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

Everyone's favorite creatine?

SamuelPeterso said:
Hey all first post here. I thought I will chime in with some information on creatine I have learned from reading a huge amount of literature on it.

Monohydrate- one maybe two studies say it is 100% absorbed from the intestines. Another study says it is 3% absorbed... quite a difference. Another study shows it is less than 40% absorbed same with HCL, and a few other forms of creatine. One study says about 75% of users respond to it, 25% don't. In one study it raised muscle creatine up to 40%. Can cause quite a lot of gastro intestinal distress in some people. Probably the most heavily marketed because it is the cheapest to make. I would estimate it costs around 3$ a kilo to make.

HCL- a patent says it is 50 times more water soluble than monohydrate. May be fat soluble to some extent. There is no studies on HCL alone. There is one on HCL, and 3 other forms of creatine about their intestinal absorption, and they were all less than 40% absorbed.

Ethyl ester- 15 times more absorbed from the intestines than monohydrate. Fat soluble to some degree. Crossed a cell membrane independent of the transporter in a lab experiment however in one study when given to a kid with creatine transporter deficiency- a disease where the creatine transporter on the cell membrane is broken, and so creatine can not get into the muscles, and brain, it did not increase brain creatine after 1 year on it, meaning can't get into cells without the transporter.

In my analysis HCL, and ethyl ester are probably both better than monohydrate

Free acid creatine in creactor. Also called creatine anhydrous. This is the type of creatine naturally occurring in all vertebrates including us, and is found in meat. The creatine transporter in the cell membrane is very specific to creatine- it won't take in creatinine or other structurally similar substances. It is made specifically to take in free acid creatine / creatine anhydrous so this is something to think about. It might get into muscle cells better than all the other forms of creatine. That said it does not have water attached to it like monohydrate so it may not increase muscle size to the extent monohydrate does.

All the other forms- nitrate, malate, orotate, pyruvate etc. Can only find a handful of studies on these, and there is not enough info to know for sure what they do in the body. I have not taken them myself. Someone would have to experiment with them to find out if they respond to it or not.

I have a question if someone knows- does monohydrate hit the bloodstream as monohydrate or does the water group come off, and are left with free creatine in the blood? I ask because 25% of mono people are non responders which could mean the creatine transporter does not take it up, maybe because of the water group on it.
Click to expand...
That's an intereating question and I hope someone with the knowledge of the science of it can help you with a response. I'm part of the lucky percentage that responds favorably to all forms of creatine so I'll just grab some popcorn and wait.
 
SamuelPeterso said:
Hey all first post here. I thought I will chime in with some information on creatine I have learned from reading a huge amount of literature on it.

Monohydrate- one maybe two studies say it is 100% absorbed from the intestines. Another study says it is 3% absorbed... quite a difference. Another study shows it is less than 40% absorbed same with HCL, and a few other forms of creatine. One study says about 75% of users respond to it, 25% don't. In one study it raised muscle creatine up to 40%. Can cause quite a lot of gastro intestinal distress in some people. Probably the most heavily marketed because it is the cheapest to make. I would estimate it costs around 3$ a kilo to make.

HCL- a patent says it is 50 times more water soluble than monohydrate. May be fat soluble to some extent. There is no studies on HCL alone. There is one on HCL, and 3 other forms of creatine about their intestinal absorption, and they were all less than 40% absorbed.

Ethyl ester- 15 times more absorbed from the intestines than monohydrate. Fat soluble to some degree. Crossed a cell membrane independent of the transporter in a lab experiment however in one study when given to a kid with creatine transporter deficiency- a disease where the creatine transporter on the cell membrane is broken, and so creatine can not get into the muscles, and brain, it did not increase brain creatine after 1 year on it, meaning can't get into cells without the transporter.

In my analysis HCL, and ethyl ester are probably both better than monohydrate

Free acid creatine in creactor. Also called creatine anhydrous. This is the type of creatine naturally occurring in all vertebrates including us, and is found in meat. The creatine transporter in the cell membrane is very specific to creatine- it won't take in creatinine or other structurally similar substances. It is made specifically to take in free acid creatine / creatine anhydrous so this is something to think about. It might get into muscle cells better than all the other forms of creatine. That said it does not have water attached to it like monohydrate so it may not increase muscle size to the extent monohydrate does.

All the other forms- nitrate, malate, orotate, pyruvate etc. Can only find a handful of studies on these, and there is not enough info to know for sure what they do in the body. I have not taken them myself. Someone would have to experiment with them to find out if they respond to it or not.

I have a question if someone knows- does monohydrate hit the bloodstream as monohydrate or does the water group come off, and are left with free creatine in the blood? I ask because 25% of mono people are non responders which could mean the creatine transporter does not take it up, maybe because of the water group on it.
Click to expand...
Before we even think about answering your question, I have to address the elephant in the room; we've known that CEE is much less effective than creatine monohydrate, and basically useless, for a while now.

In conclusion, when compared to creatine monohydrate, creatine ethyl ester was not as effective at increasing serum and muscle creatine levels or in improving body composition, muscle mass, strength, and power.
Click to expand...
Invalid Link Removed
CEE , but not CM, is converted into creatinine in the gastrointestinal tract. As a result the use of CEE may be associated with elevated plasma creatinine levels.
Click to expand...
Invalid Link Removed
This study demonstrates that mild non-enzymatic conditions are sufficient for the cyclization of creatine ethyl ester into creatinine, and together with previous results obtained under enzymatic conditions suggests that there are no physiological conditions that would result in the production of creatine. It is concluded that creatine ethyl ester is a pronutrient for creatinine rather than creatine under all physiological conditions encountered during transit through the various tissues, thus no ergogenic effect is to be expected from supplementation.
Click to expand...
Invalid Link Removed
This study indicates that the half-life of CEE in blood is on the order of one minute, suggesting that CEE may hydrolyze too quickly to reach muscle cells in its ester form.
Click to expand...
Invalid Link Removed
 
Saidly not a big fan. I usually switch between SNS creatine (different versions) or AAEFX.
 
SamuelPeterso said:
The study (I can't post links) "pH-Dependent Stability of Creatine Ethyl Ester: Relevance to Oral Absorption" rebuts the above ones


Given the instability of CEE in the bloodstream at neutral pH, the rate at which CEE partitions from the bloodstream into the more favorable cellular lipid environment of the tissue for activation (hydrolysis) and utilization is critical to the unique attributes of CEE as a dietary supplement. However, because CEE is sufficiently stable in the pH range of the gastrointestinal tract, it is likely that the rate and extent of absorption as well as the ultimate fate of intact CEE has been underestimated. Further studies are needed to elucidate this process and to characterize the complete in vivo pharmacokinetic profile of CEE using human dosing of isotopically labeled CEE. However, the present findings suggest a potential improvement in CEE absorption in the GI tract compared to CRT alone.

Rank order permeability in Caco-2 monolayers was CRT < CRN < CEE, with CEE having 15-fold greater permeability than CRT monohydrate

However it is not lipid soluble enough to cross cell membranes without the use of the creatine transporter. At least into the brain anyway

:Response to creatine analogs in fibroblasts and patients with creatine transporter deficiency"

Another interesting one is creatine gluconate which can cross cell membranes without the cereatine transporter

"Creatine salts provide neuroprotection even after partial impairment of the creatine transporter"

Finally, creatine gluconate was superior to creatine in increasing tissue content of creatine after transporter block and slowed down PS disappearance during anoxia, an effect that creatine did not have.

The type in steak is anhydrous/ free acid creatine. It doesn't have a water attached to it so logically would not increase water volume in the muscle cells as much as monohydrate however in my analysis it is the best type to take for medical reasons (fatigue, depression, brain fog) rather than body building because it is the identical form to what is in the body so the creatine transporter on the cell membrane should recognise it in 100% of people, and take it in. The reason mono may not work in 25% of users is because the body may not recognise the water group attached to it, and may not take it into the muscle.
Click to expand...
Give up on CEE, it's basically useless, and definitely less effective than monohydrate and more expensive. Monohydrate, anhydrous, and MCC are all good options IMO.
 
^CEE is a pure waste of money.

Get more creatine by weight, for a good price point.
Usually that means go for monohydrate, or a reasonably priced anhydrous.

HCl... I don't buy into it really. Still not enhancing results and costing more per adequate dose.
 
APS Nutrition's creatine monohydrate and Gaspari's Qualitine have worked very well for me.
 
I don't respond to Mono and haven't since I took it in 1995. I don't find creatine does anything but I still think Mono is the best of them all.
 
MARK_ said:
How much creatine is in SizeOn? Maybe I will order some of that next time I need creatine?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it's 4g per serving
 
SNS Creatine Monohydrate. Can be had for a very good price and it's high quality.
 
I love HiTechs Phosphagen...more expensive but the science behind it is legit
 
MAN-CLOUT was the best creatine I ever used, got some serious gains on it way back in the day....

clout was orotine I think, man that stuff was good.

og clout/body octane was a staple when I 1st started buying online products.

for a all purpose product that contains an adequate dose of creatine-tr1umph

for a creatine product-sizeon

for mono-sns
 
thebigt said:
MAN-CLOUT was the best creatine I ever used, got some serious gains on it way back in the day....

clout was orotine I think, man that stuff was good.

og clout/body octane was a staple when I 1st started buying online products.

for a all purpose product that contains an adequate dose of creatine-tr1umph

for a creatine product-sizeon

for mono-sns
Click to expand...

I liked creatine orotate..I used it for a couple of months when my 5x5 bench workout jumped from 315 to 365...can't prove it was that but only change in my supp use at the time
 
D0b said:
Which brand? Link please
Click to expand...

At the time is was Orotine from MAN Sports..I don't think they make it now..
 
hsk said:
Of all the creatine's I've tried over the years, the ones I would stick to are Creatine HCL, Magnesium Creatine Chelate (MCC), and micronized CreaPure/creatine monohydrate. The most effective form for me has been Creatine HCL. I get cramps and bloat from all other forms so far no matter how small of a dose I use. I only use 2g-2.5g daily for each kind. For me, it is worth the extra price, although it is not much since i buy 1kg at a time for about $25/kg. I am interested in trying Creatine Anhydrous, however no one sells it in 1kg bulk size yet.
Click to expand...

you buy MCC in a kg tub? In the US?
 
Simple micronized creatine monohydrate is your best buy/most rigorously studied. Additive ingredients would be R-ALA, sodium, Taurine and Russian Tarragon. The best though IMO, is fenugreek. Invalid Link Removed

Basically, it slows down the digestion of food allowing more creatine to be taken up in the small intestine..
 
danielmoo said:
The creatine in SizeOn does it for me, sweet and simple.
Click to expand...

I have to say Size On Tablets from Gaspari was one of my favorite creatine products of all time!! My strength went way up!! I wish they would bring these back.
 
I've been pretty happy with Cellucor's Creatine mono. I can tell you the one i like least, universal creatine monohydrate, would never mix and don't think it ever did anything.
 
mountain1 said:
I have to say Size On Tablets from Gaspari was one of my favorite creatine products of all time!! My strength went way up!! I wish they would bring these back.
Click to expand...
Man, that is a huge throwback.. I almost forgot that we offered both powder and tablets. OG Gaspari fan right here!
 
Mixelflick said:
Simple micronized creatine monohydrate is your best buy/most rigorously studied. Additive ingredients would be R-ALA, sodium, Taurine and Russian Tarragon. The best though IMO, is fenugreek. Invalid Link Removed

Basically, it slows down the digestion of food allowing more creatine to be taken up in the small intestine..
Click to expand...

900MG of fenugreek[testofen]is a healthy dose....I usually get in around 600mg daily split in 2 doses when I run a fenugreek[testofen] product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top