Calendar

September 2010
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Dec
	1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Weekly Supplement BS Report

September 14, 2009 by admin
Filed under Weekly Supplement BS Report

September 13th, 2009 Volume I Issue 2

CEE…BSN™s newest proprietary blend, designed to increase water and lipid solubility of creatine.
-product description of BSN Cellmass

Creatine Ethyl Ester (CEE) uses the ethyl ester to deliver the creatine into the bloodstream (and it does this very well)…
-product description of SizeOn

Creatine Ethyl Ester: Creatine ethyl ester is one of the newest forms of creatine. The ethyl ester prevents breakdown in the gut and prolongs the life of creatine in the blood. Combined with creatine monohydrate this results in a one-two punch of fast acting immediate action coupled with the longer duration of creatine ethyl ester. - CEE gives you a longer acting creatine, the right amount works, too much and it tastes like battery acid.
-product description of LG Science’s Cold Fusion EX

CEE…..This means, simply, that not only will dosage requirements be lower, but the absorption of esterified creatine will be increased and the infamous “creatine bloat” will be eliminated!
-product description of Higher Power Creatine Ethyl Ester

Creatine Ethyl Ester HCL is an exceptionally soluble creatine resulting in advanced absorption, increased bioavailability, and stability. Instead of saturating your system in creatine and hoping for absorption, creatine ethyl ester directly penetrates the muscle cell resulting in 30 to 40 times more functional creatine. This means no more loading, bloating, cramping or dehydration. Most users notice a difference in their first dose.
-product description Axis Labs’ Creatine Ethyl Ester

Myth: Creatine Ethyl Ester (CEE) is superior to creatine monohydrate. Not only does it cause less bloating, but because of its improved bioavailability you don’t need to take as much.
Fact: Not only does it taste like urine, but you’ll probably get the exact same results no matter which one you drink (CEE or urine).

The evidence:
It’s pretty easy to prove that a new creatine is superior to creatine monohydrate. All we would have to do is track the new creatine through our system. We’d first take a blood sample to ensure its absorption through the GI tract. Then we’d look at the creatine content within the muscle and make sure it actually does get more creatine inside the muscle. And if we’re really good, we’d set up a study that actually showed (with hard numbers) the superior results one would get with the new creatine product compared to the old one.
So that’s basically what I was looking for when I searched pubmed.org. And I found…
*Most pertinent statements are bolded.

The effects of creatine ethyl ester supplementation combined with heavy resistance training on body composition, muscle performance, and serum and muscle creatine levels.
Mike Spillane, Ryan Schoch, Matt Cooke, Travis Harvey, Mike Greenwood, Richard Kreider and Darryn S Willoughby
J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2009 Feb 19;6:6

ABSTRACT: Numerous creatine formulations have been developed primarily to maximize creatine absorption. Creatine ethyl ester is alleged to increase creatine bio-availability. This study examined how a seven-week supplementation regimen combined with resistance training affected body composition, muscle mass, muscle strength and power, serum and muscle creatine levels, and serum creatinine levels in 30 non-resistance-trained males. In a double-blind manner, participants were randomly assigned to a maltodextrose placebo (PLA), creatine monohydrate (CRT), or creatine ethyl ester (CEE) group. The supplements were orally ingested at a dose of 0.30 g/kg fat-free body mass (approximately 20 g/day) for five days followed by ingestion at 0.075 g/kg fat free mass (approximately 5 g/day) for 42 days. Results showed significantly higher serum creatine concentrations in PLA (p = 0.007) and CRT (p = 0.005) compared to CEE. Serum creatinine was greater in CEE compared to the PLA (p = 0.001) and CRT (p = 0.001) and increased at days 6, 27, and 48. Total muscle creatine content was significantly higher in CRT (p = 0.026) and CEE (p = 0.041) compared to PLA, with no differences between CRT and CEE. Significant changes over time were observed for body composition, body water, muscle strength and power variables, but no significant differences were observed between groups. In conclusion, when compared to creatine monohydrate, creatine ethyl ester was not as effective at increasing serum and muscle creatine levels or in improving body composition, muscle mass, strength, and power. Therefore, the improvements in these variables can most likely be attributed to the training protocol itself, rather than the supplementation regimen.

So this study suggested the following:
1) With CEE, you’ll get less creatine in the bloodstream than regular creatine monohydrate.
2) With CEE, you’ll get more creatinINe (a useless byproduct) in the bloodstream than regular creatine monohydrate. Remember this.
3) With CEE, it takes almost 27 days to increase the creatine content within the muscle, compared to just 6 days with creatine monohydrate.

So now we have we have to ask: What in the hell is happening to CEE once it enters the body because it’s not improving creatine’s bioavailability?

Non-enzymatic cyclization of creatine ethyl ester to creatinine.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2009 Oct 16;388(2):252-5. Epub 2009 Aug 4
Giese MW, Lecher CS

Creatine ethyl ester was incubated at 37 degrees C in both water and phosphate-buffered saline and the diagnostic methylene resonances in the (1)H NMR spectrum were used to identify the resultant products. It was found that mild aqueous conditions result in the cyclization of creatine ethyl ester to provide inactive creatinine as the exclusive product, and this transformation becomes nearly instantaneous as the pH approaches 7.4. This study demonstrates that mild non-enzymatic conditions are sufficient for the cyclization of creatine ethyl ester into creatinine, and together with previous results obtained under enzymatic conditions suggests that there are no physiological conditions that would result in the production of creatine. It is concluded that creatine ethyl ester is a pronutrient for creatinine rather than creatine under all physiological conditions encountered during transit through the various tissues, thus no ergogenic effect is to be expected from supplementation.

Non-enzymatic hydrolysis of creatine ethyl ester.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2009 Aug 21;386(2):363-7. Epub 2009 Jun 12
Katseres NS, Reading DW, Shayya L, Dicesare JC, Purser GH

The rate of the non-enzymatic hydrolysis of creatine ethyl ester (CEE) was studied at 37 degrees C over the pH range of 1.6-7.0 using (1)H NMR. The ester can be present in solution in three forms: the unprotonated form (CEE), the monoprotonated form (HCEE(+)), and the diprotonated form (H(2)CEE(2+)). The values of pK(a1) and pK(a2) of H(2)CEE(2+) were found to be 2.30 and 5.25, respectively. The rate law is found to be Rate=-dCCEE/dt=k++[H2CEE2+][OH-]+k+[HCEE+][OH-]+k0[CEE][OH-] where the rate constants k(++), k(+), and k(0) are (3.9+/-0.2)x10(6)L mol(-1)s(-1), (3.3+/-0.5)x10(4)L mol(-1)s(-1), and (4.9+/-0.3)x10(4)L mol(-1)s(-1), respectively. Calculations performed at the density functional theory level support the hypothesis that the similarity in the values of k(+) and k(0) results from intramolecular hydrogen bonding that plays a crucial role. This study indicates that the half-life of CEE in blood is on the order of one minute, suggesting that CEE may hydrolyze too quickly to reach muscle cells in its ester form.

Qualitative In vitro NMR Analysis of Creatine Ethyl Ester Pronutrient in Human Plasma.
Int J Sports Med. 2009 Jul 7.
Giese MW, Lecher CS.

There are a number of forms of creatine available that attempt to improve the solubility and permeability, with the anticipation this will result in an improved pharmacokinetic profile and ultimately an enhanced ergogenic response. Previous research has shown that the different salt forms can improve solubility resulting in slightly altered pharmacokinetic profiles, however specific data exploring the conversion of esterified derivatives to creatine is lacking. The purpose of this study was to examine the assertion that creatine ethyl ester undergoes enzymatic conversion to creatine in human tissues. The IN VITRO response of creatine ethyl ester to incubation in human plasma was examined by H-NMR analysis. Lyophilized human plasma was reconstituted in D (2)O and phosphate-buffered saline and 1.5 mg of the analyte was added. Following incubation at 37 degrees C for 4 h and subsequent protein precipitation, the supernatant was analyzed by NMR, utilizing the diagnostic chemical shift of the methylene signal to determine the species present in solution, I.E. creatine ethyl ester, creatine, or creatinine. Both creatine and creatinine were run in parallel as control experiments and each assay was run in triplicate. As expected both creatine and creatinine remained unchanged. However, conversion of creatine ethyl ester to creatine by the esterases in human plasma was not observed to any detectable extent and the only species detected after the incubation period was creatinine. While not a definitive characterization of the IN VIVO behavior, these results strongly warrant a complete IN VIVO pharmacokinetic analysis of creatine ethyl ester since it appears these “pronutrients” may actually provide large exogenous sources of pharmacologically inactive creatinine rather than ergogenic creatine.

Surprise. Surprise. It’s being converted to the useless byproduct creatiNINE, not creatine. So that’s why more creatinine is showing up in the blood, less creatine is showing up in the blood, and it’s taking longer to fill the muscle with creatine. Ah, the legitamacy of the dietary supplement industry. I can’t believe the efficacy studies prior to its release didn’t catch that. Oh wait, those aren’t required. Neither are safety studies.

Everyone together now…… B_LLSH_T

-Doc

Tags: best creatine, cee, cellmass, cheapest creatine, creatine, creatine ethyl ester, creatine monohydrate, most effective creatine, Muscle Geeks, sizeon

Huge Muscle Geek Sale - 30-35% below Wholesale. No membership required!

August 13, 2009 by admin
Filed under Muscle Geek News

My creatine is better than your creatine

August 10, 2009 by admin
Filed under Supplement Cons, Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

“Creatine has become one of the most extensively studied and scientifically validated nutritional ergogenic aids for athletes.”

-Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 2007

Without a doubt, creatine is the most effective supplement on the market today. And because of that, it’s also one of the most successful supplements. Its popularity has led to an entire lineage of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation creatines. Now the question still remains: are the new generation creatines really that much better than plain old creatine monohydrate? Better, yet, are they worth the price tag? By the time you finish reading this article, you’ll know the answer to both of those questions, plus :

-If I’m a non-responder to regular creatine monohydrate, will one of the new creatine supplements work?

-How much creatine do I really need to take and when should I take it?

-What kind of training works best with creatine?

-Do I need to take anything else with creatine to make it more effective?

-Should I cycle on/off of creatine?

Let’s start from the beginning.

How will it make me bigger?

What is the fundamental principle behind getting bigger? You guessed right. The progressive overload principle: the constant increase in stress placed upon your body during training. More simply stated, increasing the number of reps, sets, or weights from workout to workout. If you benched 225 pounds for 5 sets of 5 reps this week, you better either increase the reps, sets, or weight next week. If you don’t, you’re not giving your body a reason to adapt and grow bigger and stronger.

So what does creatine have to do with progressive overload? Your body uses energy (ATP) to lift weights. The more energy you have available, the more work you can do. Your body creates ATP via 3 different pathways: the phosphagen system (creatine), anaerobic glycolysis (carbohydrates without oxygen), and aerobic glycolysis (carbohydrates with oxygen). Depending on the intensity of the exercise and the rate at which ATP is needed, your body will automatically determine which system it will rely on to create ATP. Because weightlifting is usually intense and brief (a set usually doesn’t last more than 30 seconds without rest), your body will primarily rely on the phosphagen system and anaerobic glycolysis because both of these systems are capable of producing ATP quickly. However, the downside is that they both run out of gas relatively quickly too. Your muscles only have so much creatine available to help create energy. And this is where creatine comes into play…

Taking creatine can increase the amount of creatine within your muscles by anywhere from 10-40%(1). That’s an extra 10-40% of energy available to your muscles. With that much extra energy available, instead of lifting 5 reps, you’d be able to lift 6, 7 or even 8 reps now. And whenever you’re increasing the amount of weight or reps, you’re following the progressive load principle, and your muscles are getting bigger and stronger.

And what kind of gains can I expect?

With a nearly 70% success rate2, don’t write off your results as a placebo-like effect. Expect an extra 5-15% increase in strength and performance.(2) And when that 5-15% is converted to pounds, it always makes a max effort look that much better.

Better yet, studies have also shown that you can expect to double the amount of muscle mass you’d expect to gain if you weren’t using creatine.(3) Pretty impressive.

How much and when?

When creatine first hit the market in the 90s, the standard dosing protocol was 20 grams in divided doses for 3-5 days followed by 5-10 grams daily thereafter. That’s still an effective dosing regimen. However, recently coaches have been recommending a slightly more individualized dosing regimen similar to how most prescription antibiotics are dosed. They suggest 0.3mg/kg/day for 3-5 days, followed by 3-5 grams daily thereafter. So for a 200lb male, that’d be around 27 grams (in divided doses) of creatine for the initial 3-5 days, followed by 3-5 grams daily thereafter.

The new dosing regimen makes sense. Creatine is stored primarily within your muscles. The more muscle you have, the more creatine storage capacity you have. A 120lb beginner should not be using the same amount of creatine as a 260lb professional bodybuilder. The difference in muscle mass is huge. It’s like the difference in the amount of water used to fill up a water balloon and a pool. Also, if we calculate our daily protein intake in a similar fashion, why shouldn’t that apply to creatine? But the real question is: does it matter? Yes and no. Will, in the end, both dosing regimens give you the same result? Yes. However, the original dosing regimen is just going to take a little longer so the results will not seem as dramatic.

As far as when to take it, that’s a little more un-scientific. In fact, it’s largely my opinion. During the initial 3-5 days, I take 5 grams in the morning, at lunch, at dinner, and before bed. I always try to take it with my meals because there have been several studies that have shown that carbohydrates and protein actually increase the amount of creatine that gets inside your muscles. After the initial loading dose, I take 3 grams before my workout, and 3 grams immediately after. By taking 3 grams 30-45 minutes before my workout, I get assurance that my muscles are going to have a supply of creatine waiting for them. After my workout, my muscles are usually begging for nutrients. With the proper postworkout nutrition, I can get more creatine back into my muscles than at any other time.

I also recommend not cycling creatine. The theory behind cycling makes sense. For creatine to enter the cell, it must move through a transporter that scientists have conveniently named the creatine transporter. Scientists theorized that if the transporter is constantly bombarded with creatine, it will develop a level of resistance to the suppement, similar to how Type II diabetes begins. When it develops this resistance, creatine becomes less effective. To circumvent this, they recommended avoiding creatine intake for “x” amount of days to refresh the creatine transporter. There was one study (that I know of) that supported this theory. However, it was done in rats, and the dosage, if extrapolated to a human dosage, would have been astronomical. There’s just never been any human data supporting this theory, and it’s fallen out of favor within the last 5 years. Bottom line: don’t cycle your creatine.

Will plain old creatine monohydrate work for me?

A resounding YES!

There are a few individuals that just don’t respond to creatine monohydrate. It’s because of these individuals that supplement companies create a new creatine every 3 months or so. These companies then try to convince the entire creatine market that their new version of creatine is vastly superior to every other version available. Their marketing ploy, “Our creatine has helped John Doe, who has never got any results from regular creatine, to increase his bench by 50 lbs. Just think what it can do for you if you got results from the less potent creatine monohydrate.” Simply not true. To date, I have yet to see one study that convincingly finds one of the newer forms of creatine is superior to creatine monohydrate.

So let’s take a look at some of the newer forms.

Creatine ethyl ester

Good in theory, poor in results. The creators attempted to attach an ethyl ester to the creatine molecule to make it more fat soluble. Because cells are surrounded by fatty membrane, they hoped by increasing its fat solubility, the CEE would bypass the creatine transporter and move directly into the cell. Thus, in case the creatine transporter was the problem, CEE wouldn’t be affected.

However, not only does it taste horrible, but it also has never been shown to be superior to creatine monohydrate. In fact, there was a study published in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition entitled “The effects of creatine ethyl ester supplementation combined with heavy resistance training on body composition, muscle performance, and serum and muscle creatine levels.” that concluded, “When compared to creatine monohydrate, creatine ethyl ester was not as effective at increasing serum and muscle creatine levels or in improving body composition, muscle mass, strength, and power.”

Pass on CEE. Your wallet and your taste buds will thank you for it.

Creatine pyruvate/citrate

This time the supplement manufacturers took a slightly different approach. By combining pyruvate or citrate with creatine, not only are you adding an acid to base with hopes of increasing its bioavailability, but you’re also adding another possible performance-enhancing supplement to the mix. Both pyruvate and citrate have had mixed reviews regarding improvements in endurance training.

However, even though there’s a little more evidence supporting these two creatine combinations, overall the jury is still inconclusive. For every positive study, there’s a negative study refuting the possible benefits. Are they worth the price tag? Absolutely not. Once again, there has yet to be a study that convincingly demonstrates their superiority over creatine monohydrate.

Creatine with sodium

This is probably the most interesting creatine combination. The creatine transporter that was mentioned earlier is thought to be dependent on a sodium/chloride pump. Some scientists believe that creatine requires two molecules of sodium and one molecule of chloride to enter the cell. So by adding sodium to creatine, the sodium concentration gradiant is increased (more on the outside than the inside, think teeter-totter), and the cell is “tricked” into accepting creatine. The only problem is that we haven’t had any definitive real-world feedback. Even though it makes sense from a scientific standpoint, so does CEE. That doesn’t mean it’s going to work in the real-world. As of now, it’s not worth the money. Until a study is done and it concludes creatine combined with sodium is superior to creatine monohydrate, pass on it.

Effervescent creatine and serum creatine

Junk. Don’t even think about it.

Creatine with carbohydrates

Not only is this the most effective means for getting more creatine into the muscle, but it’s also the cheapest. The carbohydrates cause an insulin surge in your bloodstream. Because insulin is highly anabolic, it acts like a key and makes the cell more receptive to outside influences. The more receptive a cell is, the more creatine that can enter. Pretty simple.

Side note: This is also why it’s extremely important to have carbohydrates in your postworkout shake. Not only do they replenish your glycogen stores, but they also cause a surge of a highly anabolic hormone, insulin. That’s an extremely good thing, especially if you’re in a state of catabolism.

A study entitled “Carbohydrate ingestion augments skeletal muscle creatine accumulation during creatine supplementation in humans.” in the American Journal of Physiology showed that by adding 93 grams of a simple carbohydrate solution, you can increase total creatine concentration by 60% compared to regular creatine supplementation. However, the question still remains though: Does the increase in total muscle creatine result in an increase in performance? That question has yet to be answered definitively. In my opinion, it can never hurt to have too much creatine within the muscle. Plus, for the cost, it doesn’t hurt to try. A 4 pound bag of dextrose shouldn’t cost more than a couple of bucks.

Creatine with protein and carbohydrates

This is my personal favorite. The same theory that applied to creatine and carbohydrates also applies here. However, we’ve added another potential anabolic agent to the mix: protein. Now not only does the surge of insulin from the carbohydrates help more creatine enter the cell, but hopefully more amino acids will also follow suit. And don’t worry if you think the amino acids will prevent additional creatine from entering the cell. A clinical trial entitled “Protein- and carbohydrate-induced augmentation of whole body creatine retention in humans.” found in the Journal of Applied Physiology found that the mixture of protein and carbohydrates was just as effective as carbohydrates alone in improving creatine retention.

So not only does mixing all three make it more convenient, but it appears as though it may also make it more effective. Plus, it’s extremely cheap.

Side note: If you’re dieting and concerned with the extra calories from the carbohydrates, don’t fret too much. Taking creatine by itself will work just fine.

Creatine with supplements that improve insulin sensitivity

Unless you have insulin resistance, I don’t really see the cost-effectiveness of this combination. If you’re lifting weights, on a decent nutrition plan, and taking fish oil, your insulin sensitivity is not going to be the weak link in the creatine equation. Until there’s more evidence, save your money.

If creatine monohydrate doesn’t work for me, will one of the newer ones?

This is probably going to be the most controversial segment of this article. There’s going to be several supplement manufacturers that won’t be too pleased with my answer. First let’s look at why you might not be responding to creatine. Hopefully, before I give you my answer, you will have already formed your own.

Even though 70% of the clinical trials show a positive benefit to creatine use, there are still 30% of studies that show no benefit. One study actually estimated that out of 10 users, between 2 and 3 users will not benefit from creatine supplementation. (4) Why? Scientists have yet to pinpoint the exact cause. However, they have developed several theories. The most prominent theory involves a decrease in activity of the creatine transporter. Even though they haven’t been able to explain specifically the cause of the decrease in activity, they have determined a profile of a responder. It includes the 4 following characteristics:

1) Have a lower initial concentration of creatine within the muscle
2) Have a greater number of type II muscle fibers
3) Have more fiber cross sectional area
4) Have more fat-free mass, aka muscle

All 4 characteristics make sense.

So, if the new creatine product doesn’t improve one of those 4 characteristics, it’s probably not going to be of much help to you. By the way, none of them do. None of them are going to give you bigger muscles. None of them are going to give you more Type II muscle fibers. And none of them are going to decrease the amount of creatine you already have in your muscles. If the creatine transpoter theory holds true, you’re probably SOL.

Carbohydrates are going to be your only choice. In the future, maybe a creatine and sodium combination may help, but that’s a big maybe.

Cliff notes:
- If you’re a non-responder, wait until a product clearly demonstrates that it increases total muscle creatine content COMPARED to regular creatine monohydrate. Thus far, none have.
- If you’re a responder, don’t bother wasting money on new creatines. Stick with creatine monohydrate. Save your money and use it on more protein, beta alanine, or fish oil.

Hopefully, this article has answered a lot of questions that other “experts” have left unanswered or even worse, let the supplement manufacturers answer. Remember, cost-effectiveness should be your primary concern when buying supplements. If it doesn’t produce quantifiable results, don’t buy it. There’s too much junk on the market. This industry has been built on clever marketing, not quantifiable results. Shop smart!

P.S.
I was going to finish with a comparison chart between the products. However, the manufacturers have conveniently made it almost impossible to determine how much creatine is in their product. So instead, I’ll leave you with this:

BSN Cell Mass
Muscle Geek Price: $33.19
At most, a serving has 4 grams of creatine in it.
If using the manufacturers’ directions, 1 bottle will last 25 days.

Dymatize Creatine 1100 grams
Muscle Geek Price: $17.29
5 grams per serving
For a 200lb athlete, using the updated dosing guidelines, a bottle will last ~165 days

Cost-effectiveness

6.6 bottles of CellMass for a total cost of $199.14 = 1 bottle of 1100 grams of Dymatize creatine at a cost of $17.29

Is CellMass really $180 better? Better yet, would that $180 be better spent on our Dymatize protein special of 25 lbs for ~$180? I’d be willing to bet the second option would lead to much better results. In fact, I’d say you’ll probably triple or quadruple your results if you went with the second option. That’s cost-effectiveness!

-Doc

1. Kreider RB: Creatine in Sports. In Essentials of Sport Nutrition &
Supplements Edited by: Antonio J, Kalman D, Stout J, et al. Humana
Press Inc., Totowa, NJ; 2007 in press

2. Kreider RB: Effects of creatine supplementation on performance
and training adaptations. Mol Cell Biochem 2003, 244:89-94.

3. Noonan D, Berg K, Latin RW, Wagner JC, Reimers K: Effects of varying
dosages of oral creatine relative to fat free body mass on
strength and body composition. J Strength Cond Res 1998,
12:104-108.
4. Greenhaff PL, Bodin K, Soderlunk K, et al. Effect of oral creatine supplementation on skeletal muscle phopshocreatine resynthesis. Am J Physiol. 1994:266:E745-E730.

Tags: Cell Mass, cellmass, creatine, creatine monohydrate, jack3d, jacked, micronized creatine, Muscle Geeks, serum creatine, size on, sizeon, superpump 250, superpump250, www.muscle-geeks.com

Muscle Geek News

Recent Posts

Tags

Calendar

Weekly Supplement BS Report

Huge Muscle Geek Sale - 30-35% below Wholesale. No membership required!

My creatine is better than your creatine

Categories