Interesting article on Creatine

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. New Member
    EZDUZIT's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  208 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    102
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    9
    Lv. Percent
    69.13%

    Interesting article on Creatine


    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.

  2. Senior Member
    n8te's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,396
    Rep Power
    805
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    61.05%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    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.
  3. Senior Member
    n8te's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,396
    Rep Power
    805
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    61.05%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    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
    •   
       

  4. UKStrength
    Guest
    UKStrength's Avatar

    Cheers for the article mate, it's confirmed my original thoughts about creatine monohydrate. The original and still the best.
  5. Senior Member
    russianstar's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  209 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,322
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    42
    Lv. Percent
    41.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by creiglist View Post
    i just stick to the futckin monohdrat u @$$-hole sucking buIISHlT licking puke wads!
    What an idiot...
    Gause institute member

    Need2slin designer.Product designer/ **** admin.
  6. Senior Member
    russianstar's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  209 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,322
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    42
    Lv. Percent
    41.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    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.
    Gause institute member

    Need2slin designer.Product designer/ **** admin.
  7. Senior Member
    kingdong's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  240 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,849
    Rep Power
    8207
    Level
    39
    Lv. Percent
    0.36%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by russianstar View Post
    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?
  8. Senior Member
    kingdong's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  240 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,849
    Rep Power
    8207
    Level
    39
    Lv. Percent
    0.36%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    What causes the stomach discomfort(I do feel it sometimes), the creatine moleculs or the monohydrate molecule?
  9. Senior Member
    alwaysgaining's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,300
    Rep Power
    1637
    Level
    27
    Lv. Percent
    49.99%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by russianstar View Post
    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.
  10. New Member
    jackedandtan1's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    178
    Rep Power
    159
    Level
    11
    Lv. Percent
    64.97%

    good artical
  11. Senior Member
    kingdong's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  240 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,849
    Rep Power
    8207
    Level
    39
    Lv. Percent
    0.36%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by alwaysgaining View Post
    creatine and glutamine are not hormones, they dont bind to a "receptor" they are organic acids that are use in energy producing processes.
    Thank you for clearing that up.
  12. Senior Member
    kingdong's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  240 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,849
    Rep Power
    8207
    Level
    39
    Lv. Percent
    0.36%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    So, just to be sure, was there an actual article that disproved the creatine malate products?
  13. Senior Member
    kingdong's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  240 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,849
    Rep Power
    8207
    Level
    39
    Lv. Percent
    0.36%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    So, just to be sure, was there an actual article that disproved the creatine malate products?
  14. New Member
    marine0231's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  185 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    71
    Rep Power
    100
    Level
    7
    Lv. Percent
    85.63%

    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.
  15. New Member
    Raladoc's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  189 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Age
    22
    Posts
    64
    Rep Power
    99
    Level
    7
    Lv. Percent
    41.19%

    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
  16. Senior Member
    russianstar's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  209 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,322
    Rep Power
    1266
    Level
    42
    Lv. Percent
    41.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by alwaysgaining View Post
    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.
    Gause institute member

    Need2slin designer.Product designer/ **** admin.
  17. New Member
    Drizzo's Avatar
    Stats
    6'6"  280 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Age
    26
    Posts
    18
    Rep Power
    91
    Level
    3
    Lv. Percent
    92.25%

    And so it is written!
  18. New Member
    scotti326's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3
    Rep Power
    72
    Level
    2
    Lv. Percent
    18.17%

    i recently bought amplified creatine at gnc has anyone heard or used this product?
  19. New Member
    DEADn's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    143
    Rep Power
    149
    Level
    10
    Lv. Percent
    90.26%

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





    Quote Originally Posted by EZDUZIT View Post
    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.
  20. New Member
    Logo's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  187 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Age
    32
    Posts
    152
    Rep Power
    147
    Level
    10
    Lv. Percent
    79.03%

    Quote Originally Posted by DEADn View Post
    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.
  21. New Member
    Logo's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  187 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Age
    32
    Posts
    152
    Rep Power
    147
    Level
    10
    Lv. Percent
    79.03%

    Quote Originally Posted by russianstar View Post
    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
  22. Banned
    gamer2be08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,988
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    54
    Lv. Percent
    17.08%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Logo View Post
    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...
  23. New Member
    Will Brink's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    25
    Rep Power
    101
    Level
    4
    Lv. Percent
    57.21%

    Quote Originally Posted by DEADn View Post
    How does the following become the graveyard? .
    How is covered in the article. Read it closely, and you will have your answer.
  24. New Member
    rush808's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  150 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    203
    Rep Power
    173
    Level
    12
    Lv. Percent
    48.53%

    ^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.
  25. New Member
    surreallmlan's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  235 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    28
    Rep Power
    86
    Level
    5
    Lv. Percent
    7.23%

    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.
  26. New Member
    swan1209's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  160 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    250
    Rep Power
    205
    Level
    12
    Lv. Percent
    95.1%

    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?
  27. New Member
    Will Brink's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    25
    Rep Power
    101
    Level
    4
    Lv. Percent
    57.21%

    Quote Originally Posted by surreallmlan View Post
    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.
  28. Advanced Member
    CaponeCEO's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Age
    33
    Posts
    694
    Rep Power
    459
    Level
    21
    Lv. Percent
    5.06%

    Quote Originally Posted by scotti326 View Post
    i recently bought amplified creatine at gnc has anyone heard or used this product?
    Yes I have heard of it. It's other name is expensive-urine.
  29. New Member
    alexchamp's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    20
    Rep Power
    69
    Level
    4
    Lv. Percent
    8.03%

    wow cool. nice read thanks for sharing!
  30. New Member
    Will Brink's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    25
    Rep Power
    101
    Level
    4
    Lv. Percent
    57.21%

    Quote Originally Posted by kingdong View Post
    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.
  31. New Member
    Will Brink's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    25
    Rep Power
    101
    Level
    4
    Lv. Percent
    57.21%

    Quote Originally Posted by DEADn View Post
    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.
  32. New Member
    goonstopher's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  206 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Age
    32
    Posts
    386
    Rep Power
    253
    Level
    17
    Lv. Percent
    24.21%

    Tricreatine orate seems to be unanimously loved by all users... this list is BS.
  33. New Member
    Will Brink's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    25
    Rep Power
    101
    Level
    4
    Lv. Percent
    57.21%

    Quote Originally Posted by goonstopher View Post
    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&^

    Quote Originally Posted by goonstopher View Post
    this list is BS.
    Because going on anecdotal bro science is a much better way to go...
  34. Professional Member
    chocolatemilk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  207 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,804
    Rep Power
    9975
    Level
    43
    Lv. Percent
    63.44%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    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.
  35. New Member
    goonstopher's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  206 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Age
    32
    Posts
    386
    Rep Power
    253
    Level
    17
    Lv. Percent
    24.21%

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Brink View Post
    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
  36. Professional Member
    chocolatemilk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  207 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,804
    Rep Power
    9975
    Level
    43
    Lv. Percent
    63.44%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Brink View Post
    How/why they are on the list is covered in the article. Read it closely.
    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.
  37. New Member
    Will Brink's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    25
    Rep Power
    101
    Level
    4
    Lv. Percent
    57.21%

    Quote Originally Posted by chocolatemilk View Post
    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
  38. Professional Member
    chocolatemilk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  207 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,804
    Rep Power
    9975
    Level
    43
    Lv. Percent
    63.44%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Brink View Post
    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.
  39. New Member
    Will Brink's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    25
    Rep Power
    101
    Level
    4
    Lv. Percent
    57.21%

    Quote Originally Posted by chocolatemilk View Post
    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.
  40. New Member
    Will Brink's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    25
    Rep Power
    101
    Level
    4
    Lv. Percent
    57.21%

    Quote Originally Posted by chocolatemilk View Post
    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.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Interesting article
    By LG Sciences in forum LG Sciences
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-28-2010, 10:36 PM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-08-2008, 11:20 PM
  3. Interesting Article
    By T-Bone in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-24-2007, 06:08 PM
  4. Interesting little article
    By myfathersboy in forum Exercise Science
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-07-2006, 03:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in