- 09-02-2006, 09:11 PM
I would really like to see some generic SizeOn. I havent responded this well to creatine in a long time. I used a bottle on BN's CEE previously and this stuff is blowing it away. Throw in 5g GMS and 5g Gluconate. I know it probably wont be an exact clone. Too bad, SizeOn even tastes great. It's overpriced though. Imagine a SizeOn like product with BCAA's in it too. That would be pretty nice but thats getting up there in costs. I thought for a bit Nutra was selling the Gluconate in bulk but I guess not or they had to pull it.
Perhaps the magnesium chelate form of creatine is better (the best?). All I know is this beats regular and CEE.
I would like to see a nice 2nd gen creatine mix though. Im sure everyone would jump on it. Whats in Vault and Clout?That which does not kill us makes us stronger - Friedrich Nietzsche
- 09-02-2006, 11:22 PM
- 09-03-2006, 10:20 AM
Whats the general opinion of the various creatine types/formulations on the market now? Best type or formula? SizeOn is basically GSM/CG. What's in Vault and Clout though? I havent really read much on all these new creatine formulas popping up everywhere.That which does not kill us makes us stronger - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-03-2006, 11:06 AM
In all fairness, what makes SizeOn so effective is not the creatine gluconate as much as it is its carb blend. It would have been an amazing product even if it had the creatine orotate [the creatine in Clout] for example, maybe not as great.Originally Posted by Alpine
The best type or formula is the one that works best for you for the price you pay.
09-04-2006, 11:54 PM
Its basically just the CG and the Glycerol Monostearate as the main carb source - right? Why not intro a GMS/GC bulk blend. It would be easier than buying both. Think about a CG/GMS/bulk leucine or (insert fav here) type product.Originally Posted by machinehead
I have yet to try Tricreatine Orotate but I do feel that CG has been better than mono and CEE. Then again, I didnt always take those with a perfect dose of GMS either. Still not sure if Im sold on the whole GMS thing anyway. Dextrose or Malto should be fine. Hell, almost any carb will do.
Of all the new types of creatine, which do you guys think shows the most promise? Havent followed it much as of late.
Im sure you guys have seen this already.
The same amount of carbs were given to all groups.In an Independent Clinical Study, SizeOn™ Lays Waste to 2 Major Sports Nutrition Supplements – AAKG (Arginine Alphaketoglutarate) and CEE (Creatine Ethyl Ester)! Study conducted at Ohio Research Group & presented at the 2006 International Society of Sports Nutrition Conference in Las Vegas, NV.
Interpretation of Study – of the 3 groups tested over a 30 day period:
1) The AAKG (arginine alphaketoglutarate) group, deemed the positive control group, showed virtually no changes in body weight, lean mass, or RTF (number of reps) during resistance training over the course of the study.
2) The CEE (creatine ethyl ester) group showed modest positive effects on body weight and lean mass, but not unlike those of creatine monohydrate.
3) SizeOn significantly increased body weight, lean mass, and RTF (reps) during resistance training. Most notably, increases in lean mass and RTF (reps) were 3x higher in the SizeOn group than in the CEE group.
Ziegenfuss T.N., Mendel R.W., and Hofheins J.E. Comparison of Purported Anabolic Supplements on Body Composition and Muscular Performance. Ohio Research Group. Wadsworth, Ohio 44281, USA. – Presented at the ISSN Convention in June 2006, Las Vegas, NV.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of three purported anabolic dietary supplements (arginine alphaketoglutarate, AAKG; creatine ethyl ester, CEE; SizeOn, SO) on training-induced changes in body composition and muscular performance. Methods: Using a randomized, double-blind design, 30 healthy men (mean ± superdrol age, height, weight, 1-RM bench press: 29.9 ± 6.8 y, 179.3 ± 6.4 cm, 84.8 ± 13.5 kg, 118.4 ± 21.5 kg) were matched for training experience and randomly assigned to ingest one serving per day of AAKG (3 g + 31 g carbohydrate, N=10), CEE (3 g + 31 g carbohydrate, N=10), or SO (1 scoop) for one month. Verification of ingredient purity and potency by an external laboratory is pending. Body composition (DEXA) and muscular performance (1-RM bench press and repetitions to failure [RTF: 3 sets x baseline body weight, 60-sec rest between sets]) were measured at baseline, day 7, and day 28. Blood samples were obtained at baseline and after 4-weeks of supplementation and training. Subjects were required to maintain their normal dietary and training patterns during the study. Data were analyzed via ANOVA and (where necessary) Newman-Keuls post-hoc tests. An intent-to-treat approach was used and statistical significance was accepted at p≤0.05. Results: Body weight increased in SO (+1.9%; 91.82 ± 16.99 [baseline] to 93.59 ± 17.30 kg [day 28], p<0.0002), whereas no changes were observed in AAKG (-0.7%; 82.92 ± 5.39 [baseline] to 82.33 ± 6.31 kg [day 28], p<0.25). Body weight tended to increase in CEE (+1.0%; 79.58 ± 13.31 [baseline] to 80.35 ± 12.9 kg [day 28], p<0.10). Similarly, lean mass increased in SO (+2.8%; 64.79 ± 3.84 [baseline] to 66.61 ± 3.55 kg [day 28], p<0.0001), did not change in AAKG (+0.2%; 62.38 ± 5.22 [baseline] to 62.49 ± 4.92 kg [day 28], p<0.74), and tended to increase in CEE (1.0%; 61.50 ± 5.80 [baseline] to 62.05 ± 5.83 kg [day 28], p<0.10). No significant changes in % fat or fat mass were noted between or within groups. All groups had significant increases in 1-RM bench press from baseline to day 28, however, no between-group changes were noted. RTF increased in SO (+28.7%; 27.2 ± 12.2 [baseline] to 35.0 ± 17.0 reps [day 28], p<0.0001), but did not change in CEE (+8.9%; 30.4 ± 13.4 [baseline] to 33.1 ± 15.9 reps [day 28], p<0.16), or AAKG (+3.7%; 21.6 ± 8.5 [baseline] to 22.4 ± 8.1 reps [day 28], p<0.51). Conclusions: Within the framework of the current experimental design, these preliminary data indicate that four weeks of AAKG administration has no effect on adaptations to resistance training (body weight, % fat, lean mass, or muscular performance). In contrast, CEE may have modest effects on body weight and lean mass, while SO significantly increases body weight, lean mass, and RTF during resistance training. We are currently examining the safety profile of each of these supplements, and plan to confirm and refine these results in a larger sample size. Future research is warranted to determine the mechanisms responsible for the noted improvements in training adaptations for SO.
That which does not kill us makes us stronger - Friedrich Nietzsche
Similar Forum Threads
- By bigpetefox in forum Supplement LogsReplies: 129Last Post: 04-06-2009, 11:27 AM
- By stryder in forum NutraplanetReplies: 2Last Post: 12-29-2005, 04:23 PM
- By stratvox in forum SupplementsReplies: 1Last Post: 01-09-2005, 09:30 PM
- By mulletman in forum AnabolicsReplies: 1Last Post: 08-02-2004, 02:42 PM
- By salu in forum AnabolicsReplies: 0Last Post: 05-03-2004, 06:38 AM