CEE: All HYPE?
- 08-21-2006, 09:27 PM
CEE: All HYPE?
So I was reading a post on another forum I visit and saw this:
"Here's a mail I recently received from some friends (PhDs) in the Ex Sci/Nut Biochem community. It discusses the potential dangers and (flawed marketing picture) associated with the use of Creatine Ethly Ester:
1) CEE is a true covalently bonded ester and is absorbed into blood and
tissues as the intact molecule. This is the picture that the
manufacturers would have us believe and is the basis for why they claim
CEE is superior to . However, inside cells CEE
will be unreactive with creatine kinase and may be a potential
competitive or non-competitive inhibitor to the enzyme. This would
make it toxic to brain, heart, testes, muscle and all other CK
containing tissues. People by now should be dying, but clearly are not
and this means 2) and 3) are the more likely. Nonethess, CEE should be
treated as a potentially toxic phrarmaceutical and in the US should be
treated as a drug, which requires multi species studies
to estimate LD50's and potential sites of tissue damage etc. However, recently I have been told that CEE did get new dietary ingredient status (scary).
2) CEE is hydrolysed to creatine on absorption from the gut. In this
case CEE offers no advantage over creatine monohydrate which has a
bioavilability of 100%. Indeed if hydrolysis of CEE is less than 100%
then it will be inferior to the monohydate. But in the case of
hydrolysis there are no circumstances in which it could be better than
the monohydrate in increasing tissue creatine levels. Obviously CEE
manufacturers would prefer 1) except that they then shoot themselves in
the foot over the issue of potential toxicity.
3) CEE is not a true covalently bonded ester. The whole of this is a scam
with the compound ionising in solution to free creatine, as does the
monohydrate and all salts of creatine. In this case CEE would again
represent no advantage over creatine monohydrate, except to the seller
who can double the price.
The failure of the US sports nutrition community (industry and the
universities) to call for closer examination of CEE seriously questions its
credibility in the eyes of many scientist in this country and the world. A simple water solvation test would answer 3), i.e. whether or not it was a covalent or ionisable derivative of creatine. The work time would be about one hour. Investigation of whether CEE is a competitive or non-competitive inhibitor of creatine kinase would take 2-3 hours. If either of these occured then clearly CEE must be investigated in at least two species to investigate lethality and potential organ damage. If on the other hand CEE is ionisable then I see no reason why a bioavailability study should not be undertaken comparing this, on a molar/molar basis, with
creatine monohydrate. My guess is that plasma AUC would be identical.
Again a very simple study.
None of this is rocket science but could spare a few lives, if the
manufacturers claims on the absorption of CEE are to believed."
After reading this it made me wonder on the true value of CEE and why it's so highly regarded as being superior. Is it all hype?
- 08-21-2006, 09:35 PM
Who the hell knows anymore. I had a doc recently tell me that to bypass the stomach degridation, you would have to consume bucketloads of creatine in order for it to be effective.
The guy said he worked out and looked a lot of like Glen's avatar and had a phd in sports medicine and some other **** that I don't have a clue in. He was a straight whole foods and occasional whey protein and mutli-v guy.
I won't pretend to say I have the foggiest but I do know that I can tell the difference when taking it or not. Whether it's anything more than a 'bloat' I dunno.
- 08-21-2006, 09:55 PM
Here's another post regarding some ingredients in Swole andthat another poster asked about in that same thread:
"hmmm...Swole, for example contains some fun ingredients. The first one being an ergolytic chemical known as Guanidinopropionic Acid, "which binds the creatine transporter and plugs it up so creatine can’t be transported into various tissues (similar to the concept of tamoxifen blocking the estrogen receptor, not allowing estrogen to bind)." (Barr, 1/04) So in short because most of our tissues can’t make creatine on it's own so it has to be transported in from food and supplementation, and the blocked transporters as a result of GPA means a reduction in cellular creatine levels. So let's take 2 steps forward and 3 steps back and hand the supplement companies our money. Another fun addition to Swole's cool ingredient, GPA (an ingredient in other revolutionary creatine ****tails), is that with the induced reduction/depletion of creatine levels within 7 days of consumption we are fortunate to lose muscle strength and power output as the fibers transform into slow twitch as a result of our willing consumption to look Swolen. So be swolen, but weaker and slower.
Another ingredient in Swole is Glycocyamine (G-amine), also known as guanidinoacetate. Consuming this chemical seems to have the undesirable effect of elevating blood levels of a substance called homocysteine, which through research has a very strong risk factor for cardiovascular disease. So in using typical western fear tactics- cardiovascular disease is the number one killer in the western, and the last thing we need to do is increase our risk for it. But then again the west still drinks alcohol and smokes cigarettes despite how messed up we get from consuming any of it. But to kick ourselves in the pants more about this fun additive and creatine, taking creatine decreases homocysteine levels, raising even more therapeutic possibilities for this supplement. A conclusion formed by some studies found that if you’re supplementing with creatine, G-amine may also decrease creatine uptake by muscles. Let's take 2 steps forward and 6 feet under. Make sure your money has gone to the supplement companies.
In reference to your question about Storm, a study presented at Nutrition Week in 2002 indicated that creatine combined with magnesium (as a chelate or an oxide) offers no advantage over creatine alone for minded and/or high level anaerobic athletes. So does that mean it's different and better than ? No. In the case of Creatine, more is not better. Let's do some basic name calling first, di-(2) and tri- (3) creatine next to mono. What makes 5 better than one? Nothing. If the magnesium creatine did anything significant they wouldn't have the need to add more flash to the pan of that product. Just more money for one more drop of sweat. None of us get paid to produce one more drop of sweat than the next guy, hence simplicity rules in the creatine world- Creatine Monohydrate. I do have a personal favorite in creatine- micronized creatine monohydrate, if ideal then it be German Micronized Creatine Monohydrate. More does not mean better.
Some other added tidbits on creatine-
The average creatine consuming human takes too much. You can stop there since that sums it all up. The least amount a 220lb athlete can consume to produce results needed in performance (it is a performance enhancing supplement btw) is 3g daily. One serving/scoop of creatine I take is 5g. I assume that is average for all types of creatine. I weigh more than 220lb, but my training and activity demands exceed a day of split work at the local bunny gym. I would still need at least 3g daily to get by. The average gym human under 220lb has a minimum demand of roughly under 1.5g-1.75g daily. Oh and cycling and loading isn't needed btw. So we can save money on creatine. Eat your animal proteins people. If you already do, then that's your field explanation for consuming little bit creatine supps. Average servings of food proteins already gives us at least 1g of creatine...daily. So what about loading periods? Research has shown that loading benefits a human who trains intensely for a cycle of 3-4 weeks. Then as one backs off the intensity, the user (assuming a 200+lb person) backs off the creatine and back to 3g daily. So doing a more cycle of training (3-4 weeks)seems to correspond a more efficient uptake of creatine. Otherwise we just piss the extra creatine out- If you load 20g a day, you're pissing out an estimated 17g...possibly on work, LS cardio, and classical aerobics.
But if you like, you can approach all of this as theory and take it with a grain of salt...which leads me to my next tidbit.
If creatine uptake into muscles is your thing, actually it should be everybody's thing, then add a little salt to your drink. Most research on the topic related this all to high blood sodium levels and high muscular creatine levels. So besides insulin importance to creatine uptake, sodium does wonders like water retention haha. Okay okay joke joke. Most of the studies suggest about 150mg of table salt in our creatine workout drink. That's roughly about 1/3 to 1/2 tsp of salt, I think. How simple yeah?
A funny one, caffeine intake messes with creatine efficiency. From a recent PubMed post. That one made me crack up. viva la Spike! lol
Thanks for asking me about those products. I actually did some checking out today on that stuff to know what exactly they were besides fancy names. The most effective ingredient those products have is creatine monohydrate (aka CM). Add some less useful names/chemicals and you got more profit for supplement companies. Right now I am waiting for Costco's Kirkland brand to blow away the competition by releasing their brand of Creatine. I am guessing here because their protein is very good and actually very good in quality. But that's just my opinion.
I do not hold beliefs in creatine monohydrate or other supplements I take. That would be foolish to be using science to backup a belief...like Scientology or those dumbasses who try to back up the christian creation myth with science. Good try though."
Interesting write up. I need to research more on the ingredients making up my supplements. Of course I'm no chemist nor am I some supplement wizard so this should prove to be a very challenging task. Who do the masses turn to for answers?
Btw, Jay...I really liked the animated pig better...
08-21-2006, 09:56 PM
08-21-2006, 10:05 PM
08-21-2006, 10:06 PM
im using 10g a day of CEE and having better results than i have had with any other cell volumizing product, and alot less stomach irritation.
08-21-2006, 10:09 PM
The last product with cee was the thunder but it has other ingredients. I love the stuff personally. The only problem is that i'm not smart enough to break everything down to know if it's working in and of itself.
08-21-2006, 11:18 PM
Originally Posted by dagecko
(1) That's pretty funny seeing how CEE.... is ....creatine monohydrate with an ester attached.
(2) .... Than so should monohydrate.
(3) CEE is already creatine before, during and after the esterification process.
(4) Monohydrate has a poor bioavailability. This is why it requires a loading phase and why the excess monohydrate and water will sit outside of the cells, causing bloating.
I found this post to be quite amusing.
With all HYPE aside, try to understand what the "Ester" in CEE means. Esterification is a type of chemical reaction in wich two molecules are joined together in order to eliminate a smaller molecule thereby increasing efficiency. (this is why a loading phase is not needed)
Now try to understand why CEE has a greater bioavailability. Creatine utilizes lipids to permeate the cell walls in order to enter the cells.
The esterification of creatine increases it's lipophilic abilities, causing CEE to utilize fat more efficiently than monohydrate, so less is required in order to permeate the cell walls.
08-22-2006, 10:58 AM
Sorry to spoil your punchline, but theoretically creatine ethyl ester is creatine with an ethyl ester attached in lieu of a monohydrate salt. Excuse me if I got the terminology wrong, but that's the basic idea.Originally Posted by NO HYPE
Second of all, you didn't really rebut anyone. You merely regurgitated the company line with regard to how CEE theoretically works and what it theoretically is. The questions the OP brought up were if indeed CEE exists and exhibits these higher bioavailibility traits what does it actually do and whether CEE is indeed an esterfied creatine. Both are very good questions.
Supposedly those questions and others will be settled by the pending Zeingenfuss creatine study. I've been out of the loop for a couple of weeks, so it very well may have already been published. Kneller alluded to the results being very very unfavorable for CEE. Time will tell.
08-22-2006, 11:01 AM
i haven't really responded well to creatine (only tried mono and cee) but i do think there is enough scientific evidence supporting creatine and the benifits it holds. i will be trying either man clout or sizon the next go around to see if i respond well to them.
08-22-2006, 02:44 PM
08-22-2006, 02:55 PM
Ocyeoman: If you happen to find the results of the study would you be so kind as to post them for everyone on the board to review. I think this is a great topic for discussion and would like to see if new conclusions are found.Originally Posted by ocyeoman
I am not bashing CEE and I am still currently taking it with my daily supplements. Have I seen an improvement by using them? I would have to say, yes...
08-22-2006, 04:45 PM
.............................. .............................. ........................Originally Posted by ocyeoman
(1) You didn't.
(2) Actually, the basic idea was already pointed out.... "Esterification is a type of chemical reaction in wich two molecules are joined together in order to eliminate a smaller molecule" So what excactly was your point again?
(3) Why would I need to rebut anyone if I was merely stating facts?
(4) Sorry, no regurgitating here. These were just elementary facts about esterification and creatine. And what's up with the "theoretical" thing? What's theoretical about esterification or creatine.
(5) It already has for an overwhelming amount of us.
08-22-2006, 09:12 PM
I could be wrong (been 4 years since organic chem) but I think the reagent used is ethanoic acid to make the ester on the creatine molecule.
(Or maybe ethanoic anhydride.)
08-22-2006, 09:28 PM
Since when it is acceptable to materially change a post in one's quote and then rebut it? You bifurcated full thoughts thus changing their meaning and numbered them. Who does that?Originally Posted by NO HYPE
As for the basic idea (your no. 2), you got it wrong and I corrected you. You stated that CEE was creatine monohydrate with an ester attached. That's not it. I wouldn't have bothered had you not been such a snide jerk about it. My point in correcting you was that CEE is an entirely different compound than creatine monohydrate thus possessing it's own set of properties. It may be the case that CEE's properties are similar to that of monohydrate. However, since we know CEE causes a 90% spike in baseline serum creatinine levels and monohydrate does not it fair to say that their properties are less similar than once thought.
As for 3, we don't know them to be facts yet. There's plenty of literature out there (read the CEE kidney thread here and on bodybuilding.com) that calls into question whether or not the esterfication of creatine has actually been achieved. It is possible that CEE is a compound closer to creatinine. We have literature calling Dox and Yoder's original CEE work into question. Conversely, we have an Ergopharm chemist calling into question the tests used to debunk Dox and Yoder. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out.
This post is already too long, so I'll just leave it at that. If people feel like they are getting good results from CEE and feel confident in taking it, then by all means rock and roll on it. With so many other options out there, I don't feel compelled to use it. I actually just tossed a kilo of the stuff.
08-23-2006, 12:08 AM
Originally Posted by ocyeoman
(1) At no point did I change your words. I simply posted excerpts of your own quotes that were relevant to the topic at hand thereby eliminating the irrelevant words.... and yeah I numbered them.
(2) Every action has a reaction. Maybe you should be a little more aware of your own manners before you go insulting others.
(3) Obviously once the esterification process occurs, what was once monohydrate, is now CEE. The reason I stated that CEE is monohydrate with an ester attached, was in response to the statement.... "inside cells CEE will be unreactive with creatine kinase and may be a potential competetive or non-competetive inhibitor to the enzyme".... There is no possible way that the esterification of creatine will cause it to be non-reactive to creatine kinase. Esterification simply takes the extra (bloating) molecule from monohydrate and gets rid of it, making it more efficient. These are just facts about esterification.
(4) Everything that I stated in my posts about creatine was fact.
(5) At one time, there was a lot of literature that called into question wether the earth was round or flat, so what does that prove? Esterification of chemicals has been around prior to creatine. All it takes is a mixture of carboxylic acid and alcohols to say that it has been achieved.
08-23-2006, 08:47 AM
I don't see how you found my post insulting. Apparently throwing laughing smilies and rediculing perfectly valid posts with half true platitudes is perfectly polite. I'll have to keep that in mind.Originally Posted by NO HYPE
Let me refocus the discussion, my point and I believe the point of this thread is that there are plenty of unknowns when it comes to CEE. You seem to think this is settled science. Fine. You are wrong, but I understand how someone who hasn't done the research (which I refuse to rehash here) may think so. I am 100% confident my position will be vindicated soon. Even then I won't stoop to your level and be so snide and disrespectful to other posters. As I posted earlier, go check out the threads I referenced earlier. They may change your mind.
08-23-2006, 09:48 AM
08-23-2006, 05:25 PM
Originally Posted by ocyeoman
(1) I know you don't understand that the words that you chose to use, might have p!ssed me off....
"Second of all, you didn't really rebut anyone. You merely regurgitated the company line".... "snide jerk"
What are you.... the forum enforcer or something? For what reason would I need to rebut anyone if I was simply stating facts? Sorry if my knowledge about the subject upsets you, but nothing that I stated was.... "merely reurgitated". Was this your example of being polite? Or was it the snide jerk comment? As I stated previously, these were just elementary facts about esterification and creatine.
(2) Actually no, I don't think...."this".... is settled science, just the statements that I made were factual.... so prove that I'm wrong.
(3) I know you would like to believe that I haven't done the research, but I'm not the one who refuses to prove his statements.
(4) Yeah, you'll just try to insult them by calling them names and by correcting the way that they post. And then you'll say they are wrong, but won't prove yourself.... or is that just with me?....
08-23-2006, 06:14 PM
Are you capable of manipulating the English language without the use of numbers? It's like some sort of weird OCD tick with you?Originally Posted by NO HYPE
First off, you were being a snide jerk. No, I don't consider it my place to take action every time anyone is being an ass. But in addition to being an ass you were a grossly uninformed ass trying to snuff reasoned discourse with marketing taglines. Would it make you feel any better if I apologized for hurting your feelings? How could I have known you were so sensitive?
Backing things up? Looks who's talking. Find me some literature, any literature that shows that CEE displays the properties you claim it has. Hell, find me any literature that shows that CEE has any ergogenic benefit let alone ergogenic benefit greater than monohydrate. In terms of documentation, all that is out there is the CEE patent application. That document poses the same pedestrian argument you put forth: creatine ethyl ester is similar enough to creatine monohydrate to be reasonably safe and effective. That doesn't engender much faith in the product.
As for backing up what I say, there's just too much out there. Too many informed people have raised and are raising doubts about CEE. Here are just a few selections. (I read the rules, and I think I'm allowed to post these links. If not, no harm meant mods) Let me know if you need me to interperet any of this for you. Do make sure to read the academic papers referenced. This is more than enough to prove that CEE is not settled science. This needs to be discussed.
Bodybuilding.com Forums - View Single Post - CEE and kidney trouble...
Is Creatine Ethyl Ester a Fraud? - Discuss Bodybuilding
Bodybuilding.com Forums - View Single Post - CEE and kidney trouble...
Bodybuilding.com Forums - View Single Post - CEE and kidney trouble...
Now NO HYPE will throw out a few more non-sequitors.
08-23-2006, 07:33 PM
Creatine Monohydrate bloated me and gave me diarrhea. CEE didn't do much for me except give me some serious bloody noses. About 30-60 minutes after taking a serving of CEE, I would get a bloody nose if anything touched my nose or irritated it (taking a shower and letting the water fall onto my face caused a bloody nose). I imagine it was increasing my blood pressure. I tried two different brands of CEE for two different cycles to make sure that it was indeed the CEE and not some fluke that was causing the bloody noses. Neither cycle lasted longer than a few days due to the bloody noses.
08-23-2006, 08:14 PM
I'm glad to see this post has caused a stir among the members here. Debate is a good thing let's just not get things too personal guys. We are all here to find the truth behind products that supplement companies put forth. They always make claims of being some magic pill/powder we can take to quickly grow bigger, stronger, and be healthier and we are just trying to get past the hype.
I appreciate all the posts and shared information let's just keep it civil before this great thread gets locked...
08-24-2006, 05:40 AM
Originally Posted by dagecko
I agree dagecko. Good thread.
In relation to keeping it civil folks, just observe who is carelessly using personal insults to prove his points.
I must get to work now. I can't wait to get home and post my defense and proof. (proof that isn't opinionative and doesn't come from a bodybuilding website)....
08-24-2006, 05:49 AM
08-24-2006, 09:08 AM
I'm not the one who was uncivil first. I don't consider anything I said to be a personal attack. I just pointed out your dismissive, condescending attitude is counterproductive. Case in point is that you just used. Really, why throw that on unless you were trying to be rude? I also take offense to my posts being materially altered by another member so that they may respond easier.Originally Posted by NO HYPE
I guess I got it wrong when I predicted a non-sequitor. I should have seen an ad hominem response coming a mile away. Are you telling me that a published academic paper detailing three experiments conducted by three disparate parties fifty years ago suggesting the same esterfication of creatine process used today yields something closer to creatinine is moot because it was linked to on bodybuilding? I first posted that here. Are you suggesting that CEE's very own premarket notification that suggested ergogenic benefits less than that of creatine monohydrate and serum creatinine spikes is moot because it was linked to on a bodybuilding website? Are you telling me that the opinion of a respected and widely published nutrition and exercise scientist is invalid because he chose to voice that opinion on bodybuilding.com? Are you also suggesting that the results of an upcoming study conducted in an academic setting by several University faculty Phd's is irrelevant because someone mentioned it on bodybuilding.com?
I could go on and on, but I don't think you read any of that. Trust me, there is even more out there than this. I just posted to links I could find in my inbox in the five minutes it took me to write that last post. Play with google a bit and you'll see.
Once again, my entire point is that there is much uncertainty when it comes to CEE. "Facts" as you posted, are very hard to come by. If you were to prove me otherwise I'd admit it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, you can't because the literature isn't out there. A lot of things sound good theoretically but don't really pan out in reality. I mean, how many times has someone claimed to have achieved cold fusion? For the lack of a better analogy, CEE may be the sport supplement equivalent.
08-24-2006, 10:34 AM
08-24-2006, 01:17 PM
08-24-2006, 02:12 PM
"CEE didn't do much for me except give me some serious bloody noses. About 30-60 minutes after taking a serving of CEE, I would get a bloody nose if anything touched my nose or irritated it (taking a shower and letting the water fall onto my face caused a bloody nose). I imagine it was increasing my blood pressure."
That's what you get for snorting the stuff, lol j/k
08-24-2006, 03:35 PM
While I prefer this board, I've gotten questions answered there that no one here could help me with. If the underlying source of info is legit why does it matter where it was posted?Originally Posted by wastedwhiteboy2
08-24-2006, 03:56 PM
I agree. I've come to see there are certain "clicks" among different forums and each one has something to say about the other. I'm not saying everything everyone says is right or wrong just that it's a forum. And what are forums for? To share and discuss information and experiences and to debate claims/theories.Originally Posted by ocyeoman
I am enjoying this thread and hope it continues in a positive direction. Great info so far guys. I love a good debate.
08-24-2006, 11:03 PM
1) the original advertisement, can't remember the company's name, for cee claimed the ester bond was broken enzymaticaly, after transport inside the cell. The addition of ethyl ester aided the transport of the molecule through the cell wall, but once inside the cell it was hydrolyzed to ethanol and creatine.
2) ester bonds are hydrolyzed by acid, the question is how quickly. I think the original hype said CEE was absorbed into muscle cells 50x more efficiently than creatine. But that would mean would you only need 1/10th of a gram to get the same effect as 5grams of creatine, which we know is not true since most ppl use 2+grams of cee. So probably alot of it is being converted from cee to creatine in the stomach.
3) this is just stupid, it is pretty easy to confirm structural identity with a simple mass spec, I realy doubt the cee makers competitors would let them get away with lieing this blatantly
my experience with cnw's Thunder was that it was much better than creatine. Of course it has alot of other ingredients besides cee.
As for the solubility test, I'm not sure they meant to prove but I got 4 grams of Custom's CEE to dissolve in 10mL water easily, then I added 2 more grams and it didnt dissolve. So the solubility of Custom's CEE is atleast 400 mg/mL, which is much higher than straight creatine or dicreatine citrate
08-25-2006, 08:34 AM
I could feel a difference with cee. My muscles also stayed a little fuller. I liked cre-ethyl thunder the best and still use it.
08-25-2006, 02:50 PM
thats the problem I have is if the info is legit. some great minds at that forum stated superdrol will do nothing and have made some pretty bad claims about other products that are not theirs. I like the discussion as well until it turns into a bb.com thread(name calling ect...) thats why I came here.Originally Posted by ocyeoman
back to the subject. I would like to hear more info on CEE.
08-25-2006, 07:02 PM
08-26-2006, 03:23 AM
I'm just going to set aside the various insults that you have directed at me so that I may adress your ignorance.... but first, I'll adress mine.Originally Posted by ocyeoman
In my first post, #3 (although what I stated was correct), I misunderstood the statement, so I must retract.
As for #4.... OK so I'll admit, mono doesn't have a poor bioavailability, but it's certainly not 100%. If it was, than mono wouldn't aquire the common, negative traits. Only when substances are administered intravenously, are they 100% bioavailable.
I don't know what hype you think I'm claiming, or have claimed about CEE. I never said anything outrageous about it. It works a lot better for me, requires a smaller dosage than mono, no loading phase, and no bloat.
Anyways, what's up with your statement...."all that is out there is the CEE patent application.".... Isn't that literature? It's definitely not opinionative.
The company in question had to adhere to very stringent FDA guidelines and yet, these studies still provided enough substancial evidence to the FDA, in order to grant them a New Dietary Ingredient Notification. Isn't that information valid to you?....
Oh yeah and by the way, as for the "you got it wrong and I corrected you" statement that you made.... "There are a number of forms but the most common are creatine monohydrate - creatine bonded with a molecule of water, and creatine ethyl ester (CEE) - wich is creatine monohydrate with an ester attached."
"Creatine ethyl ester HCL is a structurally related chemical analog of creatine. The difference between creatine and CEE HCL is that the carboxylic acid group of creatine has been masked through the formation of an ester linkage. The masking of the carboxylic acid, results in a creatine-based compound with both increased aqueous solubility and enhanced membrane partitioning compared to standard creatine monohydrate."
"This ChemParma study was deigned with the cooperation and assistance of personnel at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) to examine the form in wich the dietary ingredient CEE HCL enters the mammilian body (rat) (after proper dosing with this dietary ingredient) in wich the creatine and ethanol moiety were both radiolabeled. A review of the attached study establishes that following oral administration to mammals, CEE HCL is immediatley dissociated to creatine and ethanol. The ethanol is rapidly metabolized and eliminated as CO2. The creatine mostly is rapidly distributed to tissues (e.g. skeletal muscle), then excreted in the urine as creatine's well established metabolite, creatinine." http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/doc...-06-vol181.pdf
"Creatine ethyl ester has not previously been introduced into the American diet. However, the constituent components and proposed metobolic end products (i.e. creatine and ethanol) have long been present in the American diet."
"Numerous studies have been published, evaluating the relative safety of creatine salts supplemented to healthy adults, specifically creatine monohydrate. These human studies include both short term and long term studies, and have determined that supplementation with creatine monohydrate is not associated with any adverse health effects. No difference was noted in serum markers of liver or kidney function between creatine-supplemented groups as compared to a placebo."
"Creatine is an accepted ergogenic supplement in all major sports orginizations"
"Ethyl alcohol is a metabolite formed from the breakdown of the Cre-Ester pronutrient. The complete metabolic conversion of a three gram daily dose of Cre-Ester would yield less than one gram (0.707 g) of ethyl alcohol, a level recognized as safe for other food and health products, such as vanilla extract. A single serving of an alcoholic beverage contains over ten times that amount of ethyl alcohol."
"Dietary supplements containing creatine have been availible to consumers for over two decades. Over this time, no significant health concerns have been identified in either controlled human studies, or acute and subacute toxicity studies in labratory animals. Cre-Ester is a new analog of creatine with improved solubility and permeability properties. Based on both our in vitro cell culture studies examining acute Cre-Ester toxicity and in vivo rat studies examining 7-day exposure to Cre-Ester, there were no apparent indicators of toxicity with this compound. In addition, blood and urine profiles of five human males on daily supplementation with Cre-Ester that ranged from 1 to 3 grams taken from 238 to 414 days at the time of testing showed no significant changes in their blood or urine chemistries. Thus, this data, along with the historical experience with creatine based products, indicates that this new creatine derivative is safe when used in accordance with the packaging instructions." http://fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets...ort-vol140.pdf
"Our product is an ester modification of creatine. This modification is intended to improve the bioavailability of creatine as well as reduce gastrointestinal side effects experienced with other creatine salt forms. Our in vitro experiments support this in that when creatine ethyl ester is exposed to cultured muscle cells, their creatine content is increased without demonstratable accumulation of the esterfied form in the cell. Furthermore, additional experiments performed in our labratory have demonstrated that creatine ethyl ester does not enter into the creatine kinase reaction process, thus indicating that it is the bioactivated form of creatine that is present to and used by the muscle cell. If you need to examine the data described above, we will release it to you upon your request.
There is precedent for the use of ester modification to improve the bioavailability and decrease side effects of a supplement in the commercial market place. The example is the esterfied form of vitamin c that is widely advertised and distributed throughout the United States."
"Again, our experiments have demonstrated that this ester form does convert to creatine and ethanol through hydrolysis of the ester bond or activity of esterases that are found throughout biological systems." http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/doc...-01-vol140.pdf
08-28-2006, 12:39 AM
Originally Posted by NO HYPE
As I predicted, you couldn't find any sources beyond the patent application/premarket notice. As to whether that is enough: not in my book. Aren't people constantly criticizing HMB and Methoxy because their scientific literature comes exclusively from their patent holders? It definitely is opiniated (not opiniative [adv.]) as the author has a pronounced agenda.
I'm getting kind of tired of this discussion as it promises to go nowhere and I started my new grad program this week. I could write a detailed response, but the links I provided earlier already do so. In fact, the FDA documents you linked to were used by myself and others to demonstrate that the science and validity of CEE is by no means proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The fact that we are both pointing to the same material almost proves my point in itself. Check out the second link I posted.
08-28-2006, 05:01 AM
08-28-2006, 06:24 AM
I pulled this excerpt from MikeMenzter.com. Although I respect Mike's theories and training philosophy, I do not follow it. However, this is pulled from the "Supplements" article on his website, by Paul Skinner, MS RD LD. It does not refer to CEE but creatine in general. I'd be interested in hearing some thoughts and feedback.
"Next, we discussed one of the most popular supplements used by strength training athletes and athletes across the spectrum and that was creatine. My next litany of questions elicited definitive answers as I stated intently, "Creatine monohydrate is probably one of the most popular supplements among bodybuilders. Does it promote muscle size and strength, or I should say what does it really do, and what are its adverse affects that you are aware of, both long and short-term?" I could tell that Dr. Lukaszuk's response was a confident one, due to the fact that she did her dissertation on creatine research, as she replied, "In actuality, what creatine does is it helps re-synthesize ATP, because it helps regenerate phosphocreatine, so this is the first energy cycle used by muscles to contract. Because ATP stores are in the muscles for 3-5 seconds, you need another immediate energy source that would be phosphocreatine - a component of creatine. Essentially that mechanism becomes depleted in 30 seconds also. It would be hard for me to believe that creatine would be beneficial in muscle strength and conditioning exercises. It seems to benefit 30 second or less all out exercise bouts (any type of sprint). There have been a number of studies, one on pediatric children that I have seen, and a number of studies done greater than eighteen years of age. They range anywhere from one year of creatine supplementation up to two years, and this was a continuous dosing of creatine. There does not seem to be any detrimental effects on liver or renal function, but that would be at the recommended dose of 2 grams a day.""
08-28-2006, 06:29 AM
(1) So now your a fortune teller ha? I didn't have to.... find.... anything. The application is what originally brought my attention to CEE, due to the fact that it is the only literature on CEE, that is not based on opinion.Originally Posted by ocyeoman
(2) Please tell me how the results of various tests performed under strict FDA guidelines, are.... "opinionated". Results are results. The FDA dosen't grant patents based on opinion.
(3) Wow. Too bad you didn't understand the point of my statement.... "What's theoretical about esterification or creatine?" Esterification and creatine, both have a proven history, and this is the reason that it makes sense to combine the two to maximize results.
(4) Proves what point? One point that was proven is that you have a talent for insulting others?
08-28-2006, 10:22 AM
Originally Posted by NO HYPE
1 and 2) You challenged me to find literature to back up my claims. I did so. I posed the same challenge to you and you couldn't. I don't think opinion is the word to characterize the CEE patent, but biased certainly is. Here's a newsflash: the statistics and research methodologies used in these such filings are by no means absolute. If they were, we'd never see such debacles as the ongoing celebrex scandal and the Phen Fen tragedies from several years ago. My point in saying that is that the FDA is incredibly fallible and that statistics are easily manipulated to further an agenda. Trust me on the last bit. It's the focus of the graduate degree I am pursuing from a certain University founded in 1632.
3) What's theoretical about the esterification of creatine? Glad you continue to ask in spite of my contined response. This was in one of my links, but obviously you didn't bother. This was published 50 years ago in response to Dox and Yoder's original Creatine Ethly Ester work. Since you've read the patent, you know Dox and Yoder's work is the basis for today's commercial CEE. http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jacsat/1955/77/i01/f-pdf/f_ja01606a060.pdf?sessid=6006l 3 The paper details four different experiments conducted by four different teams that showed Creatine Ethyl Ester is creatinine. This paper can be interpreted in two ways. One would be that the esterfication of creatine has yet to be achieved and merely yields creatinine. Two would be that CEE is such a volatile and unstable substance that it degrades to creatinine almost instantly when introduced to a new environment. Both would be in line with the findings that CEE causes a 90% spike in serum creatinine.
4) If you consider everytime I pose a counter to one of your statements an insult, then yes then I have a talent for it. This whole discussion is somewhat roundabout. Your position is that CEE is absolutely settled science. If that is the case, please explain with reasonable sources why CEE causes the 90% spike in serum creatinine that it does? That mystery alone makes it unsettled science do it not?
Similar Forum Threads
- By ecotmorphic in forum SupplementsReplies: 77Last Post: 05-18-2013, 01:16 PM
- By Lacrossedude6 in forum SupplementsReplies: 37Last Post: 09-16-2012, 09:32 AM
- By JudoJosh in forum Advanced DiscussionReplies: 6Last Post: 08-30-2012, 08:20 PM
- By jstone28 in forum SupplementsReplies: 0Last Post: 04-12-2007, 08:39 PM
- By Mach .78 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 36Last Post: 08-09-2005, 02:10 AM