ORIGINAL: tatch
"fake" or natural i know processed creatine is not natural but how is it "fake". I was just saying it works and is backed by science make sure you read before you comment
Tatch, we've been nothing but polite. I did read the comment. It just brings up an issue of what the understanding of what "natural" is. But No Quarter brings up a point I hadn't considered.
Where is the line between natural and fake? What is natural? To me, natural is what is found in nature, unpurified and unprocessed. None or our supplements fall into that category.
So now, what is fake? A vitamin made in the lab? But it's not any different than a vitamin found in food--same ol' structure. Do we mean fake where we let our supplements co-opt/substitute our natural muscle building processes? Then hormones, pro-hormones, etc., would seem to fall into that category. So where does creatine fall, under that definition?
Is the part of definition of fake mean that when you withdraw the supplements, the advantages disappear? Again, exogenous hormones, prohormones apply, but what about creatine?
I'm not bashing creatine, I'm just trying to understand where "fake" and "natural" fall. It seems in my mind that the fake-natural dichotomy is not black-and-white, and is more of a spectrum. Where is the line drawn, and what are the criteria.
"If there's nothing else that's relevant, I'll be leaving now"
"Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground"