Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Can any one show me the studies?

allstar

allstar

Active member
Well I was talking to a guy I have great respect for about me about to purchase Neovar, and he said that the creatine it contain(ethyl ester) and said that degrades 25-40% faster than CrM in the gut, but from what I've seen no one has talked about this issue, so could any one show me a study that proves it doesn't degrade that fast? Or do you believe its not important? Any opinions greatly appreciated.
Thanks Spencer
 
Actually that was old Neovar, the currently available Neovar Recomped is made with CM.

Invalid Link Removed
 
EasyEJL said:
Actually that was old Neovar, the currently available Neovar Recomped is made with CM.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
Easy, I've been dosing this at 10 caps per day divided into 2 doses. 1 pre-breakfast and 1 post-workout..

What do you think, overkill?
 
DAMN! Nice, I've been looking at the wrong product the whole time,thats great its has CrM!!!

Still would like to see if any one had CEE studies:D
 
allstar said:
Well I was talking to a guy I have great respect for about me about to purchase Neovar, and he said that the creatine it contain(ethyl ester) and said that degrades 25-40% faster than CrM in the gut, but from what I've seen no one has talked about this issue, so could any one show me a study that proves it doesn't degrade that fast? Or do you believe its not important? Any opinions greatly appreciated.
Thanks Spencer
Click to expand...

Wrong NeoVar, Spencer. The NeoVar out is the Recomped version, which is a blend of CM and Phosphocreatine (no longer CEE).

There have been mixed studies on the effects, bioavailability, and results of CEE. IMO, CM is the way to go (it was for me, personally; but then again, to each thier own).
 
Yea, I also have been a CrM man the whole time, tried others and they just didnt cut it, I didn't even notice that the Neovar I was looking at contained CEE let alone was the old version. My bad!!
 
I can.

Creatine Efficacy Headlines At Sports Nutrition Meeting
2007-06-18 - Cr-Technologies, LLP


The 4th International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) annual meeting in Las Vegas showcased 2 novel creatinestudies by UK researchers. Category leaders Creatine Ethyl Ester and Kre-Alkalyn have been making waves within the sports market as 3rd generation products have been claimed to be more effective and safer than the original brand leader creatine monohydrate according to manufactures.

Many of the claims made by these products have not been substantial by a peer reviewed clinical trails but of greater concern to the authors of the studies where issues of consumer safety. Creatine monohydrate has been studied in over 2000 published trials and provides the sports nutrition sector a product of real efficacy and safety. Marketing by manufacturers have questioned the safety of creatine following its ingestion. One company goes, as far as to say, “Creatinine is a very dangerous bio-waste material produced by spent creatine.”.

Dr Mark J Tallon a nutritional biochemist and author of one of the studies said “With the current climate of AER’s and non-trade media looking out for any negative slant on natural products any claims of danger in relation the use of sport nutrition’s gold standard product could threaten the whole market”. Dr Robert Child co-author commented further “By allowing products which should be clearly classified as a Novel dietary ingredient for sale without approval should be a major concern. The use of non-natural products such as CEE pose a potential threat to consumer heath and without adequate safety data may lead to unwanted attention from regulatory agencies such as the FDA (US markets) or MHRA (UK markets)”….

The studies presented at the ISSN annual conference showed that both CEE and Kre-alkalyn do not confer any advantages beyond that of creatine monohydrate and where infact less stable when exposed to conditions similar to those found during during digestion. These studies should help increase consumer awareness of creatine products without safety data, which carry unsubstantiated marketing claims. More importantly these investigations further enhance the reputation of creatine monohydrtae as a safe and efficacious ingredient.

ISSN abstracts are listed below. For further information on these studies the ISSN can be contacted via their website:

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-articles/70716-cee-kre-alkalyn.html
 
allstar said:
Yea, I also have been a CrM man the whole time, tried others and they just didnt cut it, I didn't even notice that the Neovar I was looking at contained CEE let alone was the old version. My bad!!
Click to expand...

All good. The "technical Write-Up" information on the Applied Nutriceuticals website is the updated version (Invalid Link Removed).
 
Thanks for the studies, but I already knew all about that, I was asking if there were studies that were for CEE or Kre Alk, which I was doubtful but had to ask because I heard rave reviews of Neovar, but turns out that was with CrM not CEE.
 
Those studies ARE for CEE and KreAlk...showing they're inferior. It backs up what your supp store dude said, proving that they DO degrade faster in the gut. Pat him on the back next time you see him.
 
Yes, I know, I agreed with what he told me as I have seen the numerous studies of CrM vs. CEE degrade times and what not. But in my OP what I was meant was is there any study saying that CEE doesn't degrade at 25-40% faster rate than CrM. Sorry for the confusion.
 
Oh, I see. No, it's theoretic, and as far as I know NO study ever proved CEE worked better.

Creatine monohydrate is semi-lipopholic. This means that it inefficiently uses fat as a transport mechanism. The esterification of substances will increase their lipopholic abilities, and thus esterified creatine will use fat more efficiently to permeate the cell wall and exert its effects upon cellular function than its unesterified creatine monohydrate counterpart.
Click to expand...

wiki said:
Creatine ethyl ester, also known as creatine ester, cre-ester and CEE, is a substance sold as an aid for athletic performance and for muscle development in bodybuilding. It is an ethyl ester derivative of creatine, from which it is made. In the body, CEE is converted back into creatine. The ethyl ester is said to have a much better absorption rate and a longer half-life in the body than regular creatine monohydrate, because it is slightly more lipophilic. However, these claims have not yet been conclusively proven by independent research, and in fact a study presented at the 4th International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) annual meeting demonstrated that that the addition of the ethyl group to creatine actually reduces acid stability and accelerates its breakdown to creatinine.[1] [2] As a supplement, the compound was developed, patented and licensed through UNeMed, the technology transfer entity of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and is sold under numerous brand names.
Click to expand...
 
Because theoretically esterized products are transported by fat through cell walls better. In theory. So they hypothesized that it would make creatine better. As the first study I linked shows, it ain't true.
 
ozarkaBRAND said:
Easy, I've been dosing this at 10 caps per day divided into 2 doses. 1 pre-breakfast and 1 post-workout..

What do you think, overkill?
Click to expand...

Maybe a little of a waste, but nothing wrong with it. I didn't notice (running a week each) much difference from 4 to 5 to 6 2x a day, but did notice the difference from 3 to 4.
 
allstar said:
DAMN! Nice, I've been looking at the wrong product the whole time,thats great its has CrM!!!

Still would like to see if any one had CEE studies:D
Click to expand...
I will look- don't think there are many (if any) out there.....Most of them have been done on Cre Phos or Cre Mono- this is part of the reason we changed it- I am not a huge fan of CEE from a production standpoint, either- can be very hard to work with....
 
most of the ethyl ester studies I have seen have more to do with other compounds- most of which are historically lipid soluble- EPA/DHA, Omega 3's, etc.....good news is that ethyl ester was generally found to be safe and non-toxic- as far as quantifying this with a percentage, I really can't...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top