The Creatine Graveyard Update 2012 - AnabolicMinds.com
    • The Creatine Graveyard Update 2012


      by Will Brink Brinkzone

      When I wrote The Creatine Graveyard, per comments in THIS recent vid, creatine ethyl ester (CEE) was all the rage and the “high tech” creatine that was gonna show itself to be “9,372,401 X better absorbed & superior to monohydrate blah blah blah” and so the marketing hype machine claimed. CEE, like every “superior” form of creatine before it (e.g., liquid creatines, serum creatine, etc, etc) dropped off the radar after numerous studies showed it was not only not superior to monohydrate, but clearly inferior. To those who know a thing about creatine, none of that came as any surprise but we had to wait patiently while studies were done to confirm what we knew. See article linked for that info on CEE if interested.

      So fast forward to 2012. Although “buffered” creatine (BC) existed at the time (see list) it was not as popular as it came to be (after the fall of CEE there was less competition of course) and made steady increases in popularity. Me, I had it firmly in the graveyard for reasons outlined in the article. As of writing the article I’d say it had “one foot in the graveyard” as they say, and as of now, both feet firmly planted.

      A recent study done at Texas A&M examined the claims made my makers of buffered creatine (Kre-Alkayn®) to test it’s claims of being superior to monohydrate and found it was neither more effective than good old monohydrate nor had an improved safety profile over CM.

      When looking at whether BC was superior to CM for increasing tissue levels of creatine, strength, and LBM, the study concluded “Neither manufacturers recommended doses or equivalent loading doses of KA promoted greater changes in muscle creatine content, body composition, strength, or anaerobic capacity than CrM. These findings do not support claims that KA is a more efficacious form of creatine.”

      If one looks at the graph, one can see CM actually had a slight edge over BC in terms of actual muscle creatine content…

      On the issue of whether or not BC has a superior safety profile over CM, the study authors concluded “Neither manufacturers recommended doses or equivalent loading doses of KA compared to CrM resulted in any negative side-effects or health outcomes. Additionally, there was no evidence that CrM supplementation experienced a greater degradation to creatinine. These findings suggest that KA is just as safe to consume as CrM with minimal side-effects.”

      Color me not the least bit surprised…People can read the study poster session and abstract – “Kre-Alkalyn® supplementation does not promote greater changes in muscle creatine content, body composition, or training adaptations in comparison to creatine monohydrate” & “Kre-Alkalyn® supplementation does not exhibit a safer clinical profile or have less side effects in comparison to creatine monohydrate” – on the Texas A&M web site HERE if interested and hopefully it’s submitted for publication as a full length paper.

      Source: http://www.brinkzone.com/supplement-...d-update-2012/
      Comments 9 Comments
      1. EasyEJL's Avatar
        EasyEJL -
        Ok, so I read the study, and there is one glaring problem that both the researchers + Will Brink missed - doses. Here's the relevant part

        In a double-blind manner, 36 resistance trained participants (20.2±2 yrs, 181±7 cm, 82±12 kg, 14.7±5 % body fat) were randomly assigned to supplement their diet with CrM (Creapure®, AlzChem AG, Germany) for 28-days (20 g/d for 7-d, 5 g/d for 21-d), an equivalent amount of KA as a high dose supplement (KA-H), or the manufacturer’s recommended dose of KA (1.5 g/d for 28-d, KA-L).
        so creatine mono was given at 20g/day for the first week then 5g a day. The low buffered creatine was at label dose of 1.5g/day. The high dose was "an equivalent amount of KA". Whats an equivalent amount? Is it the actual same amount? or did they arrive at equivalent by some other math? I've never seen a research study that didn't show an actual measurement before. What a bunch of crap. So the study shows that when you take somewhere between 4 and 12 times as much creatine mono it raises intramuscular levels more. Not exactly a shock.
      1. mrstephen's Avatar
        mrstephen -
        Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
        Ok, so I read the study, and there is one glaring problem that both the researchers + Will Brink missed - doses. Here's the relevant part

        so creatine mono was given at 20g/day for the first week then 5g a day. The low buffered creatine was at label dose of 1.5g/day. The high dose was "an equivalent amount of KA". Whats an equivalent amount? Is it the actual same amount? or did they arrive at equivalent by some other math? I've never seen a research study that didn't show an actual measurement before. What a bunch of crap. So the study shows that when you take somewhere between 4 and 12 times as much creatine mono it raises intramuscular levels more. Not exactly a shock.
        Most likely done since KA pills, according to free to look at online patent, contain 500bc and the rest is soda ash (sodium carbonate). Odd Brink is still on this one since every KA study done besides by KA profiteers shows CM is better at 5g doses compares to 500mg BC
      1. kingdong's Avatar
        kingdong -
        Will, I frinded you on youtube a long time ago! Didnt even know you were a writer! Have you talked about dicreatine malate yet?
      1. wtmdcg91's Avatar
        wtmdcg91 -
        The study shows nothing !!!! i would consider waste to read and get anything!
        What a waste article!
      1. EasyEJL's Avatar
        EasyEJL -
        Originally Posted by wtmdcg91 View Post
        The study shows nothing !!!! i would consider waste to read and get anything!
        What a waste article!
        well, no, it shows that kre-alkalyn at the doses manufacturers suggest is a waste of money compared to creatine mono at the doses manufacturers suggest, so its valuable from that point. It just doesn't tell you if a higher dose of krealkalyn is effective.
      1. wtmdcg91's Avatar
        wtmdcg91 -
        Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
        well, no, it shows that kre-alkalyn at the doses manufacturers suggest is a waste of money compared to creatine mono at the doses manufacturers suggest, so its valuable from that point. It just doesn't tell you if a higher dose of krealkalyn is effective.
        What is the point to do the study without showing what the outcome should be. They present the problem but have no solution!!
      1. EasyEJL's Avatar
        EasyEJL -
        Originally Posted by wtmdcg91 View Post

        What is the point to do the study without showing what the outcome should be. They present the problem but have no solution!!
        It does prove that paying the price premium for kre alkalyn to only take 1.5g is pointless
      1. mattkill's Avatar
        mattkill -
        With the amount of conflicting studies that come out nowadays, who should we believe unless we test these supps ourselves.
        We spend our hard earned $ on something, only to be told that the 'latest scientific' study proves it's garbage.

        Maybe the earth is flat afterall.
      1. hajisan's Avatar
        hajisan -
        I trust what Brink says on this. He is usually spot on.

        Log in

        Log in

        Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.