Creatine Ethyl Ester & Kre-Alkalyn...Inferior Creatines

Ryan Leal

Ryan Leal

New member
Awards
0
For all of you out there paying more for ethyled creatine and kre-alkalyn check out this study.

Creatine Efficacy Headlines At Sports Nutrition Meeting :: News :: Natural and Nutritional Products Industry Center

Creatine ethyl ester claims to offer up to 4000% better absorption than creatine monohydrate. The study proves creatine monohydrate to give up to 900% better absorption in contrast to cee...so stop buying the crap the magazines tell u are so much better and stick to the basic proven supplements.
 
A_I_Sports_Nutrition

A_I_Sports_Nutrition

AI Sports Nutrition
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Don't know if that is true or not but i will stick to what my body tells me cee does not bloat me and make me retain water like mono does so for me i will spend the extra $$ and get cee
 
rpen22

rpen22

Board Sponsor
Awards
1
  • Established
This is one reason why Avant Research added Creatine Monohydrate to the SyntheSIZE formula. You get the benefits from both CEE and CrM.
 
Ryan Leal

Ryan Leal

New member
Awards
0
Don't know if that is true or not but i will stick to what my body tells me cee does not bloat me and make me retain water like mono does so for me i will spend the extra $$ and get cee
It is a documented study...its not fake. I've been using creatine monohydrate for quite some time and I have noticed much better strength gains than when I tried cee...never tried kre-alkalyn and am definitly not even considering it after seeing the science, or lack there of , behind the product.
all in all cee and kre-alkalyn=big claims; little results
 
CryingEmo

CryingEmo

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Where would tri-creatine malate fit in?
 
Ryan Leal

Ryan Leal

New member
Awards
0
Where would tri-creatine malate fit in?
I'm not sure but creatine monohydrate has over 600 studies in the past ten years proving its effectiveness...I'll bet tri-creatine malate is just another gimick promising something more effective but failing to provide results.
 

ReaperX

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Patrick Arnold told me creatine gluconate is b.s. too.
 
LiftNDestroy

LiftNDestroy

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Hard to argue with documented research/science but if something works, it works.
 

DragonRider

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
My experience with kre-alkalyn was that it did not work at all. I prefer monohydrate. CEE gave me some horrible cramps. I believe it's because one of the most important aspects of creatine is the one thing everyone wants to avoid. The water retention is what makes creatine work so well.
 
Ev52

Ev52

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I find it intresting on the kre-alkalyn since they had to show studies and research in order to receive the patent.
 

jdrannin1

Member
Awards
0
For all of you out there paying more for ethyled creatine and kre-alkalyn check out this study.

Creatine Efficacy Headlines At Sports Nutrition Meeting :: News :: Natural and Nutritional Products Industry Center

Creatine ethyl ester claims to offer up to 4000% better absorption than creatine monohydrate. The study proves creatine monohydrate to give up to 900% better absorption in contrast to cee...so stop buying the crap the magazines tell u are so much better and stick to the basic proven supplements.

Good post.

I believe that study to be a bit flawed though. CEE is supposed to be absorbed so much faster than Mono. So, with that....does anyone know how long CEE sits in your stomach for? There is supposed to be a study somewhere that measured creatine absorption and uptake of CEE compared to Mono and it shows that CEE is absorbed quicker, peaks higher and levels off sooner than Mono. So, maybe CEE can bypass the acid conditions of your stomach (real world test and not test tube) and absorb very well.

This is just a thought....
 
boxmeman

boxmeman

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I personally like the no bloat and solid dry gains and good energy pumps i get from sci fit Kre not to mention i get it for $10 for a months supply!
 
boxmeman

boxmeman

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I cant stand the bloat bs from creatine mono!
 

saludable24

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
There are 3 types of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I'm pretty sure studies can be put in the same place as statistics. They can be used to say anything. There are studies proving the efficacy of Kre-alk; this study apparently says it doesn't work. I would just try it and see or look at what others have gotten as far as results.

People site studies all the time like they are infalable, when many times the quality of the study could be questioned. I wouldn't say something is inferior based off just what one study says, especially when so many, like the non responders, find these other forms effective.

I'm going to be trying NOS Ether, a kre-alk product, for myself and will let you guys know how it goes. As far as other creatines, I know CEE works the best so far for me for strength. Green MAG creatine isn't bad either.
 
boxmeman

boxmeman

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
There are 3 types of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I'm pretty sure studies can be put in the same place as statistics. They can be used to say anything. There are studies proving the efficacy of Kre-alk; this study apparently says it doesn't work. I would just try it and see or look at what others have gotten as far as results.

People site studies all the time like they are infalable, when many times the quality of the study could be questioned. I wouldn't say something is inferior based off just what one study says, especially when so many, like the non responders, find these other forms effective.

I'm going to be trying NOS Ether, a kre-alk product, for myself and will let you guys know how it goes. As far as other creatines, I know CEE works the best so far for me for strength. Green MAG creatine isn't bad either.
Thank you for your open opinion and not extremist one sided views!
 
pistonpump

pistonpump

Banned
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
My experience with kre-alkalyn was that it did not work at all. I prefer monohydrate. CEE gave me some horrible cramps. I believe it's because one of the most important aspects of creatine is the one thing everyone wants to avoid. The water retention is what makes creatine work so well.
I was going to get at the same exact thing! The water retetion, maybe it is how creatine works at its best....avioding that would just be like cutting a leg of of a chair. I personally dont get the bloat that everyone complains about. At least if i do it is so little that i dont even notice it really. Im sure at the cellular level more water is being held.
 
strategicmove

strategicmove

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
The question of which creatine form is most superior is controversial and would always attract attention. Creatine monohydrate is the "oldest" form of creatine in use. Consequently, it is not surprising that it has the most studies to support its efficacy. No one disputes that monohydrate is effective. But what use are all those pro-creatine-monohydrate studies to anyone who gets bloats and running stomach from the compound? These so-called non-responders must look elsewhere for their creatine supplementation. Creatine ethyl ester, creatine ethyl ester malate, creatine gluconate, creatine bonded to orotic acid or any of the Krebs Cycle intermediates (citrate, fumarate, malate, succinate, and alpha keto glutarate), and so on, are all viable alternatives for those who cannot handle monohydrate. And there are studies showing that these more advanced creatine forms work.

If monohydrate works for you, stick to it. Otherwise, try the more advanced forms. And let us not forget the influence of the creatine-monohydrate lobby with an interest in discrediting other creatine forms. Before we base our decision on whether or not to use the other creatine forms on the conclusions of one or two "negative" studies, it might help to understand who sponsored those studies. One can always pull out an appropriate study to justify one's recommendation for or against the more advanced creatine forms.

Personally, I would always prefer most of the more advanced creatine forms to monohydrate, especially when they are combined with co-factors such as rhodiola (elevates cellular phosphocreatine levels), banaba extract (absorption and nutrient partitioning), and so on. Or even as simple stand-alone compounds without any co-factors. Monohydrate is simply not an option for me, regardless of the bashing other creatine forms receive. That bashing would not help with the bloats I get from monohydrate. To each his own! :thumbsup:
 
pistonpump

pistonpump

Banned
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
The question of which creatine form is most superior is controversial and would always attract attention. Creatine monohydrate is the "oldest" form of creatine in use. Consequently, it is not surprising that it has the most studies to support its efficacy. No one disputes that monohydrate is effective. But what use are all those pro-creatine-monohydrate studies to anyone who gets bloats and running stomach from the compound? These so-called non-responders must look elsewhere for their creatine supplementation. Creatine ethyl ester, creatine ethyl ester malate, creatine gluconate, creatine bonded to orotic acid or any of the Krebs Cycle intermediates (citrate, fumarate, malate, succinate, and alpha keto glutarate), and so on, are all viable alternatives for those who cannot handle monohydrate. And there are studies showing that these more advanced creatine forms work.

If monohydrate works for you, stick to it. Otherwise, try the more advanced forms. And let us not forget the influence of the creatine-monohydrate lobby with an interest in discrediting other creatine forms. Before we base our decision on whether or not to use the other creatine forms on the conclusions of one or two "negative" studies, it might help to understand who sponsored those studies. One can always pull out an appropriate study to justify one's recommendation for or against the more advanced creatine forms.

Personally, I would always prefer most of the more advanced creatine forms to monohydrate, especially when they are combined with co-factors such as rhodiola (elevates cellular phosphocreatine levels), banaba extract (absorption and nutrient partitioning), and so on. Or even as simple stand-alone compounds without any co-factors. Monohydrate is simply not an option for me, regardless of the bashing other creatine forms receive. That bashing would not help with the bloats I get from monohydrate. To each his own! :thumbsup:
shuttup. :D
 

ReaperX

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
The question of which creatine form is most superior is controversial and would always attract attention. Creatine monohydrate is the "oldest" form of creatine in use. Consequently, it is not surprising that it has the most studies to support its efficacy. No one disputes that monohydrate is effective. But what use are all those pro-creatine-monohydrate studies to anyone who gets bloats and running stomach from the compound? These so-called non-responders must look elsewhere for their creatine supplementation. Creatine ethyl ester, creatine ethyl ester malate, creatine gluconate, creatine bonded to orotic acid or any of the Krebs Cycle intermediates (citrate, fumarate, malate, succinate, and alpha keto glutarate), and so on, are all viable alternatives for those who cannot handle monohydrate. And there are studies showing that these more advanced creatine forms work.

If monohydrate works for you, stick to it. Otherwise, try the more advanced forms. And let us not forget the influence of the creatine-monohydrate lobby with an interest in discrediting other creatine forms. Before we base our decision on whether or not to use the other creatine forms on the conclusions of one or two "negative" studies, it might help to understand who sponsored those studies. One can always pull out an appropriate study to justify one's recommendation for or against the more advanced creatine forms.

Personally, I would always prefer most of the more advanced creatine forms to monohydrate, especially when they are combined with co-factors such as rhodiola (elevates cellular phosphocreatine levels), banaba extract (absorption and nutrient partitioning), and so on. Or even as simple stand-alone compounds without any co-factors. Monohydrate is simply not an option for me, regardless of the bashing other creatine forms receive. That bashing would not help with the bloats I get from monohydrate. To each his own! :thumbsup:
The Declaration of Independence for creatines. I understand now.
 
gdbear65

gdbear65

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
I have read that Di-Creatine and Tri-Creatine Malate are more water-soluble resulting in better absorption and just yesterday I read that a study showed beta-alanine boosts creatine's effect.
 
Ryan Leal

Ryan Leal

New member
Awards
0
Thank you for your open opinion and not extremist one sided views!
I'm open minded to things...but I guess its hard for me to not agree with the study since I've had such better results from Monohydrate...Iv'e personally tried CM, Creatine Ethyl Ester, Creatine Ethyl Ester Malate, Creatine Gluconate, Tri-Creatine HCA, Creatine Alpha-Ketoglutarate, Creatine Anhydrous, Creatine Alpha-Ketoglutarate...I've been open minded but nothing has seemed to deliver the results like Creatine Monohydrate.

Oh and about the bloat effect; I personally have never experienced this but I do agree if u look bloated while taking CM it wouldnt be worth it...nothing sucks worse than having low bodyfat percentage but yet looking like your stomach is about to explode.
 
Ryan Leal

Ryan Leal

New member
Awards
0
I have read that Di-Creatine and Tri-Creatine Malate are more water-soluble resulting in better absorption and just yesterday I read that a study showed beta-alanine boosts creatine's effect.
I'm guessing u read that Di and Tri-Creatine Malate are more water soluble from a company who sells a creatine containing both of these products? What would be impressive is if these claims were backed up with a study proving there effectiveness over CM...if u find any studies proving there effectiveness please post them.
And I do agree with the many studies proving the effectiveness of beta-alanine.
 
DreamWeaver

DreamWeaver

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I can only tout personal experience. Mono worked the first couple of times I used it to an extent, but usually lost most of the weight soon after. Yah water. It did raise ATP levels and provide decent workouts though. Then nada, nothing, dik after the first couple of uses.

Kre-Alklyn gave some ok results, noticed some muscle hardness and worked in synergy with some of the other products I was using at the time. I believe powerfull stack of some kind.

Size On is the best product I have used to date, really raises muscle energy, hardness, and size gains. All over good product.

I am holding out high hopes for Neovar as well. Nutrient Repartiioning insulin like activity for glycogen intake and ATP inhancement with creatine sounds really good and it seems to be a good product from what I hear.
 
gdbear65

gdbear65

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm guessing u read that Di and Tri-Creatine Malate are more water soluble from a company who sells a creatine containing both of these products? What would be impressive is if these claims were backed up with a study proving there effectiveness over CM...if u find any studies proving there effectiveness please post them.
And I do agree with the many studies proving the effectiveness of beta-alanine.
Didn't read it from a supp company, but I just did a little more research - absorption may not be better, but apparently it is easier on the stomach. I also read that it may be better for non-responders (to mono), which would include me.
 
joebo

joebo

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm currently logging Nos Ether which used Kre-Alk and I'm really not feeling/gaining anything from it. I may buy into the kre-alk isn't what its cracked up to be. I've had the most success from MONO!
 
DreamWeaver

DreamWeaver

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Another thing I would like to mention, I have had years of seeing studies that have not had any impact at all in the real world. Not that I don't appreciate studies but like someone else before said, they can be misleading and usually are. The bottom line is, is that you have to with what works. The better you know your own body the better you can judge what a supplement is doing for you.
 
tunnelrat

tunnelrat

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
It is a documented study...its not fake. I've been using creatine monohydrate for quite some time and I have noticed much better strength gains than when I tried cee...never tried kre-alkalyn and am definitly not even considering it after seeing the science, or lack there of , behind the product.
all in all cee and kre-alkalyn=big claims; little results

yup...

dicr. mal. and cee did nothing for me. mono's the $hit. i do get bloated, but could care less.
 
Ryan Leal

Ryan Leal

New member
Awards
0
For all u creatine monohydrate nonresponders one thing I do and would advise u to try is creatine cycling...u take cm 4-5 times a day (20-30g total) for three days and then u cycle off for three days... and repeat...supposedly what happens is your body's creatine receptors lose sensitivity from taking creatine everyday so cycling on and off allows your body to re-sensitize its creatine receptors...this has been working incredibly well for me...sorry but i dont have a study to prove its effectiveness try it for yourself and i think u will be impressed.
 
strategicmove

strategicmove

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
For all u creatine monohydrate nonresponders one thing I do and would advise u to try is creatine cycling...u take cm 4-5 times a day (20-30g total) for three days and then u cycle off for three days... and repeat...supposedly what happens is your body's creatine receptors lose sensitivity from taking creatine everyday so cycling on and off allows your body to re-sensitize its creatine receptors...this has been working incredibly well for me...sorry but i dont have a study to prove its effectiveness try it for yourself and i think u will be impressed.
I know Pistonpump asked me to "shut up", yet I risk taking the liberty to comment on this. First of all, the creating loading approach is outdated, yet controversial. If you respond to monohydrate, you could stay on 3g or so per day long-term. Second, if you are a monohydrate non-responder and get bloats from it, it sounds to me like a prescription for real trouble to dose 20g-30g per day, even if for a few days only. The bloat would probably last for weeks!
As I get serious discomfort from monohydrate, I would not touch it for any reason. My personal favourites in terms of creatine forms are creatine alpha ketoglutarate, tri-creatine malate, tri-creatine orotate, creatin ethyl ester malate, tri-creatine HMB, and creatine pyruvate. In terms of products, I would recommend NeoVar, Ragnarok, Clout, and NO3 Overload.
To summarize, the best alternative for a monohydrate non-responder may not be to choose one particular advanced creatine form. It may be best to take a blend of some of the different advanced creatine forms. The result would, at the very least, match the best monohydrate effects.
 
strategicmove

strategicmove

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established

Similar threads


Top