[TheGame46]

Creatine

Creatine is probably one of the simplest supplements when it comes to how it works I the body. Your body has one major source of energy, ATP (adenosine triphosphate). This molecule is basically and nucleic acid with 3 phosphate molecules attached to it. The third phosphate makes this molecule have a lot of potential energy in the form of donating one of its phosphates to another molecule. It is these donated phosphates that allow your muscles to work as well any every other process in your body that requires energy. Creatine in the body can be bound to phosphate to form creatine phosphate. Your body naturally stores creatine phosphate so when the ATP uses up one of its phosphates and becomes ATP it can take it from the creatine phosphate and become ATP again. This allows for a quicker replenishment of energy for you to use. Supplementing creatine can gradually increase you natural levels of creatine phosphate.

This means you can work out harder and longer. Increased creatine in the cell also causes the cell to take on more water than normal. This increases weight and size as well. Some theories suggest that the increased water could be anabolic in itself independent of creatine’s biological activity.

So why is there so many different creatines??
It used to be that creatine monohydrate was the best form. Then some companies came out with liquid creatine which was soon discovered to be complete junk because creatine is not very stable in liquid solutions. Then cell-tech was released which is essentially creatine monohydrate with a ton of sugar (dextrose). This caused an insulin spike that would increase the creatine taken up into the muscle as well as sugar and everything else.
Now there are methods out their to increase the creatine uptake without adding 80grams of carbs.

Much like I described in the BCAA thread, the creatine molecule is modified. Creatine ethyl ester can cross the cell membrane against the concentration gradient. This means that the cell does not limit this creatine uptake like it does creatine monohydrate which it essentially regulates just by concentration of salts and water inside vs. outside of cell.
So these modified versions of creatine basically beat mother natures natural regulation of creatine levels allowing for levels above the physiological norm.

Other form of creatine include Kry-Alkylin and Magnesium Creatine Chelate.
These two forms are just creatine monohydrate.

Kry-Alkylin is creatine monohydrate but is made in a basic environment to limit conversion of creatine to its biproduct creatinine. Creatinine in high levels is hard on the kidneys. Your body naturally releases creatinine from its own creatine. I think that the claims these people make on how much conversion there is probably a little over exagerated. But this is probably the most health concious form of creatine, but it is no more effective than plain creatine monohydrate.

The Magnesium creatine chelate is designed to be more stable in the stomache so that it can be uptaken into the blood stream and then maybe taken up into the muscles. This again is no more effective that creatine monohydrate accept you get about a 8% increase in creatine effect with the same dosage. Other forms of Magnesium added to creatine other than chelated to the creatine mlecule actually decrease the effect.

Creatine monohydrate has approximately a 10% absorbtion rate. creatine ehtyl ester has creatin absorption levels in the 90% range.
So if you are gonna buy a creatine product the CEE is far the most effective.

By TheGame46
Flawless Training

Effervescent creatine is a waste!!! don't buy those products

[Madmick]

Originally Posted by TheGame46

Creatine monohydrate has approximately a 10% absorbtion rate. creatine ehtyl ester has creatin absorption levels in the 90% range.
So if you are gonna buy a creatine product the CEE is far the most effective.

I don't know where you got those numbers, butt they're wrong, and look suspiciously regurgitated from a CEE slinger. The constant citation of creatinine conversion is primarily a bogus marketing tactic since neither monohydrates, esters, or malates are stable in acidic environments (i.e. your stomach).

Furthermore, the absorption rate really isn't much of an issue since you can just take more to maximize cell saturation.

Go for Creapure (the pinnacle of CM). It's packaged by several companies, most notably Optimum Nutrition and Biotest.

As for CEE, it's not so black and white who has the best version. Thermolife was one of the first companies to bring it on the market and publish lab results for their product, and to have those publishings verified by third party labs. Kabuki also told me MRI has an excellent reputation here. You can also spring for Bulk. They've got a solid rep with everyone except some douchebags on BB.com who seem to spend ridiculously stupid amounts of time arguing manufacturing without any physical evidence.

Monohydrate is still tried and true. The salt bonds in ethyl esters and malates may increase uptake, but when you can safely bomb your cells with the cheap shit, it's really quite pointless to argue this.

[TheGame46]

If your are gonna go creapure I like Prolab for one. You can't just take more Monohydrate to increase cell saturation b/c of the way the cell moderates creatine levels, you need a non polar chain to get in through against the concentration gradient controled by the cell. You can take all the monohydrate you want and you cells wont take up anymore, your just killin your kidneys.

[Art Vandelay]

The Game46, what is your opinion of the following:

"There are three senarios for CEE

1) CEE is a true covalently bonded ester and is absorbed into blood and
tissues as the intact molecule. This is the picture that the
manufacturers would have us believe and is the basis for why they claim
CEE is superior to creatine monohydrate. However, inside cells CEE
will be unreactive with creatine kinase and may be a potential
competitive or non-competitive inhibitor to the enzyme. This would
make it toxic to brain, heart, testes, muscle and all other CK
containing tissues. People by now should be dying, but clearly are not
and this means 2) and 3) are the more likely. Nonethess, CEE should be
treated as a potentially toxic phrarmaceutical and in the US should be
treated as a drug, which requires multi species studies
to estimate LD50's and potential sites of tissue damage etc. However, recently I have
been told that CEE did get new dietary ingredient status (scary).

2) CEE is hydrolysed to creatine on absorption from the gut. In this
case CEE offers no advantage over creatine monohydrate which has a
bioavilability of 100%. Indeed if hydrolysis of CEE is less than 100%
then it will be inferior to the monohydate. But in the case of
hydrolysis there are no circumstances in which it could be better than
the monohydrate in increasing tissue creatine levels. Obviously CEE
manufacturers would prefer 1) except that they then shoot themselves in
the foot over the issue of potential toxicity.

3) CEE is not a true covalently bonded ester. The whole of this is a scam
with the compound ionising in solution to free creatine, as does the
monohydrate and all salts of creatine. In this case CEE would again
represent no advantage over creatine monohydrate, except to the seller
who can double the price.

The failure of the US sports nutrition community (industry and the
universities) to call for closer examination of CEE seriously questions its
credibility in the eyes of many scientist in this country and the world. A simple water
solvation test would answer 3), i.e. whether or not it was a covalent
or ionisable derivative of creatine. The work time would be about one
hour. Investigation of whether CEE is a competitive or non-competitive
inhibitor of creatine kinase would take 2-3 hours. If either of these
occured then clearly CEE must be investigated in at least two species
to investigate lethality and potential organ damage. If on the other
hand CEE is ionisable then I see no reason why a bioavailability study
should not be undertaken comparing this, on a molar/molar basis, with
creatine monohydrate. My guess is that plasma AUC would be identical.
Again a very simple study.

None of this is rocket science but could spare a few lives, if the
manufacturers claims on the absorption of CEE are to believed.

OH! and one more thought: Another aspect to consider is how CEE would overcome a huge concentration gradient from circulation to muscle if it does not use the creatine transporter and uses simple diffusion as they promote."

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do...geNo=0#1173684

[MikeMartial]

Originally Posted by Madmick

Go for Creapure (the pinnacle of CM). It's packaged by several companies, most notably Optimum Nutrition and Biotest.

Monohydrate is still tried and true. The salt bonds in ethyl esters and malates may increase uptake, but when you can safely bomb your cells with the cheap shit, it's really quite pointless to argue this.

x2. I've been using the Creapure by ON for a while now, best monohydrate out there. No point really in spending twice as much for the same result---creatine saturation.

[TheGame46]

Ok a lot to answer here I'l ltry and cover it all.
First off CEE into the muscle favors the concentration where as cr. monohydrate does not.
Here is the structure of CEE http://www.fitnesspont.hu/mass-shop/..._33_CEE_01.jpg
Showing it is covalently bonded.

"However, inside cells CEE
will be unreactive with creatine kinase and may be a potential
competitive or non-competitive inhibitor to the enzyme. This would
make it toxic to brain, heart, testes, muscle and all other CK
containing tissues."

This is speculation b/c if the actually looked at the active site of CK they would see the ester would not effect binding, You can look at this studie for proof/images
The Role of the Lysyl Residue at the Active Site of Creatine Kinase
NUCLEAR OVERHAUSER EFFECT STUDIES
Thomas L. James 1 and Mildred Cohn 1

CEE has tremendous user feedback from everywhere I have looked. There are a few articles with some of the stuff posted above but it is all speculation based on irrelevant research IMO. esters themselves are not toxic and CEE has not been shown to be either and liek I said it has no effect on CK to esterfy the Creatine.

I see you got this from TN. You must be weary b/x that is wear anthony roberts aka hooker post his information. It is very bad science. And you will find that clear on any baord he is not mixed with financially. He makes artilces using complex language to sound smart that is financially motivated and scientifically in correct but b/c of the large following he has on several boards, it is taken as fact. Its a crime if u ask me

[Madmick]

Originally Posted by TheGame46

If your are gonna go creapure I like Prolab for one. You can't just take more Monohydrate to increase cell saturation b/c of the way the cell moderates creatine levels, you need a non polar chain to get in through against the concentration gradient controled by the cell. You can take all the monohydrate you want and you cells wont take up anymore, your just killin your kidneys.

That's not true. Creatine loading isn't necessary to achieve cell saturation, but as Terumo pointed out not long ago in here, loading will expedite this process; measurements of urinary excretion reveal that uptake is indeed increased.

Also, Anthony Roberts isn't the only guy who posts at T-Nation, and he isn't the author of that article. Attempting to discredit the article this way is at best itself grossly unscientific and at worst worthy of suspicion.

[TheGame46]

Originally Posted by Madmick

That's not true. Creatine loading isn't necessary to achieve cell saturation, but as Terumo pointed out not long ago in here, loading will expedite this process; measurements of urinary excretion reveal that uptake is indeed increased.

Also, Anthony Roberts isn't the only guy who posts at T-Nation, and he isn't the author of that article. Attempting to discredit the article this way is at best itself grossly unscientific and at worst worthy of suspicion.

The anthony roberts was a just in case statement. Good information either way.
I never said anythnig about loading. The point is that with monohydrate you can only acheive a gradient dependent saturation level. CEE can pass though even against the gradient because of the ethyl ester. You can add all the creatine monohydrate you want and never acheive the same cellular levels of creatine you could with CEE. that was the point being made.

[Madmick]

Originally Posted by TheGame46

You can add all the creatine monohydrate you want and never acheive the same cellular levels of creatine you could with CEE. that was the point being made.

Now you are the one doing the speculating.

[TheGame46]

Originally Posted by Madmick

Now you are the one doing the speculating.

How is that speculating? Its simple biochemistry when you look at the physiological properties of the cell and the two types of creatine.