1fasts view on CEE...

  1. Board Supporter
    t_dot_porkchop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    37
    Posts
    338
    Rep Power
    298
    Level
    17
    Lv. Percent
    30%

    1fasts view on CEE...


    anyone else read that CEE write up in the latest 1fast newsletter ( YOU CAN READ IT HERE )????

    basically it says how you should still use mono until more research shows that CEE is safe. you think they suspect something is up with the safety and this write up was issued as an "ass coverage"?????

  2. New Member
    mass_builder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    294
    Rep Power
    283
    Level
    15
    Lv. Percent
    50.62%

    The difference between CEE and regular creatine is that CEE has an ethyl ester attached. The main effect of this modification is to increase the lipophilicity of creatine, which makes it so it more easily passes through cell membranes. It is argued that esterfication of creatine prevents creatinine conversion in the GI tract, increases intestinal absorption, and perhaps even allows it to enter muscle cells through passive transport. As far as the first claim goes, conversion of creatine to creatinine in the intestine is quite low, as we have already covered. The issue of whether or not CEE will be more able to pass through the intestine and have a greater bioavailability is less clear. In a patent application for CEE, the support for the claim of improved bioavailability comes from a study in MDCK (Madin-Darby canine kidney) cells, used as a "model for assessing drug permeability." The rate at which CEE was able to pass through these cells was double that of creatine [10].

    There are some readily apparent problems with this study. First, canine cells were used, and it is already known that there are significant interspecies variations in creatine pharmacokinetics. Secondly, kidney cells are (obviously) functionally different from intestinal cells. Third, in vitro studies such as this one (that is, studies that aren’t in actual living animals) are often poor predictors of how drugs will behave in the real world. Fourth, the "research" in patent applications is notoriously unreliable. Finally, even if we take this study to be an accurate predictor of how CEE will work in humans, it only shows double the absorption rate, and certainly doesn’t provide warrant for the common claims of ten or even forty times the bioavailability. Even if something absorbs more slowly, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t capable of being fully absorbed - it could just take longer. This is called "extended release," and in many cases it is a good thing.

    Let us assume, for the moment, that CEE is twice as bioavailable. Since we can say that it is likely that at least 50% of administered creatine monohydrate makes it to the bloodstream (see the above section), it is very unlikely that the comparative bioavailability of CEE is greater than this. Even at the best price, CEE is still over twice as much as creatine monohydrate on a per gram basis. Remember, "less bioavailable" doesn’t mean "worse" if you can just take twice as much and get the exact same effect for less money.
  3. Senior Member
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,108
    Rep Power
    679
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    64.07%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Mike ( i say his name like I know the guy) has seemed to always had this "fear". I can remember when CEE first came out he would post how he didn't think it would be around long and or.. how he would have the amount he had and now sell it til he got the "OK" or something about the FDA
    •   
       

  4. Board Supporter
    doggzj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    30
    Posts
    951
    Rep Power
    598
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    45.08%

    It's that CEE isn't a natural compound, which causes problems
  5. Elite Member
    Matthew D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,014
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    46
    Lv. Percent
    99.55%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    **** doggzj, most all of the supplements that are taken are not natural compounds.. damn..
  6. Advanced Member
    Odessa14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    566
    Rep Power
    412
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    15.35%

    Seems to me the worry is the "passive transport" and if this is possible in the brain....

    It is kind of worrysome that Mike put this on his site...

    But I'm not sure....hopefully we can get some bros here to chime-in on the science
  7. Elite Member
    bioman's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    7,714
    Rep Power
    513546
    Level
    59
    Lv. Percent
    89.71%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    I didn't take that article as anything menacing or forboding at all. They state what is known and ask some valid questions. I don't view that as a bad thing.

    I have to give them credit for being objective and pointing out that there are virtually no peer reviewed human studies on CEE. We have no data that shows it is vastly superior to creatine mono and we have no data on toxicity or long term health effects. Valid statement.

    Anecdotally i think it does work far better than mono if for no other reason than it is easier to dose. Creatine mono dosing has to be timed right and disolved right and even then you can still get the ****s or have it not absorb properly.
  8. Advanced Member
    x_muscle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    640
    Rep Power
    85481
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    25.8%

    Transportation of a substance in a biological system is a very complicated process.Absorption and transport of a substance often involve its solubility in the medium. Substances prefer to dissolve in water type fluid are said to be hydrophilic, whereas those prefer to dissolve in oily fluids are lipophilic. Absorption and transport of substances depend on their solubility in water and lipid media. The ultimate effect on cells, tissues, and organs must take place at the molecular level. However, effects at the molecular level are often not observable, and the symptoms of these effects may appear to be unrelated to the material in question.

    Passive diffusion of a chemical is based on the difference in concentration of the chemical between the outside of the cell as compared to inside the cell. The greater the difference in concentration between the outside and the inside, the greater the diffusion of the chemical to the inside of the cell.

    the ability of the chemical to diffuse across the membrane will be dependent on the lipophilic (fat loving) properties of the chemical. but that doesnt mean that molecule would be able to cross brain barrier if they cross cell mebrane easily, but most lipophilic substancec cross brain barier. molecular weight shoud be less than 5000 daltons in this case.

    here is study suggest relation between substance lipophilic nature and crossing BBB.
    -------------------------------------------------------

    Blood-brain barrier permeation: molecular parameters governing passive diffusion.

    Fischer H, Gottschlich R, Seelig A.

    Department of Biophysical Chemistry, Biocenter of the University of Basel, Klingelbergstr, 70, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland.

    53 compounds with clinically established ability to cross or not to cross the blood-brain barrier by passive diffusion were characterized by means of surface activity measurements in terms of three parameters, i.e., the air-water partition coefficient, Kaw, the critical micelle concentration, CMCD, and the cross-sectional area, AD. A three-dimensional plot in which the surface area, AD, is plotted as a function of K-1aw and CMCD shows essentially three groups of compounds: (i) very hydrophobic compounds with large air-water partition coefficients and large cross-sectional areas, AD > 80 A2 which do not cross the blood-brain barrier, (ii) compounds with lower air-water partition coefficients and an average cross-sectional area, AD congruent with 50 A2 which easily cross the blood-brain barrier, and (iii) hydrophilic compounds with low air-water partition coefficients (AD < 50 A2) which cross the blood-brain barrier only if applied at high concentrations. It was shown that the lipid membrane-water partition coefficient, Klw, measured previously, can be correlated with the air-water partition coefficient if the additional work against the internal lateral bilayer pressure, pibi = 34 +/- 4 mN/m is taken into account. The partitioning into anisotropic lipid membranes decreases exponentially with increasing cross-sectional areas, AD, according to Klw = const. Kaw exp(-ADpibi/kT) where kT is the thermal energy. The cross-sectional area of the molecule oriented at a hydrophilic-hydrophobic interface is thus the main determinant for membrane permeation provided the molecule is surface active and has a pKa > 4 for acids and a pKa < 10 for bases


    Increased permeability of the BBB is a feature of many diseases of the central nervous system (CNS)


    peace
  9. Senior Member
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,108
    Rep Power
    679
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    64.07%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    See! I told you!
  10. Banned
    hogiejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    33
    Posts
    250
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    16
    Lv. Percent
    23.01%

    the problem with supplements is all the hype. i have not taken cee but after a few weeks of supplementation of regular creatine monohydrate saturaton is 100%. so how could cee be better besides less ****s. same with ala cmpanies claim it does not work but they produce other versions of it. if it never worked why did the even bother making new versions of it? this is my reasoning for only buying supplements that have been around for a while. i have had excellent results with ala, creatine, sugar and creatine. you just waste to much money sifting through the hype.
  11. Elite Member
    bioman's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    7,714
    Rep Power
    513546
    Level
    59
    Lv. Percent
    89.71%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    I agree to some extent but for me CEE does fill a nice niche. I can take 1-2 small dose a day, not have to worry about loading or gastro distress and best of all you don't have to take it on non workout days if you don't want to. It's just basically paying for convienience and CEE is already dropping in price.


    Creatine Mono works. CEE works. It's nice to have choices.
  12. New Member
    wimpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    138
    Rep Power
    204
    Level
    10
    Lv. Percent
    73.98%

    Quote Originally Posted by doggzj
    It's that CEE isn't a natural compound, which causes problems
    not picking on you, but i hate this hippy idea that anything "natural" is good and anything "unnatural" is bad for you. first you have a problem with the operational definition of "unnatural". what counts as unnatural, anything short of raw uncooked free range hunter-and-gathered food? where do you draw the line? the chicken breasts you can buy at the store are pretty ****ing far from "natural" as far as i am concerned.

    second, there is plenty of 100% straight off the tree all organic "natural" **** that will kill you in a heart beat.

    it comes from this bizarre hippy propagated strain of though the presumes that there was some magic golden time in the past when people were healthier and happier and nobody had any stress and everyone was regular all the time. it just isn't true. no one in the history of the human race has been as healthy or lived as long or ate as well as we do now.

    i'll get off my soap box now. just doing my part to fight hippy ideology where ever i find it.
  13. Board Supporter
    wastedwhiteboy2's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    41
    Posts
    2,990
    Rep Power
    3016
    Level
    38
    Lv. Percent
    59.34%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by wimpy
    not picking on you, but i hate this hippy idea that anything "natural" is good and anything "unnatural" is bad for you. first you have a problem with the operational definition of "unnatural". what counts as unnatural, anything short of raw uncooked free range hunter-and-gathered food? where do you draw the line? the chicken breasts you can buy at the store are pretty ****ing far from "natural" as far as i am concerned.

    second, there is plenty of 100% straight off the tree all organic "natural" **** that will kill you in a heart beat.

    it comes from this bizarre hippy propagated strain of though the presumes that there was some magic golden time in the past when people were healthier and happier and nobody had any stress and everyone was regular all the time. it just isn't true. no one in the history of the human race has been as healthy or lived as long or ate as well as we do now.

    i'll get off my soap box now. just doing my part to fight hippy ideology where ever i find it.
    get him cartman.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. BN's dosage on: CEE,AAKG,CM,BCAA....HELP
    By msucurt in forum Supplements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-20-2006, 02:46 PM
  2. Dave Polumbo's view on IGF-1
    By Dwight Schrute in forum IGF-1/GH
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 09-26-2005, 12:22 AM
  3. Cy Wilson's view on M 1-T
    By prolangtum in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-08-2005, 08:32 PM
  4. Basskillers View On IGF-1LR3 PRE-DILUTED
    By Supra in forum IGF-1/GH
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-18-2004, 01:15 AM
  5. Objective view on steriod use
    By Bone in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-27-2003, 08:04 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