[hardheart]

Originally Posted by Sledge Hammer

is that your way of syaing you were wrong? or am i still too "fucking retarded" to understand what you are saying?

It is bad enough that you resort to name calling during an argument. But when i provide the research that you say doesn't exist, why not just man-up and admit you were wrong? instead, you say i bolded the wrong part? give me a break.

If they didn't measure creatinine levels the study is 100% bogus.

Unfortunately, it appears to me I walked in to a loaded argument, good for you on your troll job. I took the bait.

So to summarize what I'm saying:

1. You provided what appears to be solid research showing directly that creatine does not need to be cycled
2. Congratulations on winning an argument on the internet
3. I have not been able to verify whether the criteria (54 blood, 17 urine iirc, too lazy to look) used in the study was bunk or good
4. I have not been able to verify if this study has been peer reveiwed and/or the results duplicated (this meaning the study is scientifically relevant) (I know there a tonne of research on creatine, but this seems like a very specific study)
5. I believe research at UT to be good, solid and sound
6. This study just happened to pop-up at a time when supplements were getting a lot of bad publicity (football and baseball players collapsing and dieing in the middle of practice, right around the time the FDA told companies they had XYZ time to prove that ephedra was safe or it would be banned, seems like this could have been proactive)
7. 51% is statistically significant in my mind, I dunno what the fuck they mean by a 51% variance not being statistically significant (I'm actually going to write the author about that)

There's just something about putting a lot more of a product in to my body than I would naturally consume in my diet, that screams at me to lay off for a week or 2 here and there to give my body a chance to fully flush out any possible negative byproducts and to allow my body to regain normal functionality.

I sincerely apologize for the name calling. It was uncalled for and unacceptable. Sorry.

[hitmanrva1]

Originally Posted by hardheart

If they didn't measure creatinine levels the study is 100% bogus.

Unfortunately, it appears to me I walked in to a loaded argument, good for you on your troll job. I took the bait.

So to summarize what I'm saying:

1. You provided what appears to be solid research showing directly that creatine does not need to be cycled
2. Congratulations on winning an argument on the internet
3. I have not been able to verify whether the criteria (54 blood, 17 urine iirc, too lazy to look) used in the study was bunk or good
4. I have not been able to verify if this study has been peer reveiwed and/or the results duplicated (this meaning the study is scientifically relevant) (I know there a tonne of research on creatine, but this seems like a very specific study)
5. I believe research at UT to be good, solid and sound
6. This study just happened to pop-up at a time when supplements were getting a lot of bad publicity (football and baseball players collapsing and dieing in the middle of practice, right around the time the FDA told companies they had XYZ time to prove that ephedra was safe or it would be banned, seems like this could have been proactive)
7. 51% is statistically significant in my mind, I dunno what the fuck they mean by a 51% variance not being statistically significant (I'm actually going to write the author about that)

There's just something about putting a lot more of a product in to my body than I would naturally consume in my diet, that screams at me to lay off for a week or 2 here and there to give my body a chance to fully flush out any possible negative byproducts and to allow my body to regain normal functionality.

I sincerely apologize for the name calling. It was uncalled for and unacceptable. Sorry.

you took defeat like a man....

[hitmanrva1]

Originally Posted by MikeMartial

Nice work Sledge. Another moron owned by science.

And yes, like Sonny stated, I've been taking creatine monohydrate for well over 4+ years now everyday; 5 grams on non-training days, 10 grams on training days. Prior to that, I cycled on and off since about 1991 or so.

I've never had an issue with creatine other than when I used to load 20 grams a day---then I noticed rapid weight gain and the increased need for hydration, much more so than at a steady 5 grams a day.

just wondering how many physicals have you taken and what have they shown regarding ur kidneys and liver.....and also what is your bodyfat?

[MikeMartial]

Originally Posted by hitmanrva1

just wondering how many physicals have you taken and what have they shown regarding ur kidneys and liver.....and also what is your bodyfat?

Every year since I started daily dosing. And only because I'm over 30 . Bodyfat stays around sub-10%, give or take a few %, since I'm testing via calipers myself.

Our fire department is starting annual physicals, and the first baseline test is quite extensive, so I'll have even more numbers to go on in the near future. I don't have any expectations that they'll be out of the norm range, anyways.