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.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.
15-25 g a day? Wow... you know that's completely unnecessary and wasteful, right?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.
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.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.
You are just absolutely incorrect. Wow.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.
The only thing more ridiculous than this dosing protocol is citing Flex as a reference.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.
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".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.
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.You are just absolutely incorrect. Wow.
he is correct you are quite erroneous in your infoDon'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.
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.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!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?
http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2011/08/ask-dr-andro-pharmacokinetics-of.htmlDon'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.
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 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.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..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.
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.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
obviously, the text of your post loudly states you believe us all to be full of sh1tI 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?
www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/creatine.htmlobviously, 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
Anything can be toxic.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
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.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
do you even know what point you are trying to make here, will? i think you are one very confused catwww.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.
And cigarettes uses to be heathy....and low fat diets were healthier....according to science.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!
false - that was simply slick marketing from tobacco companies that told you that, no medical establishment ever co-signed on suchAnd cigarettes uses to be heathy....
nope again - simply some faction's understanding of what was healthyand low fat diets were healthier....
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 thingsaccording to science.
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 hereI'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.
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??? smhThe 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.
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.false - that was simply slick marketing from tobacco companies that told you that, no medical establishment ever co-signed on such
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 again - simply some faction's understanding of what was healthy
Science doesn't speak...its interpreted by flawed humans....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
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.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've seen bloodwork that warrants caution. I don't blindly follow opinion on a subject that hasn't been tested.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
Don't ever tell me when a thread is over. Understand?/thread
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.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.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
The Ultimate Guide to Creatine | Articles | 4 | ||
Please assess my labs (HDL / E2 / Creatine Kinase) | Anabolics | 13 | ||
Creatine Discussion | Supplements | 45 | ||
Just ran out of creatine hcl: can I use creatine mono for a week while I wait for more? | Supplements | 4 | ||
CGP Creatine Glycerol Phosphate (400 g) | Product Reviews | 1 |