Interesting article on Creatine

EZDUZIT

EZDUZIT

Member
Awards
0
Here is an interesting article:

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.
 
n8te

n8te

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
haha thanks for posting this i was just reading this the other day. I love being a college student and having access to hundreds of thousands of research articles.
 
n8te

n8te

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
on a sidenote and not to high jack the thread baylor university did a study and found that novadex xt works very well. I didn't expect the results they found
 

UKStrength

Guest
Cheers for the article mate, it's confirmed my original thoughts about creatine monohydrate. The original and still the best.
 

russianstar

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established

russianstar

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Great post, i love mono and some dextrose straight after a workout, but never with glutamine as creatine and glutamine compete for the same receptor.
Best time to take creatine though is in the morning, and if you can on an empty stomach, watch the difference, less bloating, more gains, take care guys.
 
kingdong

kingdong

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Great post, i love mono and some dextrose straight after a workout, but never with glutamine as creatine and glutamine compete for the same receptor.
Best time to take creatine though is in the morning, and if you can on an empty stomach, watch the difference, less bloating, more gains, take care guys.
I thyought it was glutamine and arginine?
 
kingdong

kingdong

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
What causes the stomach discomfort(I do feel it sometimes), the creatine moleculs or the monohydrate molecule?
 
alwaysgaining

alwaysgaining

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Great post, i love mono and some dextrose straight after a workout, but never with glutamine as creatine and glutamine compete for the same receptor.
Best time to take creatine though is in the morning, and if you can on an empty stomach, watch the difference, less bloating, more gains, take care guys.

creatine and glutamine are not hormones, they dont bind to a "receptor" they are organic acids that are use in energy producing processes.
 
kingdong

kingdong

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
So, just to be sure, was there an actual article that disproved the creatine malate products?
 
kingdong

kingdong

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
So, just to be sure, was there an actual article that disproved the creatine malate products?
 
marine0231

marine0231

New member
Awards
0
Ive tried four different creatine products even just straight mono. None gave me any size,strength,endurance. Maybe it just doesnt work for me or what. It sucks.
 
Raladoc

Raladoc

New member
Awards
0
Iv only tried Creapure yet but i bought a **** load of it and it just hasnt worked at all no bloat no strength increase nothing. Tried taking about 10g of it in one serving and got the ****s so probs just give it away
 

russianstar

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
creatine and glutamine are not hormones, they dont bind to a "receptor" they are organic acids that are use in energy producing processes.
What an idiot, they compete for the same receptors the receptor being a site at wich there is a chemical reaction taking place, both these substances are thought to compete for the sodium molecule...that being the recpetor i spoke of,not bind, who said anything about binding...? oh yeah you did..fool.
By shaun lebron.
There's a lot of conflicting research that shows creatine and glutamine may compete directly with one another for cell transport and absorption.

That's because both creatine and glutamine use the same transport method (sodium) to be absorbed by the body, so there's a chance that one will get absorbed more than the other.
 

scotti326

New member
Awards
0
i recently bought amplified creatine at gnc has anyone heard or used this product?
 
DEADn

DEADn

Member
Awards
0
How does the following become the graveyard? My interest in the list is Kre Alkalyn.





Here is an interesting article:

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.
 

Logo

Member
Awards
0
How does the following become the graveyard? My interest in the list is Kre Alkalyn.
I'm interested too. I've recently heard many good things about this product from trusted individuals. Additionally, it's dirt cheap.
 

Logo

Member
Awards
0
What an idiot, they compete for the same receptors the receptor being a site at wich there is a chemical reaction taking place, both these substances are thought to compete for the sodium molecule...that being the recpetor i spoke of,not bind, who said anything about binding...? oh yeah you did..fool.
By shaun lebron.
There's a lot of conflicting research that shows creatine and glutamine may compete directly with one another for cell transport and absorption.

That's because both creatine and glutamine use the same transport method (sodium) to be absorbed by the body, so there's a chance that one will get absorbed more than the other.
There's no need for the immature name calling. It doesn't help that you're wrong and alwaysgaining was right. They don't compete for receptors. From Layne's protein debunking arcticle: Creatine transport is regulated by the Creatine Transporter7 while glutamine transport is regulated by a system known as "System Nm." 8
 
gamer2be08

gamer2be08

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm interested too. I've recently heard many good things about this product from trusted individuals. Additionally, it's dirt cheap.
I have used mono and am on Kre-Alk now.... Im gonna have to say I have had better results on the Kre-Alk, although, slight. I know PT's, body builders, friends, performers that swear to Kre-Alk over Mono. I dont know how you came up with that Graveyard list...
 
rush808

rush808

Member
Awards
0
^lol.

graveyard = not superior to CM, yet maybe equal or lesser. If 1 does not respond to CM, then maybe respond to graveyard list equals.
 

surreallmlan

New member
Awards
0
CEE might not be as good as CM (according to the article), but when you don't respond to CM, CEE is great and all you got. I never got anything from CM, but when I started taking CEE my strength and weight really went up. I love the stuff, except for the "liquid death" taste. Its my favorite supp.
 

swan1209

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Whats the word on creatine nitrate, found in C-Bol by Thermolife? I'm guessing its just another form of creatine used as a marketing mechanism rather than for its actual intended purpose. Any experience with this product or thoughts on creatine nitrate in general. Also Palo Alto has ATP tabs. If an ATP supplement could work, although it doesn't seem intuitive, wouldn't creatine be unnecessary as the goal of creatine supplementation is to increase phosphocreatine levels which makes ATP production more easily synthesized. Any thoughts?
 

Will Brink

New member
Awards
0
CEE might not be as good as CM (according to the article), but when you don't respond to CM, CEE is great and all you got. I never got anything from CM, but when I started taking CEE my strength and weight really went up. I love the stuff, except for the "liquid death" taste. Its my favorite supp.
If you read the article closely, no, CEE does not appear even the equal of CM. High levels of creatinine, lower tissues levels of CP, etc. Additional info in the blog post on my site called "CEE, The Poster Child For The “Graveyard”!" as I can't post links here.
 

Will Brink

New member
Awards
0
So, just to be sure, was there an actual article that disproved the creatine malate products?
That's not how science works: the burden of proof is on those who make the claims. So, sellers of malate have to show it's superior to CM in a head to head study, and that does not exist.
 

Will Brink

New member
Awards
0
How does the following become the graveyard? My interest in the list is Kre Alkalyn.
How/why they are on the list is covered in the article. Read it closely. :fing02:
 
goonstopher

goonstopher

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Tricreatine orate seems to be unanimously loved by all users... this list is BS.
 

Will Brink

New member
Awards
0
Tricreatine orate seems to be unanimously loved by all users...
Which has no bearing on how it would get on the list. Read closely, and learn something. Have heard that about CEE (which we now know is crap...) and can recall people raving about Serum Creatine back in the day, which went the way of the Do Do Bird for a reason, it didn't do jack sh&^

this list is BS.
Because going on anecdotal bro science is a much better way to go...
 
chocolatemilk

chocolatemilk

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
PLEASE GIVE US THE STUDY THAT PUTS KRE-ALKALYN INTO THE GRAVEYARD.

BS walks for sure on this one.

You claim kre-alkalyn is in the graveyard, so the burden of proof rests on you. You made the claim.. Let's see the study OP. Please OP let's see the study that put Kre-alk in the graveyard list and not your ranting that put it there.
 
goonstopher

goonstopher

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Which has no bearing on how it would get on the list. Read closely, and learn something. Have heard that about CEE (which we now know is crap...) and can recall people raving about Serum Creatine back in the day, which went the way of the Do Do Bird for a reason, it didn't do jack sh&^



Because going on anecdotal bro science is a much better way to go...
Actually - As you learn more about bodybuilding, yes anecdotal evidence means a lot more to me.

Putting on muscle is more of an art than a science
 
chocolatemilk

chocolatemilk

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
How/why they are on the list is covered in the article. Read it closely. :fing02:
Wth are you talking about? Nowhere does it say Kre-alk is inferior to creatine mono here is the study to prove it anywhere in the OP's statement.

He just claims its in the graveyard out of no science. Then the OP expects US to find studies that get get it outta the graveyard.. Bulls***. You made a claim and put it there, let us see why. We have nothing to prove to get it outta there.
 

Will Brink

New member
Awards
0
PLEASE GIVE US THE STUDY THAT PUTS KRE-ALKALYN INTO THE GRAVEYARD.
Again, read closer: you supply the study that keeps it OUT of the graveyard. The major claims of the company are not supported by real data. Basic tenet of science: the burden of proof is with those who make the claims,ergo "creatine is stable" or "creatine is not well absorbed" and so on... Creatines are in the graveyard because they (1) have no data to support claims of being superior to CM or (2) there's data showing it's inferior, or at best, the equal to CM.

It's not rocket science son. Now, regarding the science, or lack there of, of that particular creatine product, a solid review can be found doing a google search for:

"Review: Kre-Alkalyn Buffered Creatine" which should be top of the page.

I can't post URLs it appears.

She covers the topic in depth using what exists for data, claims, etc
 
chocolatemilk

chocolatemilk

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Again, read closer: you supply the study that keeps it OUT of the graveyard. The major claims of the company are not supported by real data. Basic tenet of science: the burden of proof is with those who make the claims,ergo "creatine is stable" or "creatine is not well absorbed" and so on... Creatines are in the graveyard because they (1) have no data to support claims of being superior to CM or (2) there's data showing it's inferior, or at best, the equal to CM.

It's not rocket science son.
Son, kre-alkalyn is just buffered creatine monohydrate.. If anything, just the fact that it is buffered makes it superior. If you understand Biology you will understand how important PH buffers are in many areas of Biology and Chemistry. This is no different.

OP should do a some searching and know there have been a few studies done on Kre-Alk and Creatine mono before saying there is none ..Brah

http://www.elitedeliverytech.com/clinical.pdf

It is thought that creatinine is the reason for most if not all the negative side effects of creatine. Kre-alk claims to lower creatinine levels when dosing creatine. This study supports it. There are others.

So, if creatinine is behind negative sides.. and kre-alk is proven to be more stable and less conversion to creatinine, than kre-alks claims of less negative sides are true.
 

Will Brink

New member
Awards
0
Then the OP expects US to find studies that get get it outta the graveyard..
There are no studies dumb ass, that's the point. I do research for a living, read studies all damn day, do consulting work to supp companies, and have been published in a few studies, etc. etc. As you clearly have no science education/background for the conversation, use what ever form of creatine make you happy.

Basic critical thinking skills, use 'em or lose 'em.
 

Will Brink

New member
Awards
0
This study supports it. There are others.

So, if creatinine is behind negative sides.. and kre-alk is proven to be more stable and less conversion to creatinine, than kre-alks claims of less negative sides are true.
That you posted the above only tells me how little you really understand the topic and how easy to fool you are. Pitiful, but typical, and common.

Good luck with your science education.
 
chocolatemilk

chocolatemilk

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
a solid review can be found doing a google search for:

"Review: Kre-Alkalyn Buffered Creatine" which should be top of the page.

I can't post URLs it appears.

She covers the topic in depth using what exists for data, claims, etc
LOL thanks for helping out.
 

Will Brink

New member
Awards
0
LOL thanks for helping out.
Here ya go. Does a good job of cover all the bogus claims, etc:

Review: Kre-Alkalyn Buffered Creatine

"The secret is out: Kre-Alkalyn is the biggest breakthrough in bodybuilding technology since the release of creatine monohydrate!"

This quote is from one of the many ads used to sell Kre-Alkalyn to the bodybuilding world. Of course, Kre-Alkalyn has been around for a few years now, so it's not exactly a secret anymore.

What is Kre-Alkalyn? Simply put, Kre-Alkalyn is...creatine monohydrate. So how can creatine monohydrate be a bigger breakthrough than, well, creatine monohydrate? According to U.S. Patent #6,399,661, Kre-Alkalyn isn't any old creatine monohydrate—it's been treated with alkaline salts to render a high pH when dissolved in water.

Why does that matter? According to the patent:

"Research has shown that known creatine delivery systems actually have the human body ingesting creatinine, a poison and toxic byproduct. It is believed that the main reason for complaints resulting from creatine consumption, namely, stomach cramps, edema, bloodedness and dehydration, is caused by the body's defense to this toxic compound.

The known oral creatine supplements are dissolved in acidic solutions having a pH range of from 3-6. Research has shown that at these pH levels, the rate of conversion of creatine to creatinine is almost instantaneous."

So according to "research," we're being poisoned by our creatine supplements! Just add water and kaboom—instant creatinine.

Jeffrey Golini, the inventor of Kre-Alkalyn and founder of All-American Pharmaceutical & Natural Foods Corporation, conducted this research using Near Infrared Analysis (NIR). Golini claims his research also showed that creatine conversion to creatinine is reduced in alkaline solutions—and is effectively zero at pH 12. This is the rationale for Kre-Alkalyn: its high pH supposedly ensures it will be 100% stable in solution.

No creatinine conversion = no side effects = more creatine available to your muscles—or so the reasoning goes. Since Kre-Alkalyn has never been tested in humans under controlled conditions, there's no direct proof. Thus the case "for" Kre-Alkalyn rests on the case against regular creatine monohydrate. Let's see how the charges stand up to examination, one by one.

1. Regular creatine monohydrate converts to creatinine within minutes of being dissolved in liquid.

To be blunt, Golini's research has never been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. This means his data has never been examined or verified by other researchers familiar with creatine monohydrate or NIR measurements. All we have is Golini's word to go on.

Independent research tells a different story. Dr. Roger Harris, for example, demonstrated that creatine monohydrate was completely stable in water for up to 8 hours at room temperature; and that subsequent degradation over 3 days was quite low. In his own patent, Dr. Harris also stated: "...the conversion of creatine to creatinine at acidic pH is actually sufficiently slow as to allow physiologically useful amounts of creatine to remain...after considerable periods of time."

More recently, NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance spectroscopy) experiments by Dr. Tony Wallner of Barry University confirmed that creatine is quite stable when dissolved in water. According to Dr. Wallner, he and his students "...found creatine to be stable in water solutions for much longer periods of time than minutes (more on the order of weeks)."*

There is indirect evidence as well, in the form of human studies that measured serum creatinine after subjects consumed creatine dissolved in liquids such as water, coffee or tea. According to a review article based on 9 such studies (Ann Pharmacother. 2005 Jun;39(6):1093-6.), "...creatine supplementation minimally impacts creatinine concentrations." This would not be true if the creatine used in these studies degraded to creatinine before the subjects drank it; or from exposure to stomach acid.

To make a long story short, the claim that creatine rapidly converts to creatinine in liquid just doesn't hold water.

2. The conversion process of creatine to creatinine is pH dependent.

This is partially true: according to Dr. Harris's data, creatine breakdown after 3 days in solution at 25o C was 4%, 12% and 21% at pH 5.5, 4.5, and 3.5, respectively. The influence of pH is real enough, but even under acidic conditions, creatine breakdown is hardly "near spontaneous."

3. Creatinine is a dangerous 'bio-waste' material and is responsible for creatine side effects.

It's true that creatinine is a waste product of creatine metabolism. In blood/urine tests, it's used as a marker to identify possible kidney problems. There is zero data, however, to show that creatinine toxicity is responsible for the occasional side effects associated with creatine.

In fact, it's doubtful that the modest increase in serum creatinine seen with creatine supplementation causes any toxic effects. After all, creatine monohydrate is more than just a sports nutrition supplement—it's also used therapeutically, to help people with neurodegenerative diseases and genetic defects in creatine metabolism. It's even been given "orphan drug" status for use in clinical trials for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's Disease).

In other words, creatine monohydrate is used to treat sick people. This would be inconceivable if creatinine "toxicity" was a genuine risk.

4. Kre-Alkalyn is more stable than regular creatine monohydrate.

Needless to state, this contention rests on the premise that creatine monohydrate is inherently unstable under normal conditions of use... which—as noted above—is debatable. As we've seen, creatine monohydrate is quite stable "as is"... something that's even more stable is nice, I suppose, but probably not necessary.

But is it actually true? What proof is there, beyond Jeff Golini's claims, that Kre-Alkalyn actually is more stable? Could it be the same... or even less stable than creatine monohydrate?

Interestingly enough, this question was raised over two years ago, by Dr. Mark Tallon and Dr. Robert Child. In 2007, they presented a poster titled Kre-alkalyn® supplementation has no beneficial effect on creatine-to-creatinine conversion rate at the annual International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) conference in Las Vegas. Here's the money quote from their abstract:

"In contrast to the claims of All American Pharmaceutical and Natural Foods Corp., the rate of creatinine formation from CM was found to be less than 1% of the initial dose, demonstrating that CM is extremely stable under acidic conditions that replicate those of the stomach. This study also showed that KA supplementation actually resulted in 35% greater conversion of creatine to creatinine than CM. In conclusion the conversion of creatine to creatinine is not a limitation in the delivery of creatine from CM and KA is less stable than CM in the acid conditions of the stomach."

Unfortunately, the abstract caught fire on the internet, as it "proved" Kre-Alkalyn was actually less stable than creatine monohydrate. All-American Pharmaceuticals and Natural Foods Corp. reacted by demanding a retraction from Tallon and Child, then filiing a lawsuit against them for "intentional interference with economic relations" and "business libel".

For the record, the company recently won a default judgement, as Tallon/Child failed to respond to the suit. In fact, they have yet to publish their data in any peer-reviewed journal, despite their insistence (in prior correspondence) that a manuscript was being prepared.

To be honest, I have little interest in who ultimately wins (or loses) this particular fracas. But it just so happens that the complaint provides information about Kre-Alkalyn stability lacking on All American's web site (where Kre-Alkalyn stability is presumed). Evidently two independent tests were performed under the auspices of Royal Knight Inc. (a research and consulting company). According to the summary in Exhibit D:

"...The Bulgarian laboratory used the Jaffe reaction quantitative, [sic] for the purpose of determining the amount of creatinine generated from any Kre-alkalyn degradation detectable at fixed time points (10 - 20 - 30 -, and 60 minute, respectively), under acetic [sic] pH conditions (1.2, 4.5, and 6.8, respectively). Multiple duplicated runs of Kre-alkalyn under these conditions generated data which indicated an average of approximately 12.5 micrograms (+ 1.5 micrograms) of creatinine per every one-milligram of creatine in the sample, irrespective of when the sample was assayed...

...The Tucson laboratory used the Jaffe reaction to observe the reaction kinetics (the rate of any creatine-to-creatinine reaction). Creatine (buffered at pH 12) was subjected to degradation at physiological temperature over the course of 120 minutes. Data indicated that the transformation proceeded very, very slowly...

Based on the test results generated, Kre-alkalyn appears generally stable under physiological temperature, in a wide range of pHs".

Although this data is just as tentative as Tallon's/Child's, it's reasonable to take it at face value. While it doesn't answer the "more-or-less" question directly, it confirms Kre-Alkalyn is sufficiently stable under physiological conditions to do what most people expect from a creatine supplement.

Ironically, the same conclusion can be drawn from Tallon's and Child's abstract. Although the wording is (unnecessarily) dramatic, in reality, "35% greater" than "less than 1%" is still a pretty small number. Under the circumstances, I doubt the difference reported would be physiologically relevant.

At any rate, taking points #1–#4 into consideration, there isn't much of a case "for" Kre-Alkalyn... at least at this point. All American Pharmaceutical and Natural Foods Corp. appears to be trying to make one, however. As of this writing, four "studies" are posted on All American's web site, but—just like Tallon's and Child's abstract—critical details are lacking, and none are peer-reviewed.

So what's the bottom line? Well, for one thing, Kre-Alkalyn is still creatine monohydrate. While there are no reliable studies confirming Kre-Alkalyn effectiveness, there are anecdotal reports from users who swear by it. It's not expensive and apparently not harmful, so it remains as one of the many alternatives to regular creatine monohydrate on the market.

Nonetheless, potential users should choose a creatine supplement with eyes wide open, and not on the basis of misleading advertising claims. As Paul has written in detail, regular creatine monohydrate is a safe and effective supplement for anyone wishing to improve performance and increase lean body mass—and anyone who tells you differently is selling something.
 
chocolatemilk

chocolatemilk

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
That you posted the above only tells me how little you really understand the topic and how easy to fool you are. Pitiful, but typical, and common.

Good luck with your science education.
Ummmm excuse me.. OP wanted studies done by the company's who claim kre-alk to be better. All American EFX did that study. All American EFX make kre-alk. They say it was better. That is exactly what OP wanted to get it outta the graveyard.
 
chocolatemilk

chocolatemilk

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
And for all that bull you just posted about creatine not converting to creatinine..find me a peer-reviewed study that shows that not a google article. Creatinine is developed in the BODY through METABOLISM of Creatine. Creatinine is not developed in water or juice lol.

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/106/3/371

Read up my friend. You take creatine. You piss out creatinine. You don't drink creatinine when creatine is mixed with water lol.
 
chocolatemilk

chocolatemilk

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Where are the sources your google article cited from?? They don't seem to be found there. It is only citations with no works cited. Hmmm....
 

Similar threads


Top