responders and non-responders
- 08-29-2004, 02:46 PM
responders and non-responders
AcuteSupplementation: A Descriptive Physiological Profile of Responders vs. Nonresponders.
Syrotuik DG, Bell GJ.
Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Syrotuik, D.G., and G.J. Bell. Acute creatine monohydrate supplementation: a descriptive physiological profile of responders vs. nonresponders. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18(3):610- 617. 2004.-The purpose of this study was to describe the physiological profile of responders (>20 mmol.kg(-1) dry weight [dw] increase in total intramuscular creatine monohydrate [Cr] + phosphorylated creatine [PCr]) versus nonresponders (<10 mmol.kg(-1) dw increase) to a 5-day Cr load (0.3 g.kg(-1).d(-1)) in 11 healthy men (mean age = 22.7 years). Pre-post 5-day cellular measures included total resting Cr content (Cr + PCr), fiber type composition, and fiber type cross-sectional area (CSA) determined from muscle biopsies of the vastus lateralis. Body mass, daily dietary intake, 24-hour urine outputs, urinary Cr and creatinine (CrN), and strength performance measures (1 repetition maximum [1RM] bench and leg press) were also assessed before and after the 5-day loading period. Results indicated that there were 3 levels of response to the 5-day supplementation: responders (R), quasi responders (QR), and nonresponders (NR) with mean changes in resting Cr + PCr of 29.5 mmol.kg(-1) dw (n = 3), 14.9 mmol.kg(-1) dw (n = 5), and 5.1 mmol.kg(-1) dw (n = 3), respectively. The results support a person-by-treatment interaction to acute Cr supplementation with R possessing a biological profile of lowest initial levels of Cr + PCr, greatest percentage of type II fibers, and greatest preload muscle fiber CSA and fat-free mass. Responders also showed improvement in 1RM leg press scores following the 5-day loading period. NR had higher preload levels of Cr + PCr, less type II muscle fibers, small preload muscle CSA, and lower fat-free mass and displayed no improvements in 1RM strength scores. The results suggest that to be considered a responder to acute oral supplementation, a favorable preexisting biological profile may determine the final extent to which an individual responds to supplementation. Physiologic profiles of nonresponders appear to be different and may limit their ability to uptake Cr. This may help partially explain the reported equivocal performance findings in the Cr supplementation literature.
PMID: 15320650 [PubMed - in process]
- 08-29-2004, 03:48 PM
I was a non responder to creatine untill I raised the dose.
I have to take 15 grams a day in three divided doses as a maintenance level to get the effects.
I believe the recommended mainenance dose is too low for most BB's especially if you weigh over 200lbs.
08-29-2004, 04:06 PM
The body can't actually absorb 5g of creatine at once. It's believed that the reason you get better results at higher dosages is due to the fact that you are taking it more than once a day, so the body is able to absorb more.
08-29-2004, 04:23 PM
08-29-2004, 04:29 PM
I would expect it depends on the individual. I once heard that guys in the NFL take 3g a day. Additionally, the newer forms of creatine like 2CM or CEE are effective at dosages of 5g (split dosing) a day or less.
09-09-2004, 05:13 PM
Originally Posted by Dan
Thats ****ing ridiculous!. The reason for non-responders is a problem geting the creatine into the muscle cells. You are make a very bold, but ludicris statement. Most creatine products come with at least a 5g serving!. Don't even try to argue because you won't win!. You must have been high when you posted that!
09-09-2004, 05:48 PM
Look tough guy, read the thread. I never said this was the reason for non-responders, I said that 5g servings of creatine are not necessary as the body is incapable of absorbing 5g of creatine at one time. People on this board post in a civil manner and get the facts straight before they flame, let's try and keep it that way.Originally Posted by T-Bone
09-09-2004, 06:33 PM
09-09-2004, 07:18 PM
lets see, why would companies make there servings more than necesary? it is pretty easy to figure out. i have read that some people take something like 5, 2 mg servings a day with good results.
09-09-2004, 07:24 PM
Originally Posted by DanThis doesn't make sense, because using your words, I am still only responding because I get a total of 9 grams a day.Originally Posted by Dan
5 grams three times a day with the body absorbing only 3 grams each time is still 9 grams total per day to see any effects.
09-09-2004, 07:58 PM
09-09-2004, 08:35 PM
Yea I know what you mean, I was simply saying that 5 gms is more than you need at once... even though this doesn't really matter since creatine is dirt cheap anyhow. I don't know how this got blown out of proportion, you guys are taking this totally the wrong way. The whole reason I started this post was to let people see the study, but it looks like this post went waaaay off on a tangent.Originally Posted by DragonRider
09-09-2004, 10:39 PM
Originally Posted by DanI wouldn't say way off.Originally Posted by Dan
I was simply disagreeing with the study's findings based upon my personal experience of responding at levels higher than is typically accepted.
09-09-2004, 11:53 PM
You are considering the total gm taken/day whereas Dan is talking about cumulatively taking the same amount through divided doses...Originally Posted by DragonRider
So let's say (hypothetically) this theory is correct. Taking a 10 gm serving 1 x day would yield a total assimilation of 3 gm/day in contrast to taking 3 gm 3 x day yielding a total of 9 gm...
09-10-2004, 06:43 AM
Actually, I'm saying it HAS to be taken in divided doses throughout the day irregardless of how much the body assimilates at one time. I don't make an argument anywhere for 1 dose a day at any amount. My argument is that the recommended maintainance dose has always been too low.Originally Posted by stryder
Dan's study is saying (if you respond), one 3gm dose a day will suffice even if you are a pro football player ranging in weight from 240 to 340. So, essentially it doesn't matter if you are a 150lb amateur bodybuilder or a 340lb linebacker, 3gm total per day will jack you.
And Dan is saying that if you take 10gms at once you will still only assimilate 3gms for the day. I don't know, so I have no input on that point. My argument there was that if I assumed he was correct, I still have to take 3 servings a day before I see any benefits.
09-10-2004, 11:44 AM
I see what you're saying, but what I got from Dan was that the body cannot absorb 5 gm at one sitting, but the reason or misconception of responders getting the good results was not the dosing but rather the frequency...isn't it funny how two people can hear the exact thing and get varying interpretations
09-10-2004, 12:15 PM
Funny thing I have read about responders and non responders and it seems like everything else body type may have something to do with it..
I never noticed any difference taking 5 grams of monohydrate all it seemed to do is make me a little puffy,but I took it anyway..Now im taking Turbo V-12 by San and this product is noticable difference..After 1 week im fuller thicker and more vascular im sure the other ingredients are helping as well.The tri-creatine Malate seems to work for me..Im not one to boast about a supplement unless I see results..V-12 works
09-10-2004, 01:12 PM
Its . Tricreatine malate cannot exist.Originally Posted by MaDmaN
God knows how San can advertise their product has a product that is actually impossible to make.
09-10-2004, 01:21 PM
09-10-2004, 03:26 PM
I had read also that the body can only absorb so much creatine at a time. I also got that doses spread throughout the day were best. I think I read it on an advertisement for CEE. so it may not be correct?
09-11-2004, 06:28 PM
From what I've heard, CEE works better because it has far higher bioavailability in the gut than monohydrate.
09-11-2004, 06:35 PM
i took a bunch of creatine when it first came out & nothing happened until i started mixing it with a good quantity of simple sugars. i immediatedly bloated up.
09-12-2004, 12:04 AM
Noticed the same...first creatine I tried was Phosphagen HP and the results were amazing as far as size and strength, tried the pure monohydrate (mixed with water) and didn't notice much of anything. Interested to see how Custom's CEE pans out...
Similar Forum Threads
- By CryingEmo in forum SupplementsReplies: 12Last Post: 01-25-2007, 08:49 PM
- By diezzel in forum SupplementsReplies: 20Last Post: 04-07-2005, 07:15 PM
- By kwyckemynd00 in forum General ChatReplies: 19Last Post: 09-26-2004, 07:03 PM
- By swoody in forum SupplementsReplies: 22Last Post: 08-19-2004, 04:18 PM
- By raytrade in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 22Last Post: 01-29-2004, 01:11 AM