CEE & water retention (bloat)
- 06-29-2006, 09:03 PM
CEE & water retention (bloat)
I'm trying to find out if using CEE will eliminate the (water retention) bloat I used to get from creatine mono? I haven't used any creatine in years and was reading up on CEE and micronized creatine...I came to the conclusion that CEE is the better choice and I'm thinking that there wouldn't be any bloating...but, I wanted to know what you guys thought or have seen by using CEE. Thanks
I was looking at Cellmass (BSN) if there are better suggetions let me know.
- 06-29-2006, 09:25 PM
From most reports, the consensus is that it does not cause typical creatine bloat. If you want a really good CEE produt with loads of extras and great price/serving I would go with Chaos by Anabolic Innovations. Preliminary logs are good, and I'm excited to get mine.
Originally Posted by halljo
- 06-30-2006, 04:19 PM
My experience has been that the whole "less water retention" selling point of CEE has been way overhyped. I experienced just as much water retention if not more with CEE than regular monohydrate. In addition to that, many people including myself have experienced kidney problems with CEE. Here's a previous post documenting the phenomena: http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...hyl-ester.html
There are also a few threads on the bodybuilding.com board about CEE kidney troubles.
I hear Kre-Alkalyn products are pretty good for avoiding bloat. I picked up a bottle, but haven't been able to try it since my body is still saturated with CEE. I'd be interested to hear what someone who's tried a Kre-Alkalyn product like Pump Juice has to say about water retention.
06-30-2006, 11:20 PM
06-30-2006, 11:30 PM
The effectiveness in CEE lies behind how the Creatine molecule itself was modified. Adding the two carbon Ethyl group I believe acts in much the same way a one carbon Methyl group does in allowing more of the actual compound into the bloodstream. Adding the Ester group makes the Creatine Lipid soluble. In turn, as opposed to sitting outside the cell wall in diverted water as Monohydrate did, the Creatine Ethyl Ester permeates the cell wall and has a greater chance of carrying out it's intended process.
Keep in mind I don't know ****.
07-01-2006, 12:01 AM
I didnt bloat at all, and to me hearing all of those things about water retention and kidney problems just sounds like people arent drinking enough water. LEts say your taking creatine, on a high protein diet (like most of us) that is stressful on the body if your h20 is low. Drink up, and I can tell you that you will most likely be fine with it.Originally Posted by ocyeoman
07-01-2006, 01:46 AM
From what I've been reading, which is also detailed in the kidney thread posted above, I am now thinking the whole idea of CEE is pure bunk. CEE products appear to all be variations of creatine mono + baking soda or other junk, with a lot of creatinine byproduct.
I never thought CEE caused bloating, but that's because I look in the mirror everyday and can't notice subtle changes. I looked at recent pictures of myself from parties, and I've definately been sporting a bloated face. I'm off CEE for good now likely, just sticking with the herbal anabolics.
07-01-2006, 01:57 AM
Definitely not on base with that comment. The science behind it is sound. Baking soda? If you call the addition of an Ethyl (Alkyl) group and an Ester to Creatinine, than yeah it's baking sodaOriginally Posted by SubliminalX
07-01-2006, 02:13 AM
Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
The science is bogus. How can you react a substance with Creatine Monohydrate to end up with a Creatine product when it degrades to Creatinine in liquid?
But, you said a mouthful in your statement. Adding an ethyl ester to CREATININE. That is absolutely useless in terms of bodybuilding and strength training and potentially harmful. I'm not a chemist or a biologist by training, so please enlighten me as to how supplementing with CREATININE is of any use to any of us.
And to the person claiming that people experiencing negative sides with CEE aren't drinking enough water: sorry, but you are wrong. I drink several full Nalgenes a day just to give myself a reason to leave my desk during the day. I drink enough. I drink possibly even way too much water yet CEE wrecked me. Read the thread before passing judgement. Everyone's body chemisty/dosage/training is different.
07-01-2006, 08:11 AM
your right, but I dunno your doses of the CEE and several other factos that could effect hydration. I love CEE. It works for most people, I can count on one hand how many ppl I have heard said it was bogus. These are almost always the same people who say that drink several bottles of water a day but dont know how many gallons.
07-01-2006, 09:56 AM
Stating that Creatine degrades to Creatinine in the blood is akin to stating injested food turns to feces, not an enlightening statement, and completely irregardless of the purpose to eating food. CEE does not neccessarily modify the Creatine itself, yet the way in which it is transported, and absorbed by your body. Adding an Ester makes the Creatine far more lipid soluble, I would hope given the structure of the human being you can figure out why that would be peneficial to passive permeation into the cellOriginally Posted by ocyeoman
If you need to find refuge in your weak argument by harping on a spelling mistake I made at three o'clock in the morning, take it elsewhere.Originally Posted by ocyeoman
You are right, I will ignore the legitimate science behind CEE because of your hypothesis that it "wrecked you" which I am sure you derived at in a very democratic matter.Originally Posted by ocyeoman
Exactly. If you had a bad experience with CEE, that is fine. However, that does not make the science behind it any less sound, I believe it would benefit you to do some research.Originally Posted by ocyeoman
07-01-2006, 10:47 AM
Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
07-01-2006, 12:34 PM
CEE is da bomb, WAYYYYYYYY better than monohydrate, no bloat, no ****s, no upset stomach, just awesome recovery and strength gains, really shortens the down time between sets.
07-01-2006, 01:32 PM
Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
Alright, let's take a second and breathe here. You misunderstood my post in so many ways I hardly know where to start. Let's have informed discourse as opposed to a shouting match. Also, I didn't realize you were making a spelling mistake. There is no need to be snide nor is there any need to be condescending.
First, you are countering points I never made. I wasn't trying to say that creatine (ee or mono) degrade in the bloodstream into creatinine. You are right. That is a given. I was trying to make the point that you can't chemically react creatine monohydrate in the manufacturing process with an acid (as is the method used to manufacture CEE) and expect it not to degrade into creatinine. Creatine monohydrate is synthesized by reacting sarcosine and cyanamide. This is the only way to synthesize creatine. To create this new compound creatine ethyl ester, one would have to take finished monohydrate and react it with another substance. The problem arises in that creatine monohydrate is unstable in liquids. Thus the end result of the reaction will be a derivitive of creatinine not creatine. Here is research attesting to this.
So, you keep mentioning how sound the science behind CEE is. Please point me in the direction of said science. I've done my research. The stuff is garbage. Here is some more reading from fda.gov regarding the safety of CEE. It details a study in which five subjects were administered 5g of CEE a day. Of the five one developed higher than acceptable serum creatinine levels of 1.7 mg/dl. Not extraordinarily high, but it does give one pause. If an adverse effect occurred in such a small sample size what does that say of the population at large? What would happen with a much larger sample size?
Additionally, I never stated that CEE was bunk because it wrecked me. My point was that one should take caution because many people have experienced problems with it, including myself.
07-01-2006, 02:13 PM
That was an interesting article, albeit only one, but nevertheless interesting. I could not access the University of Nebraska at Lincoln's research on CEE, but it may do you a service to read it. Your other link did not workOriginally Posted by ocyeoman
I think we are arguing about two completely different things, the fact that Creatine degrades to Creatinine is moot, no matter how you modify Creatine it will be converted to Creatinine. The Ethyl Ester attached to Creatine gives it Lipholic ability, the Estrases cleave to the Ethyl Ester bond as opposed to the Creatine itself, allowing more of the salt base to permeate the cell.
Also, I am not sure how I was condescending. If I was it was no doubt a reciprocation of the attitude in your post.
07-01-2006, 03:32 PM
What's advertised by supp companies, and what's actually in the products are often different things. I don't have a direct link, but in the kidney thread there was a reference to some third party analysis posted on BB.com about CEE products:Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
"After carefully reviewing every creatine ethyl ester available on the market place the following results were found: A) All are regular creatine monohydrate mixed with an acid or without."
I'll post a link later if I can find it. You may feel you do well on CEE without bloat, and I felt that way for the longest time too. But it was all placebo. My face is definately bloated from CEE, much in the same way I was on regular creatine mono. And now that I think about it, I've likely just been taking regular creatine mono with additional crap in it (thinking it was CEE). I've been suckered for the past year, and I'm willing to admit that. Live and learn.
07-01-2006, 05:59 PM
Both my cycles of CEE (month on and month off) have been nice. They didn't give me gains that were outstanding to regular mono but almost the same. Only difference for me was that CEE didn't cause bloat. Strength and endurance were the same using either one. As far as the kidney issue goes, I've only seen where a couple of people have had problems in that area. Other than that the majority hasn't had any problems.
07-01-2006, 06:31 PM
Sorry about that. I fixed the link. I also apologize if you percieved any attitude in my previous post. That wasn't the spirt in which I wrote it. Like yourself, I was tired and up late.Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
Maybe we are arguing two separate points. Mine is that I think CEE isn't worthwhile because it isn't real nor is it as safe as mono. Just as you said, if no matter how you react creatine monohydrate you end up with creatinine, then your reaction to attach an ethyl ester actually attaches an ethyl ester to creatinine. Do you want that in your body? CEE is sort of like cold fusion, an interesting idea that is impossible to execute. I think (and have lab reports to back up) that it is just monohydrate plus creatinine and an acid. Check it out here. Mind you, that comes from bb.com's CEE page and was billed as a third party report proving beyond a shadow of doubt the credibility of CEE. They obviously didn't expect anyone to actually read it. The lab that conducted the analysis is also very well known and respected. So I tend to believe their results in spite of the mud slung in their direction from those who profit from CEE.
So whenever you dig up that research please send it my way. I searched high and low for any CEE research and found nothing but studies that cast aspersion on its legitamacy. I'll leave it up to your to search for Creating Ethyl Ester on fda.gov. The papers on fda.gov raise more questions than they answer. I'm surprised they approved the stuff.
07-01-2006, 06:42 PM
What dose did you use to get bloat? To say that its all placebo is a very big statement. Because I have seen pics of myself on mono and CEE, and you cant tell I am on CEE while my friends coudl actually say to me "so you started taking mono again huh?"...Originally Posted by SubliminalX
07-02-2006, 01:35 AM
I was using 1-3 grams per day for about 13 months, BSN Cellmass and Muscletech CEE. If attaching an ester to creatine is not chemically possible (without it degrading to creatinine), then how can it not be placebo? There appears to be no such thing as a stable form of CEE as mentioned above. Hence, I believe I've really been taking a mixture of regular creatine mono and creatinine.Originally Posted by Hbs6
07-02-2006, 02:17 AM
Originally Posted by SubliminalX
You didn't cycle it?
07-02-2006, 11:15 AM
Lets also not forget that eating certain things can cause bloat also...Originally Posted by SubliminalX
07-02-2006, 12:53 PM
Nah, no need. Creatinine levels in my blood were normal the whole time.Originally Posted by Achilles13
07-02-2006, 12:58 PM
I don't disagree. But I've been off for a couple weeks now and I think the puffy cheeks are drying out now. But I'll have to snap some pics to be sure. Much in the same way when I got off creatine mono years back before I started again with CEE last year. Round jaw line --> natural slim jaw line.Originally Posted by Hbs6
But the bottom line is, I don't believe there is such a thing as a stable CEE molecule. We've just all likely been taking good ol' creatine mono under a different label. I'm no chemist, but I get the feeling that creatine mono + acid = creatine mono and creatinine, not the fabled esterified creatine.
07-02-2006, 02:47 PM
I had the same bloating experience. I didn't think I was retaining any water until I stopped taking CEE. Since then my abs have shown up again, I have more definition at the top and bottom of my pecs, my arms are more defined, and my cheeks and jaws are less puffy. Like SublimalX, I didn't notice any difference while I was on CEE and didn't think I was retaining water until I stopped. It's hard to be objective while observing gradual changes in your body.Originally Posted by SubliminalX
If people are really experiencing less bloat on CEE, that could be explained by the lower dosing protocol than what is typically followed with monohydrate. It is generally accepted that creatine supplementation can yield positive results with low doses. It is also generally accepted that side effects are caused by the creatine you ingest that isn't assimilated. Thus, if one were taking less, there would be less unassimilated product thereby causing less sides.
07-02-2006, 06:51 PM
Damn...I didn't realize CEE was such a touchy subject. Thanks to all that posted.
07-02-2006, 10:39 PM
I think the deal is that people generally don't want to feel that they've been ripped off, because it makes them feel that they're just some dope who got suckered out of his lunch money. And it obviously can hurt peoples' pride and reputations when accused of reporting benefits of a product when there is no sound science/evidence behind it. I personally don't care. I feel I've been ripped off by CEE products and have the humility to admit it. Hell, I regret buying all sorts of things, not just certain supps. And I also agree with OCyeomen above, that any reported reduction in side effects from CEE may be due to lowered dosings. With creatine mono, you load heavy at the start and maintain with 5 grams/day. With CEE, you don't load and take maybe only 2-3 grams per day. Both ways, all you're really taking is creatine mono.Originally Posted by halljo
Something similar happened last year with the bad batch of Rebound XT. People were reporting rapid strength gains, gyno, hairloss, testicular enlargement, you name it. And all this even AFTER it was made public by DS that there was no ATD in that bad batch of Rebound, just an inert, incomplete ingredient. You wouldn't believe how many users refused to admit that they were reporting placebo effects.
Similar Forum Threads
- By sok in forum PESReplies: 32Last Post: 05-20-2012, 03:58 PM
- By zenstinkfist in forum IGF-1/GHReplies: 5Last Post: 06-02-2010, 08:59 AM
- By carl666 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 12Last Post: 12-01-2009, 12:07 PM
- By julius kelp in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 6Last Post: 06-26-2003, 11:36 PM
- By Shake in forum AnabolicsReplies: 3Last Post: 11-12-2002, 07:26 PM