Creatine-Glycerol-Phosphate

mcc23

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Has anyone used this? My order of mono was delayed and the company offered to replace it with this. It's normally ~3x the cost as CM. The addition of glycerol seems nice in theory, but I wanted to get some other members feedback.
 
schizm

schizm

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
CGP from metabolic? Have wondered that myself, though always seemed pretty pricey for what you get to me...esp as you pointed out what CM runs for normally...
 
blacklac

blacklac

Well-known member
Awards
0
Just curious to hear about it in general, as well. Probably wouldn't ever shell out the cash for it, but... Have a sample of it laying around.
 
WILL_I_AM

WILL_I_AM

New member
Awards
0
Creatine combined with a glycerol compound, makes C.G.P. able to have an increased absorption rate through a specialized pathway, which eliminates the common creatine side effects such as cramps, bloating and nausea. Also with C.G.P.'s increased absorption rate a loading phase is not needed like it would be with a basic monohydrate. Lastly on important points, C.G.P. in a way serves as its own energy and electrolyte source contributing to the production of ATP. It's a must have for people wanting a creatine they can incorporate in their plan without a loading phase, side effects, high carb intakes, and still retain the benefits of added muscle strength and endurance.
 
WILL_I_AM

WILL_I_AM

New member
Awards
0
I loved the product when I took it, Metabolic nutrition makes some solid products that work well and taste great... it's a win - win when I can enjoy my gains and some flavor!
 
ericool007

ericool007

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
to each his own, i wasnt to impressed by it but it doesnt hurt to give something new a try maybe you'll like it, i would gladly accept the offer had i never tried it before.
 
Spaniard

Spaniard

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • RockStar
Has anyone used this? My order of mono was delayed and the company offered to replace it with this. It's normally ~3x the cost as CM. The addition of glycerol seems nice in theory, but I wanted to get some other members feedback.
I'd take it if it will last you as long as the other stuff you ordered would have and you don't have to shell out any additional coin for it.

If you were buying it, I would say no way in hell. Mono is king and the cheapest. No point in wasting any money on any other type of creatine IMO
 
TGB1987

TGB1987

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
The C.G.P. Is definitely the better of the two in my opinion. I have used both mono for years and as of the last two years CGP and there is a difference! Is there enough of a difference for you to pay the additional money that depends on your experience for me it is worth it. No bloat, much better fullness without the need of sugar and loading. But to each their own. I can tell you that I love CGP and with it not being too much more I usually go for it. If I am a little low on funds I may go to mono or do 10g of mono pro and 10 g of CGP post. I usually run 15-25 g of creatine a day for 3 months then a month off.
 
Spaniard

Spaniard

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • RockStar
The C.G.P. Is definitely the better of the two in my opinion. I have used both mono for years and as of the last two years CGP and there is a difference! Is there enough of a difference for you to pay the additional money that depends on your experience for me it is worth it. No bloat, much better fullness without the need of sugar and loading. But to each their own. I can tell you that I love CGP and with it not being too much more I usually go for it. If I am a little low on funds I may go to mono or do 10g of mono pro and 10 g of CGP post. I usually run 15-25 g of creatine a day for 3 months then a month off.
15-25 g a day? Wow... you know that's completely unnecessary and wasteful, right?

You also don't need sugar to increase absorption of mono.
 
TGB1987

TGB1987

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
U know there was a study done showing that running mono at 5-10g a day as steady dose actually showed a return to baseline in muscle creatine levels after 4 wks of use. The study was in MD magazine a few months back. The fact of the matter is the study's of everything go back and forth all the time I personally experiment when i find one that makes sense and is interesting to me. In this case I tried the creatine at the recommend 10g/day for every 100lbs of body weight and it was a huge improvement for me personally so that is what I do. U are more than welcome to run whatever you want but if you have never tried the higher dose I recommend that you do for personal experimentation. I will try to fine the article with the study. Also with mono hydrate it is best to increase insulin to help creatine absorption. It is not necessary but if you want best results you will want to use something spike insulin or use insulin which I do not recommend with your monohydrste. With CGP the glycerol increases osmosis and can help transport the creatine into the cell without the need of carb to spike insulin.
 
Spaniard

Spaniard

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • RockStar
Okay :)
 
TGB1987

TGB1987

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
U know how it is bro. There are many different opinions on everything. Do what works for you. Everyone is different. In most cases there is no right or wrong. All that matters Keep an open mind and try for yourself. We should be here to help one another.
 
Spaniard

Spaniard

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • RockStar
U know how it is bro. There are many different opinions on everything. Do what works for you. Everyone is different. In most cases there is no right or wrong. All that matters Keep an open mind and try for yourself. We should be here to help one another.
Absolutely we are here to help each other. I didn't argue, I simply just said okay. My first word of advice in the spirit of helping each other out would be not to use Flex Magazine as a citation. Second, that amount of creatine is like I said completely unnecessary. It doesnt matter what Flex Magazine says. If you prefer using that much creatine no problem that is your choice just know it's wasteful.

And you do not need to rely on sugar to shuttle creatine to your muscles this was proven incorrect about 10 years ago. I'm not being short, typing doesn't convey tone. You're just going on a little outdated information and bad sources is all.
 
haiz69

haiz69

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Well heres the spill I can give on it. Creatine monohydrate when mixed and ingested mostly converts to a toxic and virtually useless form of creatine which is why it may require high doses or loading phases. However, that isn't the case with C.G.P.'s structure because it is strong enough to be mixed in water and ingested without any being denatured and becoming useless. It is also combined with a glycerol compound, making C.G.P. able to increase absorption a great amount through a specialized pathway, which eliminates the common creatine side effects such as cramps, bloating and nausea. Also what I kind of touched on at the start, with C.G.P.'s increased absorption rate a loading phase is not needed like it would be with a basic monohydrate. Lastly on important points, C.G.P. in a way serves as its own energy and electrolyte source contributing to the production of ATP. It's a must have for people wanting a creatine they can incorporate in their plan without a loading phase, side effects, high carb intakes, and still retain the benefits of added muscle strength and endurance.
You are just absolutely incorrect. Wow.
 

tin gorilla

Member
Awards
0
The C.G.P. Is definitely the better of the two in my opinion. I have used both mono for years and as of the last two years CGP and there is a difference! Is there enough of a difference for you to pay the additional money that depends on your experience for me it is worth it. No bloat, much better fullness without the need of sugar and loading. But to each their own. I can tell you that I love CGP and with it not being too much more I usually go for it. If I am a little low on funds I may go to mono or do 10g of mono pro and 10 g of CGP post. I usually run 15-25 g of creatine a day for 3 months then a month off.
The only thing more ridiculous than this dosing protocol is citing Flex as a reference.
 
TGB1987

TGB1987

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Flex was referring to a study done in 2003 that showed that the standard protocol of dosing was not effective as thought originally. It is funny that everyone saying it isn't as effective as nothing to back it up. Posting an article in the longest going bodybuilding magazine which refers to a study 2003 is better than saying that it doesn't work with no study to back it up whatsoever. We are all entitled to an opinion but to say someone is wrong for their opinion and not having anything to back it up is the most ridiculous thing I have seen. Like I said early there are a million studies in creatine. We can many that show both sides I am sure. Don't be a closed minded. Til u try it. Mono is the oldest form of creatine and I prefer it over every other type out there just about other than C.G.P. For me it is worth the extra money to use and to dose it were I do.
 
Driven2lift

Driven2lift

AnabolicMinds Site Rep
Awards
0
Well if I were to choose between an outdated Flex referenced article from 2003 and current articles (dozens) used in the current ISSN standards... Which would you choose?

The only difference between creatine forms is saturation speed. Once this is achieved there is no difference. No matter what your creatine is bound to to "enhance bioavailability".

Excess is eliminated. If you exercised often and intensely enough to deplete even the standard 5g dose (highly unlikely) then theoretically dosing higher could be merited.
 
TGB1987

TGB1987

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Did you take the time to read the article? The article was from this year and it was citing a study from 2003. This is what I do for a living. I see and hear from my customers all day long. I will tell you this if you have not tried the higher dosing and C.G.P. Try it and you can make your own decision.
 
TGB1987

TGB1987

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
The OP will get to try it so maybe he can post whether he likes it or not when he gets done using it
 

hardknock

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Flex was referring to a study done in 2003 that showed that the standard protocol of dosing was not effective as thought originally. It is funny that everyone saying it isn't as effective as nothing to back it up. Posting an article in the longest going bodybuilding magazine which refers to a study 2003 is better than saying that it doesn't work with no study to back it up whatsoever. We are all entitled to an opinion but to say someone is wrong for their opinion and not having anything to back it up is the most ridiculous thing I have seen. Like I said early there are a million studies in creatine. We can many that show both sides I am sure. Don't be a closed minded. Til u try it. Mono is the oldest form of creatine and I prefer it over every other type out there just about other than C.G.P. For me it is worth the extra money to use and to dose it were I do.
Let me ask you, what benefits did you see from doing this? That is all that actually matters. Regardless of what the study says, what benefits did you get by this method over the normal 5 to 10 grams a day...specific differences and not just "oh well 1 more rep and some fullness".
 
Driven2lift

Driven2lift

AnabolicMinds Site Rep
Awards
0
Please link this 2003 study.
 
TGB1987

TGB1987

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
What type of specific differences do u want from me. It doesn't matter what I got from it. I would like to see if you used it what you would think. I liked it in comparison to every creatine I ever used for a reason. Trust me I wouldn't recommend a more expensive product for no reason. Anyone that knows me on here knows that I am honest when I talk about supps and if I think something sucks I will tell you but that is just not the case here. I would like to see a less expensive CGP to come to the market but as of now metabolic is the only one that I have seen.
 
TGB1987

TGB1987

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
It was not cited it was only mentioned but I can find it. No one is posting any studies showing that creatine mono remains as effective after loading. I am the only posting anything to support my preference. Anyway this is off topic. We can create a new thread about dosing. In fact I have already done this in my section. The TGB Supplements section. Come debate the dosing with me there and I am willing to even provide creatine for loggers to run it the higher dose.
 
WILL_I_AM

WILL_I_AM

New member
Awards
0
You are just absolutely incorrect. Wow.
Don't just say I'm incorrect, this is a forum meant to help others and give your thoughts and knowledge on the product. If you KNOW I'm incorrect then do what the forum is meant for and tell why and what C.G.P. is really best for. Site some information and prove me wrong please so that we can all learn from it.
 

snagencyV2.0

Legend
Awards
0
Don't just say I'm incorrect, this is a forum meant to help others and give your thoughts and knowledge on the product. If you KNOW I'm incorrect then do what the forum is meant for and tell why and what C.G.P. is really best for. Site some information and prove me wrong please so that we can all learn from it.
he is correct you are quite erroneous in your info

why does it fall upon his shoulders to show you WHY you are wrong, and waste his time posting links to show you?
you are the one who spouted nonsensical and fictitious info -- so, if you are so hellbent on your stance, starting right here
" Creatine monohydrate when mixed and ingested mostly converts to a toxic and virtually useless form of creatine which is why it may require high doses or loading phases " - then why don't YOU post up some supporting proof of this lunacy?

these comebacks just kill me, wow



creatine mono is and always will be, just fine and the most efficient bang for your buck
PERIOD

glycerol? you wanna add that? fine - go to your pharmacy and see how cheap this is....
want an even better deal? order online, and find it under $4 per lb....
better deal yet? buy in quantity (10lb containers) and you can get it down below $1.50 per lb...

do you see where this is going?
 

IFN15

Member
Awards
0
he is correct you are quite erroneous in your info

why does it fall upon his shoulders to show you WHY you are wrong, and waste his time posting links to show you?
you are the one who spouted nonsensical and fictitious info -- so, if you are so hellbent on your stance, starting right here
" Creatine monohydrate when mixed and ingested mostly converts to a toxic and virtually useless form of creatine which is why it may require high doses or loading phases " - then why don't YOU post up some supporting proof of this lunacy?

these comebacks just kill me, wow

creatine mono is and always will be, just fine and the most efficient bang for your buck
PERIOD

glycerol? you wanna add that? fine - go to your pharmacy and see how cheap this is....
want an even better deal? order online, and find it under $4 per lb....
better deal yet? buy in quantity (10lb containers) and you can get it down below $1.50 per lb...

do you see where this is going?
From our own research at Ifn we have seen vastly improved absorption and effect from the designer creatine such as the stated CGP, creatine gluconate, hcl etc. Any insulogenic effect is goin to lead to greater efficacy. Hence why these designers are so popular. Monohydrate works well but only with a driver such as vitargo, hbcd, karbolyn, even good old dextrose will help. Monohydrate is far from the best with the advancements in nutraceuticles now available but it can be just as good in the right environment of nutrients.
 

saggy321

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
he is correct you are quite erroneous in your info

why does it fall upon his shoulders to show you WHY you are wrong, and waste his time posting links to show you?
you are the one who spouted nonsensical and fictitious info -- so, if you are so hellbent on your stance, starting right here
" Creatine monohydrate when mixed and ingested mostly converts to a toxic and virtually useless form of creatine which is why it may require high doses or loading phases " - then why don't YOU post up some supporting proof of this lunacy?

these comebacks just kill me, wow

creatine mono is and always will be, just fine and the most efficient bang for your buck
PERIOD

glycerol? you wanna add that? fine - go to your pharmacy and see how cheap this is....
want an even better deal? order online, and find it under $4 per lb....
better deal yet? buy in quantity (10lb containers) and you can get it down below $1.50 per lb...

do you see where this is going?
I now look forward to your posts!
 
haiz69

haiz69

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Don't just say I'm incorrect, this is a forum meant to help others and give your thoughts and knowledge on the product. If you KNOW I'm incorrect then do what the forum is meant for and tell why and what C.G.P. is really best for. Site some information and prove me wrong please so that we can all learn from it.
http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2011/08/ask-dr-andro-pharmacokinetics-of.html
http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2011/08/ask-dr-andro-pharmacokinetics-of_29.html

Here - Go learn.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
  • Established
Well if I were to choose between an outdated Flex referenced article from 2003 and current articles (dozens) used in the current ISSN standards... Which would you choose?

The only difference between creatine forms is saturation speed. Once this is achieved there is no difference. No matter what your creatine is bound to to "enhance bioavailability".

Excess is eliminated. If you exercised often and intensely enough to deplete even the standard 5g dose (highly unlikely) then theoretically dosing higher could be merited.

I remember watching Brian Dawkins use 20g per day.
 
manstr

manstr

Member
Awards
0
From our own research at Ifn we have seen vastly improved absorption and effect from the designer creatine such as the stated CGP, creatine gluconate, hcl etc. Any insuligenic effect is goin to lead to greater efficacy. Hence why these designers are so popular. Monohydrate works well but only with a driver such as vitargo, hbcd, karbolyn, even good old dextrose will help. Monohydrate is far from the best with the advancements in nutraceuticles now available but it can be just as good in the right environment of nutrients.
I don't like sn agency's posts too much but I'm gonna have to back his statement up. Just because your version absorbs faster doesn't mean it's any better when it's up against a fully saturated mono hydrate. Not to mention the cost difference.
 

snagencyV2.0

Legend
Awards
0
From our own research at Ifn we have seen vastly improved absorption and effect from the designer creatine such as the stated CGP, creatine gluconate, hcl etc. Any insuligenic effect is goin to lead to greater efficacy. Hence why these designers are so popular. Monohydrate works well but only with a driver such as vitargo, hbcd, karbolyn, even good old dextrose will help. Monohydrate is far from the best with the advancements in nutraceuticles now available but it can be just as good in the right environment of nutrients.
the insulinogenic effect i think you are referring to there..
and yes, i can get behind that statement
so -- let's add some dextrose (*cheap) and some glycerol (*cheap!) to the fray, and we are still ahead of the game of "designer creatine" complexes that triple mono's price and are no better than do-it-yourself homemade kits with mono as the base

again - i reiterate, for the money involved, the bang for the buck, the monohydrate form is the be-all end-all...no need to pay some outrageous amount for this!

but to each their own
 

IFN15

Member
Awards
0
the insulinogenic effect i think you are referring to there..
and yes, i can get behind that statement
so -- let's add some dextrose (*cheap) and some glycerol (*cheap!) to the fray, and we are still ahead of the game of "designer creatine" complexes that triple mono's price and are no better than do-it-yourself homemade kits with mono as the base

again - i reiterate, for the money involved, the bang for the buck, the monohydrate form is the be-all end-all...no need to pay some outrageous amount for this!

but to each their own
For sure you can get some dextrose powder with the mono and glycerol and be a lot farther ahead cost wise. Some people just want a all in one and don't want to mix a lot together. So they have to pay for convenience with the designers.
 
WILL_I_AM

WILL_I_AM

New member
Awards
0
See how easy that was. Bravo for you! I corrected my post and deleted the toxicity section to make you all happy. Even though there is a more reliable site that says creatine can become toxic. It's a .edu site rather than an unreliable .com like you gave me. I'd be happy to give you the link if you'd like?
 

snagencyV2.0

Legend
Awards
0
I corrected my post and deleted the toxicity section to make you all happy. Even though there is a more reliable site that says creatine can become toxic. It's a .edu site rather than an unreliable .com like you gave me. I'd be happy to give you the link if you'd like?
obviously, the text of your post loudly states you believe us all to be full of sh1t
which is fine, you can think what you want, and good luck with that

but in the spirit of your own words about "this is a forum meant to help others and give your thoughts and knowledge on the product", please by all means share your .edu link
 
WILL_I_AM

WILL_I_AM

New member
Awards
0
obviously, the text of your post loudly states you believe us all to be full of sh1t
which is fine, you can think what you want, and good luck with that

but in the spirit of your own words about "this is a forum meant to help others and give your thoughts and knowledge on the product", please by all means share your .edu link
www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/creatine.html

This states that creatine does have potential to become toxic. It doesn't state clearly that it is monohydrate which is susceptible to this so maybe C.G.P. could be victim as well, but regardless, it does say potentially creatine could be toxic.
 
Driven2lift

Driven2lift

AnabolicMinds Site Rep
Awards
0
www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/creatine.html This states that creatine does have potential to become toxic. It doesn't state clearly that it is monohydrate which is susceptible to this so maybe C.G.P. could be victim as well, but regardless, it does say potentially creatine could be toxic.
Anything can be toxic.
How many cases of creatine toxicity have you seen from the massive amounts of people using CM?

Let's keep things in perspective
 
money0351

money0351

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
FWIW all of metabolic's products are at least a 50% profit margin because they use MAP pricing so almost anywhere you get CGP for about $28 that company would have got it in stock for less than $14 per unit. And I would imagine the cost of the product is just a fraction of that...
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
  • Established
Anything can be toxic.
How many cases of creatine toxicity have you seen from the massive amounts of people using CM?

Let's keep things in perspective

Seen elevated liver values with prolonged use. As for damage, its tough to say as it takes years and years to see that...as with the case with alcohol.
 
WILL_I_AM

WILL_I_AM

New member
Awards
0
Anything can be toxic.
How many cases of creatine toxicity have you seen from the massive amounts of people using CM?

Let's keep things in perspective
Fair point. All in all - I gave my opinion as to why I liked C.G.P. better than monohydrate. Whether everyone agrees or disagrees I am sticking by my preference. "To each his own" as someone had said earlier, and I have to say that's what this forum has came down to. Nobody will change my perspective on what product I prefer.
 

snagencyV2.0

Legend
Awards
0
www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/creatine.html

This states that creatine does have potential to become toxic. It doesn't state clearly that it is monohydrate which is susceptible to this so maybe C.G.P. could be victim as well, but regardless, it does say potentially creatine could be toxic.
do you even know what point you are trying to make here, will? i think you are one very confused cat
not trying to be disrespectful by any means, but you are WAY out of your realm here, grasping at straws in order to save face it appears..

for future references, please - when you feel you have something worthwhile to bring to the table to rebut an issue, make sure it is
1 - current, and not dated from 1998
2 - not painted by your own (mis)understanding of what is and what is not, a reliable .xxx source
3 - and last but not least - make sure that what you espouse to support your stance, is even in the same realm of discussion as the points being talked about, and not some ventured supposition of some "potential" supposed adverse effect that has nothing to do with your stating creatine mono is toxic, and other "designer creatines" are not

thanks, hopefully you will continue on your road to learning, i think this forum could be good for you if you learn to just read a little more, and protest a little less....best to you




sidenote: i wonder if the Houston astro player they reference there, is ken caminiti, the fellow who later admitted to using steroids profusely (and is now dead in fact)....that would explain his issues better, certainly not creatine use

fwiw, there is NO proven correlation or connection between kidney issues and creatine supplementation in the healthy adult -- none, zip zilch notta
this mentality is the same as those who propose that hi-protein diets will harm kidneys in healthy adults...once again, not accurate nor even remotely close to truth -- but sure makes for good spooking for the uneducated! :D
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
  • Established
fwiw, there is NO proven correlation or connection between kidney issues and creatine supplementation in the healthy adult -- none, zip zilch notta
this mentality is the same as those who propose that hi-protein diets will harm kidneys in healthy adults...once again, not accurate nor even remotely close to truth -- but sure makes for good spooking for the uneducated! :D
And cigarettes uses to be heathy....and low fat diets were healthier....according to science.

I've have seen prolonged creatine use raise liver values but as I said, its tough to gauge any sort of damage from that....

The supplement industry does not have the benefit of medical studies on subjects using creatine for 15-20yrs.....so therefore any conclusion about the long term effects is still speculation IMO. So stating their is no proof now doesn't make the statement or assumption less valid.
 

snagencyV2.0

Legend
Awards
0
And cigarettes uses to be heathy....
false - that was simply slick marketing from tobacco companies that told you that, no medical establishment ever co-signed on such
and low fat diets were healthier....
nope again - simply some faction's understanding of what was healthy
according to science.
nope - science never told you that, and science is never wrong - it is simply the human understanding and associated faulty perspective that "said" such imbecilic things


I've have seen prolonged creatine use raise liver values but as I said, its tough to gauge any sort of damage from that....

The supplement industry does not have the benefit of medical studies on subjects using creatine for 15-20yrs.....so therefore any conclusion about the long term effects is still speculation IMO. So stating their is no proof now doesn't make the statement or assumption less valid.
creatine has been around for lot longer than 15-20yrs now my friend -- and, until such time as there is DEFINITIVE, shown causation/correlation proof of such things you infer, there is simply SPECULATION, as you yourself do here

i reiterate, no proof as we know it, over many yrs of data, that there is any negative detrimental adverse effect to creatine use
period


/thread
 

z28spd

New member
Awards
0
The C.G.P. Is definitely the better of the two in my opinion. I have used both mono for years and as of the last two years CGP and there is a difference! Is there enough of a difference for you to pay the additional money that depends on your experience for me it is worth it. No bloat, much better fullness without the need of sugar and loading. But to each their own. I can tell you that I love CGP and with it not being too much more I usually go for it. If I am a little low on funds I may go to mono or do 10g of mono pro and 10 g of CGP post. I usually run 15-25 g of creatine a day for 3 months then a month off.
lol. Sugar and loading creatine will do nothing for you. And you wonder why you're bloated on creatine when you take 15-25g a day??? smh

CM provides 100% saturation. No need to waste money on anything else.
 
TeamTGB

TeamTGB

Active member
Awards
0
You would get bloated on that high of an amount of Creatine Monohydrate because its not being driven into the muscle cell. Simple as that
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
  • Established
false - that was simply slick marketing from tobacco companies that told you that, no medical establishment ever co-signed on such
Wrong. You actually had doctors quoting the health effects and when PUBLIC concern started questioning them, Tobacco companies used actual doctor quotes about their health benefits.

nope again - simply some faction's understanding of what was healthy
Wrong. The science community pushed low fats diet based on flawed studies....and actually had the federal government design dietary guidelines around it....sort of the point I am making..."Science" is only as good as those that are funding and running the studies.

nope - science never told you that, and science is never wrong - it is simply the human understanding and associated faulty perspective that "said" such imbecilic things
Science doesn't speak...its interpreted by flawed humans....

creatine has been around for lot longer than 15-20yrs now my friend -- and, until such time as there is DEFINITIVE, shown causation/correlation proof of such things you infer, there is simply SPECULATION, as you yourself do here
As I said, there is no proof NOW, but that doesn't mean you blindly follow the reasoning it will never harm you because you have an absence of scientific material. There is mention in several studies about the effects it could have in liver and kidney function.

As I said, and please read this again, you have no studies showing the effect of long term use for 10-15yrs. None. The closest 5yrs conducted in 2002.

Creatine has zero effect on my liver values in my 20's...it does now in my 40's...for some reason. Thats a fact and when it costs you an extra $80/month in a life insurance policy, you tend to find out what is causing it. Dropping it completely returns levels back to normal. Thats a fact and there are a number of cases in which this happens....generally in older individuals. Does that means it causes liver damage? No...but it could be a contributing factor that is yet unknown.

i reiterate, no proof as we know it, over many yrs of data, that there is any negative detrimental adverse effect to creatine use
period
I've seen bloodwork that warrants caution. I don't blindly follow opinion on a subject that hasn't been tested.


Don't ever tell me when a thread is over. Understand?
 
Driven2lift

Driven2lift

AnabolicMinds Site Rep
Awards
0
Well this is fun, lol.

Definitely laying this to rest

OP, if you find that you prefer this product then all the power to you.
There are mountains of studies showing the lack of superiority of specialty creatine blends/compounds, and actually in some cases inferiority has been demonstrated (CEE)

But science is not always in line with personal experience. I know some people swear by certain products I regard as useless, but everyone responds differently.

This goes for any product as a good general practise:

Use both, do your utmost best to disregard the somewhat shinier label on one of them, and try to gauge your physiological response as accurately as possible.

Of course this is where before/after pictures, measurements, and elimination of possible external factors (caloric intake, exercise intensity and program, etc.) becomes very important.

If everyone did this for every product and introduced them one at a time they would be surprised to see how few supplements actually illicit a noticeable benefit.

Placebo is an unfortunate reality that is breaking the bank for a lot of us lol

Wow ramble ramble

Take home point is try it, monitor closely, compare it to mono, and gauge for yourself if it is worth the price-tag.
 

hardknock

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
What type of specific differences do u want from me. It doesn't matter what I got from it. I would like to see if you used it what you would think. I liked it in comparison to every creatine I ever used for a reason. Trust me I wouldn't recommend a more expensive product for no reason. Anyone that knows me on here knows that I am honest when I talk about supps and if I think something sucks I will tell you but that is just not the case here. I would like to see a less expensive CGP to come to the market but as of now metabolic is the only one that I have seen.
What do you mean what type of differences? You lost me...I am asking what is the difference in the CGP and the regular creatine in terms of variances in your body, YOUR body.

Example...I don't drink alcohol, haven't since 03',04', however, if I wanted to get intoxicated quicker, I would choose liquor over beer because I know it gets me intoxicated quicker. If someone asks me why I chose liquor over beer then I would say because I want to get a quicker stimulation from alcohol so I drink liquor. Liquor takes about 30 minutes, beer takes about 1.5 hours...pretty simple what I asked? I am not in the "debate" of whether your information is outdated, inaccurate, correct, or any other erroneous subject matter that people get caught up in. I am asking a specific question to you about what you gained from it specifically.
 

Similar threads


Top