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

GAA superior then Creatine

Pec.Major

Well-known member
In this randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial, we evaluated whether 4-week supplementation with guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) is superior to creatine in facilitating creatine levels in healthy men (n = 5). GAA (3.0 g/day) resulted in more powerful rise (up to 16.2%) in tissue creatine levels in vastus medialis muscle, middle-cerebellar peduncle and paracentral grey matter, as compared to creatine (P < 0.05), indicating GAA as a preferred alternative to creatine for improved bioenergetics in energy-demanding tissues.
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed

Never heard of GAA. Will we see it on the market soon? ;)
 
muscleupcrohn has a great scientific mind and I think he could contribute to this conversation.
n=5 is kind of a low number (relatively speaking), but you cant just discredit a study because of a lack of participants, it's hard to have people stick to something regularly.
Also does rise just mean it increases faster, is it the same saturation amount?
 
Quads_of_Stee said:
muscleupcrohn has a great scientific mind and I think he could contribute to this conversation.
n=5 is kind of a low number (relatively speaking), but you cant just discredit a study because of a lack of participants, it's hard to have people stick to something regularly.
Also does rise just mean it increases faster, is it the same saturation amount?
Click to expand...

I cant access the pdf, but does it indicate
1- what type of creatine was used
2-was there a loading phase
3-how long were the subjects using creatine
4-what type of delivery system was used for the creatine
5-was the same delivery system used for the GAA
6-what was the general body dynamic of the tested individuals?
7-where the testers responders to creatine?
 
If sigma aldrich is a reliable indicator of relative price, looks to be about twice as expensive as creatine mono.

So, yeah.
 
I have a PDF of the full text, let me read it over real quick.

Edit: From the text:
Participants were allocated to receive either GAA (3 grams per day) or equimolar dosage of creatine (3.4 grams per
day) by oral administration for 4 weeks, with wash-out period of 4 weeks to prevent the residual or carry-over
effects of treatments across study periods
Click to expand...

Four-week supplementation with GAA was superior in tissues evaluated, with 3.3-fold higher tissue creatine levels as compared to creatine itself. This perhaps happens due to preferable uptake of GAA by target tissues via various mechanisms theoretically available for GAA transport, as compared to somewhat limited transport capacity of creatine (Braissant 2012), and/or complete (or near to complete) tissue methylation of GAA to creatine. While Cr is mainly transported via specific transporter (SLC6A8; also used for GAA transport), dietary GAA could be imported through additional delivery channels (SLC6A6, GAT2, passive diffusion) at least in the brain (Tachikawa & Hosoya 2011), and
become readily available for tissue methylation to creatine by GAMT.
Click to expand...
Also potentially worth noting/considering before using GAA:
The
present trial confirmed above findings, with serum T-Hcy [total homocysteine] increased for 32.3% after 4 weeks of GAA loading.
Although the average T-Hcy levels at follow up remained below clinically relevant levels (< 15.0 µmol/L), GAA
loading should be considered as a controversial dietary routine since elevated homocysteine has been implicated as a
risk factor for cardiovascular disease, renal dysfunction, or osteoporotic fractures (Graham et al. 1997; Williams &
Schalinske 2010). Therefore, long-term safety studies evaluating different biomarkers of cardio-metabolic health
during GAA loading are warranted before recommending it as a novel dietary supplement.
Click to expand...
 
"In conclusion, our study provided preliminary evidence that 4-week supplementation with 3.0 g/day of GAA
is superior to creatine in facilitating cellular bioenergetics, as evaluated by the skeletal muscle and brain creatine
levels, and moderately elevated serum homocysteine, a risk factor for heart disease. "

Looks good for a pilot study, but I'd prefer to see a larger group and longer duration for safety. Seems promising though.
 
The PDF shows the changes in muscle creatine content after 4 weeks for GAA and creatine. I'm going to go back through some other studies on creatine monohydrate and see how these changes with GAA compare to the changes observed with creatine monohydrate with either a 4 week loading period (much higher dose than 3.4g for the initial few weeks), or after a more moderate dose (~5g) for a longer period of time.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
"In conclusion, our study provided preliminary evidence that 4-week supplementation with 3.0 g/day of GAA
is superior to creatine in facilitating cellular bioenergetics, as evaluated by the skeletal muscle and brain creatine
levels, and moderately elevated serum homocysteine, a risk factor for heart disease. "

Looks good for a pilot study, but I'd prefer to see a larger group and longer duration for safety. Seems promising though.
Click to expand...

So stack w some TMG?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
The PDF shows the changes in muscle creatine content after 4 weeks for GAA and creatine. I'm going to go back through some other studies on creatine monohydrate and see how these changes with GAA compare to the changes observed with creatine monohydrate with either a 4 week loading period (much higher dose than 3.4g for the initial few weeks), or after a more moderate dose (~5g) for a longer period of time.
Click to expand...

I'd be curious to see a head to head that shows if it really matters to an average athlete. For example, let's just say GAA gets levels up quicker. How much of an actual physiological effect does that have on muscle development or strength in the long run?
 
Considering how cheap CM actually is, even if this stuff ends up being 5x more expensive, itll still be easier on the wallet than most other supps sitting on the store shelf.

EDIT: was supposed to quote quads here :/
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I'd be curious to see a head to head that shows if it really matters to an average athlete. For example, let's just say GAA gets levels up quicker. How much of an actual physiological effect does that have on muscle development or strength in the long run?
Click to expand...
That's why we really need to see a study with a longer duration. Give me a few minutes to post; I'm looking to see how different doses of creatine for different durations of time effect muscle creatine content, and how that compares to GAA. 4 weeks of 3.4g creatine is not very much.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I'd be curious to see a head to head that shows if it really matters to an average athlete. For example, let's just say GAA gets levels up quicker. How much of an actual physiological effect does that have on muscle development or strength in the long run?
Click to expand...

I cant think of any real short comings in regards to CM, and any that do come to mind, its doubtful this compound will overcome them.

Seems a bit meh to me, if we are considering just the ergogenic benefits.
 
NewAgeMayan said:
I cant think of any real short comings in regards to CM, and any that do come to mind, its doubtful this compound will overcome them.

Seems a bit meh to me, if we are considering just the ergogenic benefits.
Click to expand...
This. Creatine monohydrates is dirt cheap, effective, and has a lot of safety data, as well as many studies showing performance enhancement (strength, LBM, etc). If it's not broken, you may not always want to try to fix it.

I'm still looking into how the increases in muscle creatine content here compared to other studies ATM.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
This. Creatine monohydrates is dirt cheap, effective, and has a lot of safety data, as well as many studies showing performance enhancement (strength, LBM, etc). If it's not broken, you may not always want to try to fix it.

I'm still looking into how the increases in muscle creatine content here compared to other studies ATM.
Click to expand...

Guaranteed, even if this ultimately does exactly what CM does, it will still be marketed and sold on the basis of some novelty factor.
 
GAA: 8.4% increase in Vastus medialis creatine content after 4 weeks (3g/day)
Cre: 3.2% increase in Vastus medialis creatine content after 4 weeks (3.4g/day)
(study referenced in OP)

Cre: 14.5% increase in total muscle creatine content after 5 days (~20g/day)
Invalid Link Removed

Cre: 19% increase in total muscle creatine content after 7 days (25g/day)
Invalid Link Removed

after 5–7 d of creatine-hydrate supplementation
at 20 g/d, TCr measured by biopsy of vastus lateralis muscle increased by
17.0–20.1%
Click to expand...
Invalid Link Removed

It has previously been demonstrated that the ingestion of 5-g doses of creatine (Cr),
taken 4–6 times a day for between 5–7 days, can increase skeletal muscle total Cr
(TCr) storage by between 20–40%
Click to expand...
Also, it may be possible that a greater period than the currently accepted 4
weeks is required for muscle TCr concentrations to return to normal levels. Hultman
et al. (16) showed that, although not significantly different from baseline, approximately
41.5% of the increase in TCr (observed after 6 days of loading) was still
present after 28 days of discontinuing Cr supplementation. Such information is
important to establish conclusively, as crossover research designs require accurate
knowledge concerning the necessary “washout” period to employ in Cr loading
research. Previous research has also only evaluated relatively small daily Cr maintenance
doses (2–3 g · day–1; 16). It is possible that some individuals will not achieve
their maximal TCr levels after only 5 days of Cr supplementation. As Cr loading in
the form of 3 g · day–1 for a period of 28 days has been shown to significantly increase
resting TCr concentrations in human muscle (16), it is possible that the ingestion of
a larger dose (e.g., 5 g · day–1) during the maintenance period could further elevate
TCr stores above post-loading levels and therefore be a superior maintenance dose
than 2–3 g · day–1.
Click to expand...
Invalid Link Removed

Granted, I am not sure if the methods used to test increases in muscle creatine content were the same, or if subjects in particular studies had higher or lower baseline muscle creatine content, or if creatine content in the vastus medialis (measured in the GAA study) changes at a faster/slower rate than it does for the vastus lateralis or total muscle creatine content. Either way, I'm not seeing anything groundbreaking in this GAA study, as 3.4g creatine for 4 weeks is not a huge amount, and the increase in muscle creatine content with GAA doesn't appear to be of a greater magnitude than what we've seen before with creatine monohydrate dosed higher or for a longer period of time. Granted, I am still curious to see how GAA would increase creatine content for a longer period of time than 4 weeks, and also potentially if it would have any additive effects with creatine monohydrate, but I don't see a reason to replace your creatine monohydrate with it right now.
 
NewAgeMayan said:
I cant think of any real short comings in regards to CM, and any that do come to mind, its doubtful this compound will overcome them.

Seems a bit meh to me, if we are considering just the ergogenic benefits.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That's what I was getting at. You can pick apart stuff and show a significant change from one aspect, but at the end of the day, does it make enough of a difference for me to switch?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Agreed. That's what I was getting at. You can pick apart stuff and show a significant change from one aspect, but at the end of the day, does it make enough of a difference for me to switch?
Click to expand...
I don't see any reason to switch from creatine (unless you know you're a non-responder perhaps)since it's so cheap and proven/safe. What interests me is potentially taking both GAA and creatine (the study mentioned that it may have various/different transporters and mechanisms of transport than creatine). I'd like to see a study showing if there is an additive effect, and, more importantly, if it just leads to faster loading, or if it actually allows for higher muscle creatine content long-term.
 
Is it suspected that GAA will result in higher intramuscular creatine concentrations? Or just faster to saturate the tissue than CM?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I don't see any reason to switch from creatine (unless you know you're a non-responder perhaps)since it's so cheap and proven/safe. What interests me is potentially taking both GAA and creatine (the study mentioned that it may have various/different transporters and mechanisms of transport than creatine). I'd like to see a study showing if there is an additive effect, and, more importantly, if it just leads to faster loading, or if it actually allows for higher muscle creatine content long-term.
Click to expand...

Didn't see your post but I am essentially curious about the same thing...
 
I'll try to keep this short and simple, this appears to be a more costly way to increase intramuscular creatine in a short period of time, however there is a limit to saturation. On a longer time line, and with fully saturated tissue, this has no benefit that I see. Creatine Monohydrate given daily is going to be cheaper, and in the long run leads to the same result. So unless you're a creatine virgin and you just HAVE to saturate your tissue quickly, stick with the industry standard. Just my two cents.
 
Hastur said:
I'll try to keep this short and simple, this appears to be a more costly way to increase intramuscular creatine in a short period of time, however there is a limit to saturation. On a longer time line, and with fully saturated tissue, this has no benefit that I see. Creatine Monohydrate given daily is going to be cheaper, and in the long run leads to the same result. So unless you're a creatine virgin and you just HAVE to saturate your tissue quickly, stick with the industry standard. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...
If it's not going to lead to greater maximum saturation, then there's no real reason for most people to use it instead of CM.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Agreed. That's what I was getting at. You can pick apart stuff and show a significant change from one aspect, but at the end of the day, does it make enough of a difference for me to switch?
Click to expand...

But them P values brah
 
There are quite a few studies out there on this, both longer and with greater participant numbers.

ill read the FT later. Takes a while
 
Jiigzz said:
There are quite a few studies out there on this, both longer and with greater participant numbers.

ill read the FT later. Takes a while
Click to expand...

less replying and
more defining

lol
 
Jiigzz said:
There are quite a few studies out there on this, both longer and with greater participant numbers.

ill read the FT later. Takes a while
Click to expand...
These?
Twenty-four healthy volunteers were randomized in a double-blind design to receive either GAA (2.4 grams daily) or placebo (PLA) by oral administration for 6 weeks
Click to expand...
Exogenous GAA is metabolized to creatine, resulting in a significant increase of fasting serum creatine after intervention. GAA had an acceptable side-effects profile with a low incidence of biochemical abnormalities.
Click to expand...
Invalid Link Removed
Four healthy young and physically active men (age 25  3 y,
body mass index 24.3  1.6 kg/m2
, physical activity 15  2
h/wk) were assigned to receive 3 g/d of oral GAA for 4 wk in
this open-label, repeated-measure pilot study.
Click to expand...
It looks like the study noted a 13.3% increase in skeletal muscle creatine content.
Invalid Link Removed
Thus, the purpose of this study
was to investigate the effect of three different dosages of
GAA (1.2, 2.4 and 4.8 g/day) administered for 6 weeks on
serum and urinary variables related to GAA metabolism.
Methods Forty-eight healthy volunteers participated in
the randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, repeated-measure
study. At baseline, after 1, 2, 4 and 6 weeks
Click to expand...
In conclusion, a creatine-loading effect of GAA was
found for all GAA dosages examined. The serum Cr and
T-Hcy significantly increased (average 27.2 and 3.5 lmol/
L, respectively) for all three GAA dosages, while the
intervention did not affect serum B vitamins. In the dose
range investigated, a significant dose–response relationship
was observed for serum GAA and Cr following GAA
intervention. Therefore, it can be implied that GAA can be
used as a creatine-loading agent even at low doses (1.2 g/
day), with effects pronounced with additional GAA supplied
up to 4.8 g/day. This supports the idea that GAA may
fortify cellular energetics in population with critical energy
requirements and/or GAA insufficiency.
Click to expand...
Invalid Link Removed
 
Preface: I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about. That out of the way...

Are we dismissing the possibility that peak creatine levels could be higher with GAA? Isn't 4 weeks of 3.4gCM enough to reach saturation (insofar as traditional peak creatine saturation is concerned)?

GAA is interesting to me for 2 reasons.

1. What if it can achieve higher total levels than CM, alone?

2. What if GAA can increase intramuscular creatine levels without potentially raising DHT? *
*(I know this relationship isn't completely proven, but I am prone to male pattern baldness. Since ceasing creatine supplementation, my rate of hair loss has decreased dramatically. I know this is just an n=1 anecdote, but I've repeated my findings twice over extended periods of time while doing my best to control for external variables.)
 
It sounds like something that muscletech circa 2006 would have been all over. They gotta love the people that don't use the resources avaiable to them like AM. So many scientifically smarter people than me here helping us sift through the garbage. Haha
 
ryane87 said:
It sounds like something that muscletech circa 2006 would have been all over. They gotta love the people that don't use the resources avaiable to them like AM. So many scientifically smarter people than me here helping us sift through the garbage. Haha
Click to expand...
Still better than CEE; at least GAA works.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Still better than CEE; at least GAA works.
Click to expand...

Working and the price that would be charged for this "novel" technology do not go hand in hand on this one, though. Unless you just desperately need saturation that much faster, it seems the price that would be charged doesn't make it better than what it is barely beating (the creatine).
 
ryane87 said:
Working and the price that would be charged for this "novel" technology do not go hand in hand on this one, though. Unless you just desperately need saturation that much faster, it seems the price that would be charged doesn't make it better than what it is barely beating (the creatine).
Click to expand...
I know, but CEE was expensive and DIDN'T even work. I'm just saying that as far as wastes of money on supplements go, there were, and still are, worse offenders that this, haha.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I know, but CEE was expensive and DIDN'T even work. I'm just saying that as far as wastes of money on supplements go, there were, and still are, worse offenders that this, haha.
Click to expand...

You are correct there. I was thinking more the marketing and price. Remember how they did leukic? Haha
 
NewAgeMayan said:
If sigma aldrich is a reliable indicator of relative price, looks to be about twice as expensive as creatine mono.

So, yeah.
Click to expand...

They aren't IMO, for the average Joe. Their purchasers usually have "free" grant money, so they price accordingly. Go price 1 gram of BAIBA :D
 
The_Old_Guy said:
They aren't IMO, for the average Joe. Their purchasers usually have "free" grant money, so they price accordingly. Go price 1 gram of BAIBA :D
Click to expand...

Oh yeah the absolute price is ridonk, but thats across the board. Why would GAA be twice as expensive as CM, though?
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Right. I've seen too many studies that got creative with their stats to get too excited about <0.05.
Click to expand...

This is spot on.

Also as you said earlier, sample size of n=5. This is a pilot study, hardly a reliable source of information. You can't even begin to extrapolate this to a larger sample size and there's no way 5 participants are a complete/thorough representation of the population.
 
I like to apply the "At the end of a year, for the extra $$$ that I spent, how much more muscle will this "miracle supp" add to my frame?" rule. Then do an Ounces per Dollar value comparison :)
 
Glycocyamine was in a whole host of supplements back when I first started lifting and supplementing, but it was largely removed after concerns of raised hemocysteine levels and the fact that it didnt' seem to confer greater/different benefits vs. creatine in practice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top