RE: New info on Creatine - when
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
Login  | |
|
RE: New info on Creatine - when - 8/11/2006 2:49:27 PM
|
|
|
gunshowkeough
Posts: 128
Joined: 6/29/2006
From: Mass
Status: offline
|
Ethyl ester is not a poison. Esters are found on fat tissue of animals. In theory, the ethyl ester would be able to penetrate the muscle cell more efficiently then creatine monohydrate.
Creatine monohydrate is a hydrophilic molecule which means it retains water. This causes the famous creatine bloating.
Creatine monohydrate is a semilipopholic. this means that it does completely penetrate the lipid layers of muscle cells. The esterfication of creatine monohyrdate increases the lipophilic ability of the molecule. Esters are able to transport through lipid layers more efficiently.
This information is can be found on http://www.bodyandfitness.com/Information/Fitness/Research/creatine-e.htm
_____________________________
body weight: 207
Bench: 355
Squat: 375
Deadlift:475
power clean:225
push press:255
snatch: 160
squat clean and jerk: 215
pull ups: 16
dips:26
handstand push ups:11
overhead squat: 135 8 rep max
sumo dl high pulls: 205
(in reply to danmirage)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: New info on Creatine - when - 8/11/2006 2:55:31 PM
|
|
|
No Quarter
Posts: 1854
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
Gunshow, the article you posted says it has scientific studies to back up CEE but it doesn't show any, all it does is talk about what they think it does. In fact the only studies mentioned there are 8 in support of creatine mono. On top of that they're selling Cellmass on the article.
(in reply to gunshowkeough)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: New info on Creatine - when - 8/11/2006 3:08:15 PM
|
|
|
danmirage
Posts: 6020
Joined: 11/20/2005
Status: offline
|
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
Pure Creatine Monohydrate would be preferable to these other forms as it is effective and known to be safe.
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 300 clinical trials) it will not cause undesirable side effects.
Recent research compared the CEE to monohydrate. The CEE simply delivers the creatine in a different form, that is then separated to liberate the Creatine. CEE takes some time to split and does involve the liver (due to the released 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 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 vs the effectiveness and safety.
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 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
_____________________________
My journal:
http://www.discussbodybuilding.com/m_158705/mpage_2/tm.htm
Primers:
Gaining Mass
http://www.discussbodybuilding.com/m_111173/mpage_1/tm.htm
Losing Fat
http://www.discussbodybuilding.com/m_111175/mpage_1/tm.htm
(in reply to No Quarter)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: New info on Creatine - when - 8/11/2006 6:17:41 PM
|
|
|
Deserusan
Posts: 1
Joined: 8/11/2006
Status: offline
|
Over the past few years I have payed a lot of attention to supplement trends as my level of interest in competitave natural bodybuilding has grown. Competing naturally requires a lot of research into what supplements are legal and what is not by whatever federation you choose to compete in. One of the best supplements out there is creatine monohydrate and their are numerous studies supporting it's efficacy. However, one recent trend I have witnessed is companies and young aspiring bodybuilders touting the superiority of creatine ethyl ester over creatine monohydrate.
Creatine ethyl ester is merely creatine monohydrate with an added ester attached to make the creatine molecule more lipopholic. In theory, this would make the absorption more efficient and possibly would require less CEE to serve as an ergogenic aid.
Personally, I have used both CEE and monohydrate with great success. However, the recomended doses of CEE (2.5 grams) never seemed to have the same effect as the recommended dose of monohydrate (5.0 grams). To me this seemed a little odd considering the claims of most CEE products. When I started to experiment with higher doses of CEE (5 grams) I noticed similiar effects to that of monohydrate at the equivalent dose. Something wasn't adding up here.
Upon further reading on monohydrate, because no ethyl ester studies exist, I came across one that studied the physiological differences between monohydrate responders and non responders. This intrigued me because it actually shows that monohydrate isn't inefficient given a certain set of physiological values with regards to pre-existing creatine and phosphocreatine levels in muscles, muscle fiber cross-sectional areas (CSA), the prevalanace of type II muscle fibers, and the amount of fat free mass.
Type II muscle fibers are also called fast twitch muscle fibers. Olympic sprinters may have up to 80% fast twitch fibers while a marathon runner may have up to 80% type I fibers (slow twitch). Both fiber types produce the same force but type II can fire more rapidly, hence the name fast twitch. Based on the the study I was referring to it appears those with a high type II fiber % respond well to creatine monohyrate and much more efficiently to those with a type I fiber %.
Also, it appears that those with larger muscle fiber (CSA) and fat free mass percentages are also better monohydrate responders. This means that if you have a high bodyfat percentage you might not respond well to monohydrate or if you have low muscle mass. Also, if you have smaller muscles in general you might not respond well.
For someone like myself, I do have a high percentage of fat free mass and therefore I respond well to creatine monohydrate. Also, I require the same amount of CEE to have the same ergogenic effects as monohydrate. I feel some companies have been pushing CEE a little too hard and have been addressing some of it's shortfalls for those who might not respond well, like me, by telling the consumer to take another dose.
It is my recommendation that any consumer out there interested in creatine supplementation try using the more basic form of creatine first, which is monohydrate. It is the only form of creatine that has been studied extensively and proven. CEE is a good choice for those who don't fit the physiological criteria stated above, however for general purposes, it is not "better" than monohydrate as many companies would lead you to believe.
Syrotuik DG, Bell GJ. Acute creatine monohydrate supplementation: a descriptive physiological profile of responders vs. nonresponders. Journal of Strength Conditioning Research. 2004 Aug;18(3):610-7.
Bizzarini E, De Angelis L. Is the use of oral creatine supplementation safe? J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2004 Dec;44(4):411-6.
Silber ML. Scientific facts behind creatine monohydrate as sport nutrition supplement. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1999 Sep;39(3):179-88.
(in reply to danmirage)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: New info on Creatine - when - 8/11/2006 9:24:04 PM
|
|
|
danmirage
Posts: 6020
Joined: 11/20/2005
Status: offline
|
Very well discussed.
quote:
Personally, I have used both CEE and monohydrate with great success. However, the recomended doses of CEE (2.5 grams) never seemed to have the same effect as the recommended dose of monohydrate (5.0 grams). To me this seemed a little odd considering the claims of most CEE products. When I started to experiment with higher doses of CEE (5 grams) I noticed similiar effects to that of monohydrate at the equivalent dose. Something wasn't adding up here.
One reason for the low does is the unsubstantiated claim that the form is more efficient. I have heard a few researchers use the word absurd when referring to this calim. For good reason. Understanding the mechanism of CEE or CM going from one form to another and finally to Creatine phosphate makes it seem silly.
Please keep in mind that that study was a 5-day study...
Long-term creatine use..along with consistent creatine use gives results beyond sports performance enhancement...
The phosphate (creatine) energy system comes into play in short duration high intensity activity. Based upon the type of activity we engage in, the body acclimates by optimaizing the appropriate energy system.
Now, there are multiple fiber types: I IIa IIb. These are Type I Oxidative, Type IIa Oxidative/Glycolytic and Type IIb Glycolytic
Oxidative energy uses fats for energy (not creatine)!
Type IIa and Type IIb use glycogen and also Creatine! Type IIa can go both ways basically.
There are implication sfor training based upon our goals to gain speed or strenth or size...however..if we have a large # of Type I...like most beginning lifters..the creatine does not seem to do as much as when we are 3 months in and have shifted the dominant fiber types.
quote:
if you have a high bodyfat percentage you might not respond well to monohydrate or if you have low muscle mass. Also, if you have smaller muscles in general you might not respond well.
You respond equal to the aount of need and use...just as someone with less muscle needs less calories /protein /cabs /fat...
Remember we are in control of the ways our Physiologic profile and biological profile express themselves. This is called phenoplasticity....our ability to manipulate the way our genotype is expressed.
quote:
CEE is a good choice for those who don't fit the physiological criteria stated above, however for general purposes, it is not "better" than monohydrate as many companies would lead you to believe.
I would not go so far as to say "good" choice...a good choice is the one supported by data. Just use less creatine until your muscle mass increases!
_____________________________
My journal:
http://www.discussbodybuilding.com/m_158705/mpage_2/tm.htm
Primers:
Gaining Mass
http://www.discussbodybuilding.com/m_111173/mpage_1/tm.htm
Losing Fat
http://www.discussbodybuilding.com/m_111175/mpage_1/tm.htm
(in reply to Deserusan)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: New info on Creatine - when - 8/12/2006 10:55:10 AM
|
|
|
Twin Peak
Posts: 1489
Joined: 5/9/2003
Status: offline
|
Whoops, just saw this interesting thread. Frankly, the title threw me off, and I assumed this was a boring thread on *when* to take creatine, a timing thing. But alas, I open it up, and it is quite the interesting read, with lots of opinions from people I both like and respect.
Anyway, I thought I would share some of my own *opinions* as well as state the company *opinion* on why CEE is included in XCEED.
Firstly, let me make it clear by saying that we know of no mysteries studies and have never claimed to rely on any.
Secondly, we do not claim that CEE is a magic creatine. None of our marketing suggests this.
Thirdly, it would have been just as easy for us to put mono into XCEED, if that is what we wanted. And it would have cost us less, given us a greater profit, and it would have been MUCH easier to flavor (50% of our cost on XCEED is the flavoring and sweetening.)
So, why did we put it in XCEED. A few reasons, but the largest over-riding one is that we as a company have found CEE to be superior then mono. We derived at this conclusion after significant debate and deliberation, based on anecdotal feedback of others, as well as SIGNIFICANT in house testing and anecdotal reports. If you read our write-ups, you will know exactly what I am talking about. We don't over-claim, and we don't overhype -- we just believe that it is superior.
Is this opinion? Yes.
You know what, everything else I have read in this thread about CEE is also OPINION. Since the main objective of DS is to put out safe and effective products, we formulates XCEED using what we believe to be the most advanced form of creatine. End of story.
*******************************
Now, a few personal opinions:
* I have never noticed any results from mono. Ever. And I have tried plain mono, and almost every version made by every company.
* CEE does produce noticable (albeit mild for me) results in terms of strength, endurance, and repair.
* Relying on "data" is great. That is what scientists do, and we very much believe in that. However, to be a leader in this industry, you have to be open to new ideas, and advancements. Science, in terms of hard data, is always behind. Always.
Carry on.
_____________________________
http://www.designersupps.com
Email: steve @ designersupps.com
Peak Physiques™
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS COMING, register now at
http://www.intelligentdesignmag.com
(in reply to gunshowkeough)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: New info on Creatine - when - 8/12/2006 11:11:12 AM
|
|
|
danmirage
Posts: 6020
Joined: 11/20/2005
Status: offline
|
The research study I got a peek at comparing CEE to Monohydrate determined they were equal..as they both supply Creatine Monohydrate...however in Xceed you get more than just Creatine..so I would expect even more benefit when compared to straight creatine.
quote:
Relying on "data" is great. That is what scientists do, and we very much believe in that. However, to be a leader in this industry, you have to be open to new ideas, and advancements. Science, in terms of hard data, is always behind. Always.
Thats the truth there - science is almost always researching the trends...to either validate or sometimes disprove.
CEE works when taken at sufficient levels, that much is certain. That level will vary as noted by Deserusan.
_____________________________
My journal:
http://www.discussbodybuilding.com/m_158705/mpage_2/tm.htm
Primers:
Gaining Mass
http://www.discussbodybuilding.com/m_111173/mpage_1/tm.htm
Losing Fat
http://www.discussbodybuilding.com/m_111175/mpage_1/tm.htm
(in reply to Twin Peak)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: New info on Creatine - when - 8/12/2006 11:23:11 AM
|
|
|
Carrhart
Posts: 802
Joined: 3/28/2006
Status: offline
|
Are you telling me Xceed is a posion and I should not be taking it? So does that mean NO Xplode is the same? Wow, if this is true, what other supps do you recommend that isnt going to posion your body and kill you in the long run?
(in reply to danmirage)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: New info on Creatine - when - 8/12/2006 11:30:31 AM
|
|
|
Carrhart
Posts: 802
Joined: 3/28/2006
Status: offline
|
oh, i thought someone said something about it was a posion, my bad. Would you still not recommend it?
(in reply to danmirage)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: New info on Creatine - when - 8/12/2006 11:34:46 AM
|
|
|
Carrhart
Posts: 802
Joined: 3/28/2006
Status: offline
|
OH ok thanks that makes me a lot happier, i like the results xceed is giving me but i would hate it if it was a posion to my body. THanks Dan
(in reply to danmirage)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: New info on Creatine - when - 8/12/2006 1:03:25 PM
|
|
|
twistedlink
Posts: 3096
Joined: 5/31/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MuZI
quote:
ORIGINAL: Avaric3
theyll bring a biased opinion since the only creatine they sell is cee
There could be something we're missing.
DS knows their science.
As do i, esters aren't nice in the body, i spent many a boring hour in chemistry going over the chemical and physical properties of esters, and with an expected grade A from my teacher and a what i feel is going to be a grade A (can know for sure this 17th) in the subject i can tell you now esters can be nasty, pineapples ferment into an alchol through esterification.
Esterification also eliminates water to make hydroxyl groups between the two main carbon chains within a ester, so not only does it become alcoholic, it takes water away from your body too, and bodybuilders require a lot of water, this is probably why creatine also requires a lot of water, and because of its physical effect on cells too.
_____________________________
http://dbboutofbounds.proboards105.com/index.cgi
The hopefully only temporary OOB, dont worry i dont bite lol.
(in reply to MuZI)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: New info on Creatine - when - 8/12/2006 1:10:23 PM
|
|
|
twistedlink
Posts: 3096
Joined: 5/31/2005
Status: offline
|
BTW im not saying supplements containing esters are absolutely bad for you, all im saying is if you have too much it can cause negative effects.
Twinpeak, hard data is always behind yes, but it isnt a good idea to try out new stuff in terms of chemicals and then notice the good things so sell it without any research, it could have harmful long term effects you do not know of yet, and this doesnt go for just supplements-any drug in use, or to be in use soon, I agree to just experiment and go beyond hard data, but not to release it onto the public without any hard research-that is just asking for a court case.
_____________________________
http://dbboutofbounds.proboards105.com/index.cgi
The hopefully only temporary OOB, dont worry i dont bite lol.
(in reply to twistedlink)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: New info on Creatine - when - 8/12/2006 5:01:58 PM
|
|
|
Twin Peak
Posts: 1489
Joined: 5/9/2003
Status: offline
|
Many new drugs have tons of research and hard data, and are approved by FDA. And later are pulled for safety reasons.
_____________________________
http://www.designersupps.com
Email: steve @ designersupps.com
Peak Physiques™
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS COMING, register now at
http://www.intelligentdesignmag.com
(in reply to twistedlink)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: New info on Creatine - when - 8/13/2006 11:05:56 AM
|
|
|
joey0
Posts: 670
Joined: 7/8/2006
Status: offline
|
so if i understan correctly, taking a CEE supp for a long time has the potential to do damage, but if i bought 1 container of XCEED and didnt take any for a couple monthes after the container was empty then it wouldn't have the same potential, right?
_____________________________
17 yrs 5'7'' 186 lbs
Bench - 240x1
Deadlift - 335x1
Squat - 285x1 (estimate)
(in reply to Twin Peak)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: New info on Creatine - when - 8/13/2006 12:30:32 PM
|
|
|
toolman4052
Posts: 1875
Joined: 8/12/2006
From: Russellville AR
Status: offline
|
I just take flavored creatine monohydrate, so I have no input on this. In magazines, the makers of the supplements and bodybuilders themselves claim that CEE is more potent than monohydrate. That's all i know. But of course they're gonna claim that it's really effective with no side effects cuz the monetary issue.
(in reply to danmirage)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
