You are here: Home → Forum → General Bullshit → creatine formulations

creatine formulations

jimblanchflower		creatine formulations	20-02-2008 @ 12:12
Teabagger for hire Member 54, 237 posts	A while back, on the creatine post someone posted some information on relative effectivenes of different formulations of creatine. Do any of you have any references for this?

IainKendrick		...	20-02-2008 @ 12:16
some nice relaxing jazz. Member 77, 12599 posts SQ 265, BP 165, DL 280 710.0 kgs @ 93kgs UnEq	I carn't think of any research, using muscle bisposys, done on different formula's beyond Greenhaffs (1998?) creatine + carb study. This showed an increased uptake, after a loading phase, of creatine when taken with a near unpalatable dose of sugar.

Icepick		...	20-02-2008 @ 12:23
still a cock Member 55, 1213 posts SQ 50, BP 25, DL 55 130.0 kgs @ 0.1kgs UnEq	I think Jim might have been refering to my comment on how CEE is absorbed better in the body than mono, if so, I don't have any studies to back that up, except the words from the streets

IainKendrick		...	20-02-2008 @ 13:00
some nice relaxing jazz. Member 77, 12599 posts SQ 265, BP 165, DL 280 710.0 kgs @ 93kgs UnEq	I think Jim might have been refering to my comment on how CEE is absorbed better in the body than mono, if so, I don't have any studies to back that up, except the words from the streets There is no research, that I have seen, comparing muscle uptake of creatine from CEE and mono ingestion, or even any using CEE.

Alex		...	20-02-2008 @ 21:16
Picca Boo Member 16, 1204 posts SQ 140, BP 130, DL 200 470.0 kgs @ 77kgs UnEq	James from muscletalk wrote an article on creatine not long ago. http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/article-creatine-ethyl-ester.aspx

paul_richards		...	20-02-2008 @ 22:54
I personally prefer the stiffest possible. Member 158, 3110 posts SQ 170, BP 107.5, DL 222.5 500.0 kgs @ 67.4kgs UnEq	I read a study (can't put my finger on it) that suggested CEE got broken down in the stomach and very little ever reached the blood.

paul_richards		...	20-02-2008 @ 22:57
I personally prefer the stiffest possible. Member 158, 3110 posts SQ 170, BP 107.5, DL 222.5 500.0 kgs @ 67.4kgs UnEq	New research shows that creatine ethyl-ester - a new but unproven version of the popular sports supplement creatine – does not work as well as regular creatine. One of the most effective supplements for anyone who wants to boost their gym performance, creatine monohydrate is used regularly by athletes, bodybuilders and regular gym-goers. But while many companies have released different versions of creatine, which are supposed to work better than the standard product, very few of these new supplements have been studied in properly controlled clinical trials. This latest research, conducted by a team of British scientists and presented at the 4th International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) annual meeting in Las Vegas, is one of the first studies to put creatine ethyl-ester to the test. Researchers Dr. Robert Child and Dr. Mark J Tallon compared two products containing creatine ethyl-ester with creatine monohydrate. Despite advertising claims to the contrary, Child and Tallon found that creatine ethyl-ester was actually less stable than regular creatine. "We found that the addition of the ethyl group to creatine actually reduces acid stability and accelerates its breakdown to creatinine," says Tallon. "This substantially reduces creatine availability in its esterified form, which makes creatine ethyl-ester inferior to creatine monohydrate as a source of creatine." "To date, no published study has shown that creatine ethyl-ester works any better than regular creatine," adds study co-author Dr. Robert Child. "In fact, our work shows that it’s less stable. Anyone should think twice about spending their money on this type of product." Source Child, R. & Tallon, M.J. (2007). Creatine ethyl ester rapidly degrades to creatinine in stomach acid. International Society of Sports Nutrition 4th Annual Meeting

You are here: Home → Forum → General Bullshit → creatine formulations

RETURN TO TOP