| Online Personal Training |
| "Get Fit With Phil" |
| "Get Fit With Phil" |
Custom Search
The Creatine Grave Yard
By Will Brink © 2009
Looks like another “high tech” form of creatine has got one foot planted firmly in the
creatine grave yard. What is the creatine graveyard? It’s where forms of creatine - other
then monohydrate - go when either science has shown them inferior to monohydrate, and
or it’s life cycle of hype has come to and end.
I refer specifically to creatine ethyl ester (CEE). As with the many “high tech” forms of
creatine before it, all manner of claims were/are made about how superior it is to creatine
monohydrate (CM). It always starts the same. First the company will invent a long list of
negatives about CM such as “poorly absorbed” or “causes bloat” or “is not stable” and
then goes onto claim their form of creatine has solved all those invented negatives. The
problem is, the data already shows CM does not suffer from virtually any of the negatives
they invent, nor do they show their form “cures” those negatives. Sellers of CCE for
example claimed CEE was better absorbed and utilized vs. CM, and that has been shown
to be nonsense. There have been several in vitro (test tube) studies pointing to the fact
CEE is inferior to CM, but a recent study done in humans puts a final nail in the coffin as
far as I am concerned. This study is titled “The effects of creatine ethyl ester
supplementation combined with heavy resistance training on body composition, muscle
performance, and serum and muscle creatine levels” The full study is public access and
can be read here:
CEE Study
Warning, the abstract is confusing and not well written. If you read the full paper, it’s
clearer. If you don’t have the time or interest to read it, the take home is: although all
subjects in this study (CEE vs. CM vs. Placebo) experienced approximately the same
effects; they all had improvements in bodycomp and got stronger. Why? Because they
used untrained subjects in the study. Thus, a drawback of this study was due to using
untrained people, they couldn’t differentiate between PL, CEE, and CM in terms of effects
on bodycomp and strength within that time period as newbies always make fast progress
in the beginning. No news there.
However, the study did achieve the essential point, which is it clearly showed the claims
of CEE false: CEE had much higher creatinine levels and lower muscle creatine levels
compared to CM in this study, thus, yet again, the claims by sellers of CEE that it’s
superior to CM and that CM is “poorly absorbed” or “causes bloat,” or my favorite “CM is
not stable,” etc are false. They also looked at changes in water compartments (CEE
actually had a trend toward greater extra cellular water then CM BTW, so there goes that
stupid “no bloat” claim for CEE…) and other issues claimed to make CEE superior, and it
failed.
CEE is less stable then CM, increases creatinine to a much greater extent then CM, and
is inferior for increasing muscle creatine levels to CM. This study is not perfect by any
means, but when combined with what else exists, and the counter studies sellers of CEE
offer (which is to say zero), well you don’t have to be a scientist to see the writing on the
wall there…
CEE will be added to the creatine graveyard with a ton of others all claiming to be
superior to CM which all started with big claims and now sit in the grave yard.
Two essential points about the grave yard before we get to that:
(1) Because they are in the grave yard does not mean they are worthless. Some forms,
such as magnesium creatine chelate for example looked promising, but a head to head
study with CM found it no better. Remember, another form does not have to show it’s the
equal of CM, it has to show it’s superior to CM per its claims. Forms such as creatine
pyruvate and many others on the list may be just as effective as CM, but not superior, so it
comes down to cost. Others on the list have in fact been proven inferior to CM in studies,
such as serum creatine, various liquid creatine versions, and now CEE. Serum creatine
was all the rage a few years ago, and studies found not only was it inferior to CM in every
respect, it contained virtually no creatine! Of course, there were still those on the various
forums using ‘bro logic’ with “bro, I don’t care what the studies say, it works like da bomb
for me!” posts, but I digress….Finally, other forms on the list simply lack any data at all to
compare to CM. The companies selling these forms will routinely make claims of
superiority with nadda for hard data to support them. Therefore, it’s impossible to really
separate fact from fiction (i.e., marketing hype) to recommend them.
Me, I will use what has literally hundreds of studies to support its efficacy and safety over
a form with zero data to support it’s claims of superiority over CM. Thus, they get put into
the grave yard. Future studies may get them out of the graveyard, but I aint holding my
breath…
(2) CM is not perfect. It’s not very soluble, and in about 30% of users, does not appear to
work at all. At higher doses, generally above 3g-5g or so in a single dose, can cause
stomach upset for some, among other small, but significant drawbacks for some users.
Therefore, I am in favor of continued research into improved delivery technologies,
improved forms of creatine, and so on. I’m all for it, but as they say, don’t piss on me and
tell me it’s raining. In God we trust, everyone else must show data. Hard data talks, BS
walks.
I could randomly take two forms from the list below, say dicreatine malate and creatine
ethyl carbonate ester and make dicreatine malate creatine ethyl carbonate*, but would it
be superior to CM? Unknown as there would be no data. I could just invent a bunch of
unproven claims like others do and sell the stuff… Do companies just invent a form of
creatine for no other reason then it sound “high tech”? Hell, one company (BSN) is
currently in court over one form they sell, called CEM3 or “Creatine Ethyl Ester Malate”
which according to the charges “does not exist and is impossible to manufacture”! As I
said, CM is not perfect and I am all for continued research into improved (vs. just
different!) forms of creatine and or improved delivery technologies, but companies should
do their due diligence on these products and stop with all the hype and CM bashing to
sell unproven products.
So, without further delay, here is my current list for the creatine graveyard:
The Creatine Graveyard List:
Creatine ethyl ester (CEE)
creatine pyruvate
creatine taurinate
creatine ethyl ester malate
creatine ethyl carbonate ester
creatine gluconate
creatine malate
dicreatine malate
tricreatine malate
creatine citrate
tricreatine citrate
Kre-Alkalyn
creatine phosphate
creatine alpha-ketoglutarate
creatine-6,8-thioctic Acid-ketoisocaproic Acid Calcium (CREAKIC)
creatine pyroglutamate
“conjugated creatine” (Con-Cret)
magnesium creatine chelate
creatine anhydrous
dicreatine orotate
tricreatine orotate
creatine alpha-amino butyrate
creatine HMB
“titrated creatine”
“creatine serum”
“liquid creatine”
Also:
glycocyamine (precursor)
creatinol-o-phosphate (analog)
* = for the sake of an example. I have no idea if such a form is chemically possible, nor do
I care.
By Will Brink © 2009
Looks like another “high tech” form of creatine has got one foot planted firmly in the
creatine grave yard. What is the creatine graveyard? It’s where forms of creatine - other
then monohydrate - go when either science has shown them inferior to monohydrate, and
or it’s life cycle of hype has come to and end.
I refer specifically to creatine ethyl ester (CEE). As with the many “high tech” forms of
creatine before it, all manner of claims were/are made about how superior it is to creatine
monohydrate (CM). It always starts the same. First the company will invent a long list of
negatives about CM such as “poorly absorbed” or “causes bloat” or “is not stable” and
then goes onto claim their form of creatine has solved all those invented negatives. The
problem is, the data already shows CM does not suffer from virtually any of the negatives
they invent, nor do they show their form “cures” those negatives. Sellers of CCE for
example claimed CEE was better absorbed and utilized vs. CM, and that has been shown
to be nonsense. There have been several in vitro (test tube) studies pointing to the fact
CEE is inferior to CM, but a recent study done in humans puts a final nail in the coffin as
far as I am concerned. This study is titled “The effects of creatine ethyl ester
supplementation combined with heavy resistance training on body composition, muscle
performance, and serum and muscle creatine levels” The full study is public access and
can be read here:
CEE Study
Warning, the abstract is confusing and not well written. If you read the full paper, it’s
clearer. If you don’t have the time or interest to read it, the take home is: although all
subjects in this study (CEE vs. CM vs. Placebo) experienced approximately the same
effects; they all had improvements in bodycomp and got stronger. Why? Because they
used untrained subjects in the study. Thus, a drawback of this study was due to using
untrained people, they couldn’t differentiate between PL, CEE, and CM in terms of effects
on bodycomp and strength within that time period as newbies always make fast progress
in the beginning. No news there.
However, the study did achieve the essential point, which is it clearly showed the claims
of CEE false: CEE had much higher creatinine levels and lower muscle creatine levels
compared to CM in this study, thus, yet again, the claims by sellers of CEE that it’s
superior to CM and that CM is “poorly absorbed” or “causes bloat,” or my favorite “CM is
not stable,” etc are false. They also looked at changes in water compartments (CEE
actually had a trend toward greater extra cellular water then CM BTW, so there goes that
stupid “no bloat” claim for CEE…) and other issues claimed to make CEE superior, and it
failed.
CEE is less stable then CM, increases creatinine to a much greater extent then CM, and
is inferior for increasing muscle creatine levels to CM. This study is not perfect by any
means, but when combined with what else exists, and the counter studies sellers of CEE
offer (which is to say zero), well you don’t have to be a scientist to see the writing on the
wall there…
CEE will be added to the creatine graveyard with a ton of others all claiming to be
superior to CM which all started with big claims and now sit in the grave yard.
Two essential points about the grave yard before we get to that:
(1) Because they are in the grave yard does not mean they are worthless. Some forms,
such as magnesium creatine chelate for example looked promising, but a head to head
study with CM found it no better. Remember, another form does not have to show it’s the
equal of CM, it has to show it’s superior to CM per its claims. Forms such as creatine
pyruvate and many others on the list may be just as effective as CM, but not superior, so it
comes down to cost. Others on the list have in fact been proven inferior to CM in studies,
such as serum creatine, various liquid creatine versions, and now CEE. Serum creatine
was all the rage a few years ago, and studies found not only was it inferior to CM in every
respect, it contained virtually no creatine! Of course, there were still those on the various
forums using ‘bro logic’ with “bro, I don’t care what the studies say, it works like da bomb
for me!” posts, but I digress….Finally, other forms on the list simply lack any data at all to
compare to CM. The companies selling these forms will routinely make claims of
superiority with nadda for hard data to support them. Therefore, it’s impossible to really
separate fact from fiction (i.e., marketing hype) to recommend them.
Me, I will use what has literally hundreds of studies to support its efficacy and safety over
a form with zero data to support it’s claims of superiority over CM. Thus, they get put into
the grave yard. Future studies may get them out of the graveyard, but I aint holding my
breath…
(2) CM is not perfect. It’s not very soluble, and in about 30% of users, does not appear to
work at all. At higher doses, generally above 3g-5g or so in a single dose, can cause
stomach upset for some, among other small, but significant drawbacks for some users.
Therefore, I am in favor of continued research into improved delivery technologies,
improved forms of creatine, and so on. I’m all for it, but as they say, don’t piss on me and
tell me it’s raining. In God we trust, everyone else must show data. Hard data talks, BS
walks.
I could randomly take two forms from the list below, say dicreatine malate and creatine
ethyl carbonate ester and make dicreatine malate creatine ethyl carbonate*, but would it
be superior to CM? Unknown as there would be no data. I could just invent a bunch of
unproven claims like others do and sell the stuff… Do companies just invent a form of
creatine for no other reason then it sound “high tech”? Hell, one company (BSN) is
currently in court over one form they sell, called CEM3 or “Creatine Ethyl Ester Malate”
which according to the charges “does not exist and is impossible to manufacture”! As I
said, CM is not perfect and I am all for continued research into improved (vs. just
different!) forms of creatine and or improved delivery technologies, but companies should
do their due diligence on these products and stop with all the hype and CM bashing to
sell unproven products.
So, without further delay, here is my current list for the creatine graveyard:
The Creatine Graveyard List:
Creatine ethyl ester (CEE)
creatine pyruvate
creatine taurinate
creatine ethyl ester malate
creatine ethyl carbonate ester
creatine gluconate
creatine malate
dicreatine malate
tricreatine malate
creatine citrate
tricreatine citrate
Kre-Alkalyn
creatine phosphate
creatine alpha-ketoglutarate
creatine-6,8-thioctic Acid-ketoisocaproic Acid Calcium (CREAKIC)
creatine pyroglutamate
“conjugated creatine” (Con-Cret)
magnesium creatine chelate
creatine anhydrous
dicreatine orotate
tricreatine orotate
creatine alpha-amino butyrate
creatine HMB
“titrated creatine”
“creatine serum”
“liquid creatine”
Also:
glycocyamine (precursor)
creatinol-o-phosphate (analog)
* = for the sake of an example. I have no idea if such a form is chemically possible, nor do
I care.
| Is Your Creatine Supplement High Quality Or Just A Lot Of HYPE? |