Guest viewing is limited

Creatine Ethyl Ester is inferior

DieTrying

Board Supporter
I don't know how many of you were at the Invalid Link Removeds 4th annual conference in Vegas. If you were and walked by the poster presentations you probably saw the first research conducted on Creatine Ethyl Ester.

Drs Tallon and Child out of the UK tested the marketing claim that CEE avoids the breakdown of creatine to creatinine in stomach acids, providing Cr greater absorption. The availability of free creatine was compared between creatine monohydrate, SANs CM2 Alpha and MRIs CE2. After 120 minutes of incubation in 900mL of pH 1 HCL at 37 degreesC, about 3/4 of the CEE in MRI's CE2 was available and only 11% available from CM2 Alpha, while boring old creatine monohydrate was still there standing strong at 99%.

Turns out that the marketing claims that these companies use are the exact opposite of what the product does in an acidic environment. Ever wonder why you don't get the bloat with CEE? It may be because you're not really using any creatine.:lol:
 
DieTrying said:
I don't know how many of you were at the Invalid Link Removeds 4th annual conference in Vegas. If you were and walked by the poster presentations you probably saw the first research conducted on Creatine Ethyl Ester.

Drs Tallon and Child out of the UK tested the marketing claim that CEE avoids the breakdown of creatine to creatinine in stomach acids, providing Cr greater absorption. The availability of free creatine was compared between creatine monohydrate, SANs CM2 Alpha and MRIs CE2. After 120 minutes of incubation in 900mL of pH 1 HCL at 37 degreesC, about 3/4 of the CEE in MRI's CE2 was available and only 11% available from CM2 Alpha, while boring old creatine monohydrate was still there standing strong at 99%.

Turns out that the marketing claims that these companies use are the exact opposite of what the product does in an acidic environment. Ever wonder why you don't get the bloat with CEE? It may be because you're not really using any creatine.:lol:
Click to expand...


I never thought CEE did much anyway. I only used it once.
 
Iiiiinnteresting.


The stuff is weird for sure. Most people, self included, reported great pumps for the first week or so then..nothin'.
 
Got to love tried and true methods but it's hard not to try something new and see for yourself. Placebo does wonders too though :) Thanks for ****ing with my reality!
 
YES!!! ive been saying this all along! i cant count how many times ive been flamed at bodybuilding dot com's forum for stating this opinion:frustrate:

ive never like CEE and always wondered how it received so much attention without the research behind it. the bad thing is i just started synthesize whhich includes CEE in the formula, but i didnt buy it for the creatine content. monohydrate will always be king:bow28:
 
I always wondered if it was placebo or if CEE had a really short shelf life. I've still got some of the kilo I bought 3 years ago..does nothing now, but when I first got it it did do something.
 
No form of creatine I've tried for more than a week has really given me much of anything.

I've not tried the gluconate though because it gives me the major runs. I've got some SizeOn - but have to use it when a bathroom is close due to explosive blowouts.


Good post Die. Reps. (Even though you iz a Gator.)
 
i never got anything out of CEE.... I remember using monohydrate in highschool. I gained 12 lbs and got way stronger and could workout longer.
 
I think the funniest part about this whole thing is the so called "creatine non responders" who all of the sudden started responding when they switched over to CEE. That makes me LOL.
 
DieTrying; said:
I don't know how many of you were at the Invalid Link Removeds 4th annual conference in Vegas. If you were and walked by the poster presentations you probably saw the first research conducted on Creatine Ethyl Ester.

Drs Tallon and Child out of the UK tested the marketing claim that CEE avoids the breakdown of creatine to creatinine in stomach acids, providing Cr greater absorption. The availability of free creatine was compared between creatine monohydrate, SANs CM2 Alpha and MRIs CE2. After 120 minutes of incubation in 900mL of pH 1 HCL at 37 degreesC, about 3/4 of the CEE in MRI's CE2 was available and only 11% available from CM2 Alpha, while boring old creatine monohydrate was still there standing strong at 99%.

Turns out that the marketing claims that these companies use are the exact opposite of what the product does in an acidic environment. Ever wonder why you don't get the bloat with CEE? It may be because you're not really using any creatine.:lol:
Click to expand...



Thanks for this information. It completely neutralizes the entire hype behind Creatine Ethyl Ester. While "old" Creatine Monohydrate may be "boring", some athletes swear by it, indicating that its impact might depend on the consumer's physiology.
Some of us that fall within the category of creatine(-monohydrate) non-responders prefer creatine bonded with Alpha-Keto-Glucarate, or creatine as Kre-Alkalyn, or Tri-Creatine Orotate. These advanced forms appear to deliver superior and consistent results.
 
Disappointed that I'll still need to down some Mono with my SyntheSIZE, but then, I had suspected that this might be the case anyway...
 
its weird guys like me never said anything bad about CEE but when a thread like this comes out and everyone else agrees I have to speak up.

I tried CEE by Omega, cre ethyl thunder, and this is when i came off of an accident and maybe a year without lifting....I got good pumps and increase in strength which i attributed to the time off and placebo. So I went back to mono because you know that sh1t works when you start getting a lil bloat, plus its cheaper and im a cheap guy lol :)
 
Dagron said:
Disappointed that I'll still need to down some Mono with my SyntheSIZE, but then, I had suspected that this might be the case anyway...
Click to expand...

I'd say try it first. I'm not convinced that you'll need to. We need to investigate this study further.
 
DieTrying said:
I don't know how many of you were at the Invalid Link Removeds 4th annual conference in Vegas. If you were and walked by the poster presentations you probably saw the first research conducted on Creatine Ethyl Ester.

Drs Tallon and Child out of the UK tested the marketing claim that CEE avoids the breakdown of creatine to creatinine in stomach acids, providing Cr greater absorption. The availability of free creatine was compared between creatine monohydrate, SANs CM2 Alpha and MRIs CE2. After 120 minutes of incubation in 900mL of pH 1 HCL at 37 degreesC, about 3/4 of the CEE in MRI's CE2 was available and only 11% available from CM2 Alpha, while boring old creatine monohydrate was still there standing strong at 99%.

Turns out that the marketing claims that these companies use are the exact opposite of what the product does in an acidic environment. Ever wonder why you don't get the bloat with CEE? It may be because you're not really using any creatine.:lol:
Click to expand...

Hey man, can you please post this presentation or give us a link?
 
Sir Savage said:
I'd say try it first. I'm not convinced that you'll need to. We need to investigate this study further.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's been studies with good ol' mono that did not show it to be effective. It took a long time (and numerous studies) for all the naysayers of mono to finally give in. CEE has 1 study.

Granted, you can all look at my posts and see I'm a mono man, whose main argument is that mono just simply has more data proving it to work, 1 small study is not one giant step for creatine.
 
Very true and one thing to keep in mind is that this was simply an en vitro study. You'd really have to do some en vivo studies and monitor the urinary creatinine output as well as levels in blood and muscle.
 
Right, fellas.

We need to approach this with an open mind and see what the data says.

I await the posting of the presentation.

As y'all know, we go where the science leads us. If CEE is shown to be inferior overall to just about every form of creatine, we have no problem changing.
 
Balla - Layne Norton posted more complete discussions (had Tallon's email) at BB.com.

I'll hunt for a link for you good folks.
 
Very interesting. But damn if mono doesn't destroy my stomach. This is not good news but I would like to see some more information.
 
Sir Savage said:
Right, fellas.

We need to approach this with an open mind and see what the data says.

I await the posting of the presentation.

As y'all know, we go where the science leads us. If CEE is shown to be inferior overall to just about every form of creatine, we have no problem changing.
Click to expand...

''Creatine ethyl ester rapidly degrades to creatinine in stomach acid

Child R1 and Tallon MJ2

1Department of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom. 2University of Northumbria, Sport Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, [email protected]

Creatine ethyl ester (CEE) is a commercially available synthetic creatine that is now widely used in dietary supplements. It comprises of creatine with an ethyl group attached and this molecular configuration is reported to provide several advantages over creatine monohydrate (CM). The Medical Research Institute (CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (CE2) provides greater solubility in lipids, leading to improved absorption. Similarly San (San Corporation, CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (San CM2 Alpha) avoids the breakdown of creatine to creatinine in stomach acids. Ultimately it is claimed that CEE products provide greater absorption and efficacy than CM. To date, none of these claims have been evaluated by an independent, or university laboratory and no comparative data are available on CEE and CM.

This study assessed the availability of creatine from three commercial creatine products during degradation in acidic conditions similar to those that occur in the stomach. They comprised of two products containing CEE (San CM2 Alpha and CE2) and commercially available CM (CreapureÒ). An independent laboratory, using testing guidelines recommended by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), performed the analysis. Each product was incubated in 900ml of pH 1 HCL at 37± 1oC and samples where drawn at 5, 30 and 120 minutes. Creatine availability was assessed by immediately assaying for free creatine, CEE and the creatine breakdown product creatinine, using HPLC (UV)

After 30 minutes incubation only 73% of the initial CEE present was available from CE2, while the amount of CEE available from San CM2 Alpha was even lower at only 62%. In contrast, more than 99% of the creatine remained available from the CM product. These reductions in CEE availability were accompanied by substantial creatinine formation, without the appearance of free creatine. After 120minutes incubation 72% of the CEE was available from CE2 with only 11% available from San CM2 Alpha, while more than 99% of the creatine remained available from CM.

CEE is claimed to provide several advantages over CM because of increased solubility and stability. In practice, the addition of the ethyl group to creatine actually reduces acid stability and accelerates its breakdown to creatinine. This substantially reduces creatine availability in its esterified form and as a consequence creatines such as San CM2 and CE2 are inferior to CM as a source of free creatine.''

------------------------------------------------------------------

''Kre-alkalyn® supplementation has no beneficial effect on creatine-to-creatinine conversion rates.

Tallon MJ1 and Child R2

1University of Northumbria, Sport Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 2Department of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom. [email protected]

All American Pharmaceutical and Natural Foods Corp. (Billings, MT, USA) claim that Kre-alkalyn® (KA) a “Buffered” creatine, is 100% stable in stomach acid and does not convert to creatinine. In contrast, they also claim that creatine monohydrate (CM) is highly pH labile with more than 90% of the creatine converting to the degradation product creatinine in stomach acids. To date, no independent or university laboratory has evaluated the stability of KA in stomach acids, assessed its possible conversion to creatinine, or made direct comparisons of acid stability with CM.

This study examined whether KA supplementation reduced the rate of creatine conversion to creatinine, relative to commercially available CM (CreapureÒ). Creatine products were analyzed by an independent commercial laboratory using testing guidelines recommended by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP). Each product was incubated in 900ml of pH 1 HCL at 37± 1oC and samples where drawn at 5, 30 and 120 minutes and immediately analyzed by HPLC (UV) for creatine and creatinine.

In contrast to the claims of All American Pharmaceutical and Natural Foods Corp., the rate of creatinine formation from CM was found to be less than 1% of the initial dose, demonstrating that CM is extremely stable under acidic conditions that replicate those of the stomach. This study also showed that KA supplementation actually resulted in 35% greater conversion of creatine to creatinine than CM. In conclusion the conversion of creatine to creatinine is not a limitation in the delivery of creatine from CM and KA is less stable than CM in the acid conditions of the stomach.''
 
Chemist2234 said:
''Creatine ethyl ester rapidly degrades to creatinine in stomach acid

Child R1 and Tallon MJ2

1Department of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom. 2University of Northumbria, Sport Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, [email protected]

Creatine ethyl ester (CEE) is a commercially available synthetic creatine that is now widely used in dietary supplements. It comprises of creatine with an ethyl group attached and this molecular configuration is reported to provide several advantages over creatine monohydrate (CM). The Medical Research Institute (CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (CE2) provides greater solubility in lipids, leading to improved absorption. Similarly San (San Corporation, CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (San CM2 Alpha) avoids the breakdown of creatine to creatinine in stomach acids. Ultimately it is claimed that CEE products provide greater absorption and efficacy than CM. To date, none of these claims have been evaluated by an independent, or university laboratory and no comparative data are available on CEE and CM.

This study assessed the availability of creatine from three commercial creatine products during degradation in acidic conditions similar to those that occur in the stomach. They comprised of two products containing CEE (San CM2 Alpha and CE2) and commercially available CM (CreapureÒ). An independent laboratory, using testing guidelines recommended by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), performed the analysis. Each product was incubated in 900ml of pH 1 HCL at 37± 1oC and samples where drawn at 5, 30 and 120 minutes. Creatine availability was assessed by immediately assaying for free creatine, CEE and the creatine breakdown product creatinine, using HPLC (UV)

After 30 minutes incubation only 73% of the initial CEE present was available from CE2, while the amount of CEE available from San CM2 Alpha was even lower at only 62%. In contrast, more than 99% of the creatine remained available from the CM product. These reductions in CEE availability were accompanied by substantial creatinine formation, without the appearance of free creatine. After 120minutes incubation 72% of the CEE was available from CE2 with only 11% available from San CM2 Alpha, while more than 99% of the creatine remained available from CM.

CEE is claimed to provide several advantages over CM because of increased solubility and stability. In practice, the addition of the ethyl group to creatine actually reduces acid stability and accelerates its breakdown to creatinine. This substantially reduces creatine availability in its esterified form and as a consequence creatines such as San CM2 and CE2 are inferior to CM as a source of free creatine.''

------------------------------------------------------------------

''Kre-alkalyn® supplementation has no beneficial effect on creatine-to-creatinine conversion rates.

Tallon MJ1 and Child R2

1University of Northumbria, Sport Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 2Department of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom. [email protected]

All American Pharmaceutical and Natural Foods Corp. (Billings, MT, USA) claim that Kre-alkalyn® (KA) a “Buffered” creatine, is 100% stable in stomach acid and does not convert to creatinine. In contrast, they also claim that creatine monohydrate (CM) is highly pH labile with more than 90% of the creatine converting to the degradation product creatinine in stomach acids. To date, no independent or university laboratory has evaluated the stability of KA in stomach acids, assessed its possible conversion to creatinine, or made direct comparisons of acid stability with CM.

This study examined whether KA supplementation reduced the rate of creatine conversion to creatinine, relative to commercially available CM (CreapureÒ). Creatine products were analyzed by an independent commercial laboratory using testing guidelines recommended by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP). Each product was incubated in 900ml of pH 1 HCL at 37± 1oC and samples where drawn at 5, 30 and 120 minutes and immediately analyzed by HPLC (UV) for creatine and creatinine.

In contrast to the claims of All American Pharmaceutical and Natural Foods Corp., the rate of creatinine formation from CM was found to be less than 1% of the initial dose, demonstrating that CM is extremely stable under acidic conditions that replicate those of the stomach. This study also showed that KA supplementation actually resulted in 35% greater conversion of creatine to creatinine than CM. In conclusion the conversion of creatine to creatinine is not a limitation in the delivery of creatine from CM and KA is less stable than CM in the acid conditions of the stomach.''
Click to expand...

Hm.. so we now know that CEE becomes more insoluble in liquid than CM... The question is... why?
 
I've been saying this for a while now. Thank you for giving me a study to refer to. The science behind the stuff DOESNT MAKE SENSE. Too bad I don't have a lab to do my owns studies. ;) Thanks for postin this though man!
 
ItsHectic said:
So if CM works better than KA maybe we are all overdosing CM, because CM makes me piss on the hour.
Click to expand...

CM gives me diarrea... which is something the CEE and KA sellers claim in their ads does not happen with CEE/KA due to them not converting into the 'toxic' creatinine which the body flushes away causing the diarrea...

CM worked the best for me but the GI discomfort was a big negative. Now it seems science shows creatine to not be worse in creatinine conversion...I wonder what my problem is... dosing too high or impure creatine?
 
How long does creatine of any kind stay in the stomach? It was my understanding any meal taken in in a chyme or liquid state went on to the intestines pretty fast, 20 minutes or so. So unless you're eating creatine cookies, it should travel fairly quickly to your intestines where bile and bicarbonate and what not raise the PH and absorption begins rather quickly, correct?
 
It should be fairly quick, I have a feeling its less than 20 mins to reach the intestines, but I think 5 grams a day of CM is too high, I am gonna start CM at 2 grams a day and find out what works best for me.
 
thesinner said:
Can you post, quote, or link them here? I am interested in hearing what they said, but not interested enough to comb through BB.com
Click to expand...

x2. Just paste the quote over here. I am goin over there later. If it hasn't been done by then I will post it for you guys.
 
Try this one-

Invalid Link Removed

At some point in that thread, though, Bane explains how CEE works, why the results of this research are not unexpected, and how it's a mistake to read too much into an unpublished abstract.

Bane, Par Deus, and Pat Arnold all believe CEE works. Better than CM? Probably not, but it's still a very viable way to get creatine.
 
Here's the post I was looking for from Bane-

Originally Posted by Bane
Good info Layne. Any chance you can pass us the full study? (Univercity is closed unfortunately). Now on CEE a few points:
Any ester when in aquatic environment will partially go to the balance:
Ester<-----(Acidic environment)-----(Alcalic environment)----->Acid+Alcohol.
This is true of every single ester stuff out there(btw acetyl- somethings are esters too) and when some drugs are esterified this is expected. However many times the esterified fors are superior in pharmacocenetic properties so we bother in esteryfying them. This study does not mean that CEE is bunk, as it follows the normal properties of an ester. However this is not to also say that CEE is necessarily superior to creatine mono(which as i have posted numerous time in the past is very stable in stomach environment and is abserbed just fine despite stupid claims by many companies).
Of course the ultimate answer to the CEE quiz would be a double blind study that compared CEE and mono in strenth/mass gains on athletes.

By the way the study has an inherent flaw, as ph of 1 is very rarely present in the stomach, the usual ph is about 3-4(for those unfamiliar with ph scale, this means 100-1000 times less acidic that 1).

As for Kre-alkalyn, junk. Just put some baking soda in your creatine, PRONTO, kre-alcalyn for 1/4 the price.
Click to expand...

He goes on in later posts to quote the research shown to the FDA on CEE.

Even Layne was forced to admit later on by Par that this doesn't mean CEE is "inferior", "bunk", or whatever.
 
Sir Savage said:
Here's the post I was looking for from Bane-

He goes on in later posts to quote the research shown to the FDA on CEE.

Even Layne was forced to admit later on by Par that this doesn't mean CEE is "inferior", "bunk", or whatever.
Click to expand...

Thanks for reposting it here.
 
Very interesting thread. Maybe I havn't been online doing reading enough about CEE to notice this. I assumed I was just another "non-responder" to CEE... I too didn't see any gains. Pumps CAN be a day to day thing, or even psychological. I suppose if you are expecting it, you will think to a certain extent that you are getting them.

Definitly interested in this! I havn't used monohydrate in years, but might try it again soon! Great thread
 
Better than CM? Probably not, but it's still a very viable way to get creatine.
Click to expand...

CM FTW!

:bruce1:

Though, I did seem to get better pumps (yeah, I know, who cares) when I used CEE, but I was taking it w/ AAKG, so maybe it was simply the AAKG that was kicking arse.

Oh well. CM is so cheap and has so much actual science behind it, I find it silly not to use it.
 
Even though I'm a CM slut, I'm rooting for you CEE guys. Hopefully this study will motivate others to conduct more research on CEE.
 
I have read the whole thread over at BB.com and the concenses has been that the study does not show CEE to be ineffective, only that CEE is no more stabel as was claimed by some. Others also brought up the argument that the reason CEE and CreAkl did not cause the GI upset of CM was because of the lower doses most took of CEE and Creakl. I personally like CM and have never had GI issues so I continue to use it, but at the same time think it would be a little preemptive to dismiss the 2 all together.
 
Well I have been a proponent of Creatine Ehtly Ester since it's beginning. I have seen results from it. Recently I have been using pretty high doses, upwards of 10gms per day.

All of this makes one think though. I've known in the past that it is not the most researched of all supplements but the logic seemed viable to me.

My conclusion is this...Finish the about 3-4 weeks worth that I have and then move on. I probably won't touch Creatine, in any form, for another 4-5 months and hopefully there will be quite a bit more research on it at that point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top