

The supplements simply give you that tiny edge.  Which most people really don't need.
gunshowkeough

  • Total Posts : 125
  • Reward points : 10
  • Joined: 6/29/2006
  • Location: Mass
  • Status: offline
RE: What is the best creatine - Sunday, September 17, 2006 2:25 PM ( #5 )
Dan, you are right about the muscle fitness magazines for the most part. Alot of the articles do try to push their kind of product. This article mentions every form of creatine on the market and does not mention any manufacturers. It mentioned creatine alpha ketoglutarate, creatine gluconate, Creatine ethyl ester, creatine methyl ester, tricreatine orotate. It clearly states that creatine monohydrate is effective but the other types of creatine are examined and said to be possibly more effective then mono.
 
I respect that you want to stick to creatine monohydrate, but there are advancements in science and especially sports nutrition. It takes a long time to get scientific proof that these types of creatine are actually more effective. In theory on the topic of cell biology, they could possibly work better then mono.
 
Then again, your digestive system breaks up molecules. Some say that the creatine ethyl alcohol is broken from the creatine monohydrate molecule.
 
Everything is inconclusive on this topic. Personally I have found more success with creatine AKG and ethyl ester then creatine monohydrate.
body weight: 250
Bench: 365
Squat: 555 w/ briefs and knee wraps
Deadlift:585

- tps strongman   


danmirage

  • Total Posts : 6290
  • Reward points : 10
  • Joined: 11/20/2005
  • Status: offline
RE: What is the best creatine - Sunday, September 17, 2006 4:05 PM ( #6 )

It clearly states that creatine monohydrate is effective but the other types of creatine are examined and said to be possibly more effective then mono.

In research, none have proven to be more effective at this time.


I respect that you want to stick to creatine monohydrate

There is nothing personal about it.  I follow the science.
 

but there are advancements in science and especially sports nutrition. It takes a long time to get scientific proof that these types of creatine are actually more effective. In theory on the topic of cell biology, they could possibly work better then mono.

However, this research HAS been done and at this time, no other form of creatine has proven more effective.


Then again, your digestive system breaks up molecules. Some say that the creatine ethyl alcohol is broken from the creatine monohydrate molecule

Research clearly shows this to be the case.


Everything is inconclusive on this topic.

I would not say everything, but certainly, there is always room for us to learn and discover more!!!
 

Personally I have found more success with creatine AKG and ethyl ester then creatine monohydrate.

If you wish to experiment with different forms and guess as to their efficacy, that is certainly reasonable!
Italianangel

  • Total Posts : 2844
  • Reward points : 10
  • Joined: 8/4/2005
  • Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: What is the best creatine - Monday, September 18, 2006 4:30 PM ( #7 )
Meats have creatine.......man has been eating meats forever, well not all of us but anyway.....this must mean the body knows what to do with it........for centuries now.
I would opt for creatine supplementation over meat anyday, meats are just too poisoned and messed with by man, even the fish I eat I wonder about, nevermind the ethical issues.
Linda
gunshowkeough

  • Total Posts : 125
  • Reward points : 10
  • Joined: 6/29/2006
  • Location: Mass
  • Status: offline
RE: What is the best creatine - Monday, September 18, 2006 8:44 PM ( #8 )

ORIGINAL: Italianangel

Meats have creatine.......man has been eating meats forever, well not all of us but anyway.....this must mean the body knows what to do with it........for centuries now.
I would opt for creatine supplementation over meat anyday, meats are just too poisoned and messed with by man, even the fish I eat I wonder about, nevermind the ethical issues.
Linda

 
 
Meats have maybe about 1-2 grams of creatine per pound at the most. This is quite small for what the supplementation recomendations are. Just because the human race has been eating meats doesnt mean that the body has evolved to fully utilize creatine.
 
For instance take corn. The human race has been eating for years but we have not evolved digestive enzymes to break down the glycogen in corn.
 
Eating meat would not be a good example of trying to obtain creatine because of the insignificant amount in meat.
 
I don't know that meat is poisoned by man because there would be alot of people getting sick. To my knowledge, there are not a significant amount of preservatives in it.
I eat anywhere from a half pound to a pound of 93% lean beef and it is paramount to my diet while on a strength mass gaining phase.
body weight: 250
Bench: 365
Squat: 555 w/ briefs and knee wraps
Deadlift:585

- tps strongman   


danmirage

  • Total Posts : 6290
  • Reward points : 10
  • Joined: 11/20/2005
  • Status: offline
RE: What is the best creatine - Monday, September 18, 2006 9:39 PM ( #9 )
For my information I rely on research, texts, published articles by accepted experts, peer reviewed articles, lectures and discussions with and by experts in the field of Sports and related research...such as Wayne Wescott and William Kraemer.

Creatine is synthesized (meaning assembled from parts) from the amino acids glycine, arginine and methionine in the kidneys, liver and pancreas.  Free Creatine circulates in blood and in muscle tissue, where it can be converted to Phospho-Creatine with the transfer of a phosphate group or contribute a phosphate group to make ATP
ADP + PCr + H+ <---> ATP + Cr .

The body appears to have a target level for circulating Creatine, and ingestion or supplementation reduces synthesis by the body.  There also appears to be a balance between intracellular Creatine (about 60%) and Creatine circulating in blood (about 40%.)    Within a few days of supplementation, intracellular Cr levels reach a new equilibrium level. A much smaller fraction of this additional Creatine appears to be stored in the high-energy phosphocreatine form.

The supplemental Creatine is not synthesized in the kidneys, liver and pancreas, it is supplied.

Then, to maintain homeostasis, some Creatine is eliminated through the kidneys...in a volume equivalent to 1-3g/day in non supplementation or roughly equal to the amount supplemented...as creatine or creatinine.

Because Creatine is eliminated through the Kidney it has been believed there may be some risk to the kidney from supplementation, however to my knowledge there has not been any research which actually showed people with normal kidney function having any indicators of adverse kidney function.  Naturally higher intake of Creatine increases kidney involvement.

Studies like, "Long-term Creatine supplementation does not significantly affect clinical markers of health in athletes." Mol Cell Biochem. 2003 Feb;244(1-2):95-104.  Have found no clinical markers for long term (21-month) use in athletes.  According to Dr. Kreider and coworkers, when compared to the group of football players who did not take Creatine, the football players who took Creatine actually had fewer episodes of cramping, dehydration, muscle tightness, muscle pulls and strains, non-contact joint injuries, contact injuries, illness, number of missed practices due to injury, players lost for the season, and total injuries or missed practices.

Creatine occurs naturally in fish and meat, and is found in skeletal muscle, heart, brain, retina, testes and the uterus....etc.

When you take it away, function declines, when you return it to the diet, function returns. 
 

Just because the human race has been eating meats doesnt mean that the body has evolved to fully utilize creatine.

But it has. 
 

I don't know that meat is poisoned by man because there would be alot of people getting sick.

Which there are.  The incidence of toxicity related illness has risen so sharply, the drug industry is struggling to make as much money off of it as they can while keeping any mention of the cause out of the mainstream press.  It is not working, almost every Health show in every news format has done a special on pesticied and chemical residues building up in soils and foods, which are then stored in the fat of animals and the people who eat them.
 

To my knowledge, there are not a significant amount of preservatives in it.

It was a field of study for many years...I do interventions to help people recover from this stuff when the toxic load finally starts to impact them.  I hate to have to be the one tell you...but the meats are colored, sprayed, irradiated, and other things they are not required to tell the consumer.
 
Use of antioxidants, phyto-nutrients, fiber from vegetables etc...can help the body deal with this stuff!
 

I eat anywhere from a half pound to a pound of 93% lean beef and it is paramount to my diet while on a strength mass gaining phase.

Yup...good thing we get more veggies, MVs, antioxidants, lots of recovery nutrition, fiber, etc!
Italianangel

  • Total Posts : 2844
  • Reward points : 10
  • Joined: 8/4/2005
  • Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: What is the best creatine - Monday, September 18, 2006 9:42 PM ( #10 )

ORIGINAL: gunshowkeough
I don't know that meat is poisoned by man because there would be alot of people getting sick. To my knowledge, there are not a significant amount of preservatives in it.
I eat anywhere from a half pound to a pound of 93% lean beef and it is paramount to my diet while on a strength mass gaining phase.

mad cow, bird flu, parasitic fish, bovine disease.......

Marc David

  • Total Posts : 6743
  • Reward points : 10
  • Joined: 4/6/2003
  • Location: Bay Area -CA
  • Status: offline
RE: What is the best creatine - Monday, September 18, 2006 10:06 PM ( #11 )
There's quite an extensive post on CEE
Marc C. David - NGA CPT
Author of NoBull Bodybuilding
www.nobullbodybuilding.com
danmirage

  • Total Posts : 6290
  • Reward points : 10
  • Joined: 11/20/2005
  • Status: offline
RE: What is the best creatine - Monday, September 18, 2006 10:22 PM ( #12 )
Thanks Marc...I could not find that!

Jump to:

Current active users
There are 0 members and 1 guests.
Icon Legend and Permission
  • 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
  • Read Message
  • Post New Thread
  • Reply to message
  • Post New Poll
  • Submit Vote
  • Post reward post
  • Delete my own posts
  • Delete my own threads
  • Rate post

DiscussBodybuilding.com is supported by:
Supplements101.com | NoBullBodybuilding.com | JustAskMarc.com
© 2003-2009 DiscussBodybuilding.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
© 2000-2009 ASPPlayground.NET Forum Version 3.4
DiscussBodybuilding.com