Guest viewing is limited

Kidney trouble on CEE (Creatine Ethyl Ester)

Just another thing to think about. I'm assuming creatine also causes water retention in heart muscle, possibly leading to enlargement over long term use. There hasn't been any evidence of enlargement for me, as I did get things checked out recently. But my resting heart rate is a little on the high side for an athlete, like 78-90 bpm. Then again, I think it's also congenital since I don't ever recall me ever having a rate of lower than 70s.
 
I am shopping for suppliments now and this has been very heplfull for me to come to a conclusion on what I should and shouldn't purchase. Thanx
 
I just had work done as well and my Creatinine was 1.5. I take about 6 grams per day of CEE which I capsule myself.
 
Override said:
I am shopping for suppliments now and this has been very heplfull for me to come to a conclusion on what I should and shouldn't purchase. Thanx
Click to expand...

Welcome to anabolic minds.
 
Nice Thread and very informative. I've been using CNW's bulk cee on and off with no problems as of late. I need to go get work done, but I've usually just stayed on a month and got off for a 2 weeks to a month. As far as results compared to mono, I beleive they are the same, I just have more vascularity on cee than I do mono. Water intake is always high(at least 1.5gallons) when using creatine. But like I said, maye I need to go get some BW done.
 
SubliminalX said:
Just another thing to think about. I'm assuming creatine also causes water retention in heart muscle, possibly leading to enlargement over long term use. There hasn't been any evidence of enlargement for me, as I did get things checked out recently. But my resting heart rate is a little on the high side for an athlete, like 78-90 bpm. Then again, I think it's also congenital since I don't ever recall me ever having a rate of lower than 70s.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain that creatine supplementation has no detrimental effect on cardiac muscle. That's kind of been a bogey man for a while that people are still using to scare kids away from the stuff. Some time ago a friend pointed me to a study on that very subject. I can't find it right now, but it's definitely out there. I'll post it if I find it.

Also, do be careful of these various COAs. I'm no expert (so if someone knows better please do tell), but if you read them closely it seems that even those that test out at 99.9% don't prove much. As I understand, most of the tests I've seen are of the format: assume white powder is CEE, test how predominant said white powder is in packaged substance, i.e, whether the product been cut. So the missing part of the puzzle is obviously the identity of the white powder. It could be pure creatinine, a creatine monohydrate/creatinine mixture, or just baking soda. I mean, that third party spectrum analysis posted on bodybuilding.com was pretty straight forward in its conclusion: "After carefully reviewing every creatine ethyl ester available on the market place the following results were found: A) All are regular creatine monohydrate mixed with an acid or without"
 
ocyeoman said:
I'm fairly certain that creatine supplementation has no detrimental effect on cardiac muscle. That's kind of been a bogey man for a while that people are still using to scare kids away from the stuff. Some time ago a friend pointed me to a study on that very subject. I can't find it right now, but it's definitely out there. I'll post it if I find it.

Also, do be careful of these various COAs. I'm no expert (so if someone knows better please do tell), but if you read them closely it seems that even those that test out at 99.9% don't prove much. As I understand, most of the tests I've seen are of the format: assume white powder is CEE, test how predominant said white powder is in packaged substance, i.e, whether the product been cut. So the missing part of the puzzle is obviously the identity of the white powder. It could be pure creatinine, a creatine monohydrate/creatinine mixture, or just baking soda. I mean, that third party spectrum analysis posted on bodybuilding.com was pretty straight forward in its conclusion: "After carefully reviewing every creatine ethyl ester available on the market place the following results were found: A) All are regular creatine monohydrate mixed with an acid or without"
Click to expand...

Wow, so you're saying there is no such thing as creatine ethyl ester on the market now? Just creatine mono + extras?
 
Yep. That's what the analysis I posted earlier said. Mind you, that came from the bodybuilding.com page for CEE, a page set up to prove the legitamacy of CEE. They hyped up the analysis as irrefutable proof of CEE's legitamacy from an unbiased, third-party, source. The author came across as so confident, as if he was daring you to click the link to the analyses. It looks like they didn't expect anyone to actually do so. Check it out for yourself in my earlier post.
 
Also, here is a Invalid Link Removed to a paper published in the 50s that calls into question the validity/legitamacy of the esterfied version of creatine (CEE). Their conclusion is in agreement with the spectrum analysis posted on bodybuilding. com, that CEE is mostly creatinine. It also states that CEE was supposedly created by adding hydrochloric acid to creatine monohydrate. This is interesting because the spectrum analysis I previously posted states that many CEE products are just monohydrate with an acid added. So to sum up this paper, CEE is bogus and has been for a long time.

Digging on search engines, it looks like there is really no hard evidence supporting CEE beyond anecdotal experience. If someone knows any different please feel free to chime in.
 
ocyeoman said:
Also, here is a Invalid Link Removed to a paper published in the 50s that calls into question the validity/legitamacy of the esterfied version of creatine (CEE). Their conclusion is in agreement with the spectrum analysis posted on bodybuilding. com, that CEE is mostly creatinine. It also states that CEE was supposedly created by adding hydrochloric acid to creatine monohydrate. This is interesting because the spectrum analysis I previously posted states that many CEE products are just monohydrate with an acid added. So to sum up this paper, CEE is bogus and has been for a long time.

Digging on search engines, it looks like there is really no hard evidence supporting CEE beyond anecdotal experience. If someone knows any different please feel free to chime in.
Click to expand...

man, you really been doin some investigating into CEE, thats some interesting sh*t!!
 
ocyeoman said:
Also, here is a Invalid Link Removed to a paper published in the 50s that calls into question the validity/legitamacy of the esterfied version of creatine (CEE). Their conclusion is in agreement with the spectrum analysis posted on bodybuilding. com, that CEE is mostly creatinine. It also states that CEE was supposedly created by adding hydrochloric acid to creatine monohydrate. This is interesting because the spectrum analysis I previously posted states that many CEE products are just monohydrate with an acid added. So to sum up this paper, CEE is bogus and has been for a long time.

Digging on search engines, it looks like there is really no hard evidence supporting CEE beyond anecdotal experience. If someone knows any different please feel free to chime in.
Click to expand...

Wow, that is quite a revealing paper. Being that CEE appears so labile, my guess is that users must really be reporting the effects of just good old creatine mono. Nice find.
 
workin2005 said:
It was swollen...the way kidneys [start] to get when you start feeling that pain most think is lower back pain. Most people just dont get a sonogram done to see how much it swelled up. That said....you make a good point.
Click to expand...
So from what you're saying, lower back tightness is a sign of kidney irregularity?

I started back on my CEE again after a good year off from it and instantly my lower back becomes tight. The reason i switched over to CEE in the first place after bulk mono is because mono did nothing for me. [The last time i cycled CEE, after about 2 weeks i started becoming EXTREMELY tired all day even with good water consumption.]

I'm using the bulk cee from giant. They have a CofA up on their site that states 100% cee.

Has anyone else noticed a strong diuretic effect while on the cee?

Edit: Actually going back to a conversation i had with PA over at bb.com in January, the CofA posted on their site for the cee should really read 99%.

He had also stated CEE breaks down over time, so the true percentage is anywhere between 95% to 98%.
 
Count me in too. I had been using BN CEE for some time. I went in for some pre-surgery bloodwork and was called in to the Dr. to discuss the results of my renal functions which the results were elevated creatinine levels/abnormal kidney functions. The Dr. was very puzzled and advised me to up my water intake, which I already drink over a gallon a day. I have discontinued use and will go back in a month or two and get retested.
 
kind of OT but not really. Back a few years ago when I was into some "other" supplements of the fun kind (think stimulating/happy) I had some crazy kidney problems at towards the latter end of usage. I know how it can feel but I had no idea my bulk CEE that's sitting there could be doing damage too.
 
What sort of differences have people noticed once they stopped taking CEE? Of course the big one for me was the disapearance of any pain or discomfort in my sides or lower back. But I also have noticed a marked decrease in the retention of water. That is, I have noticibly more definition. So much so that my girlfriend has commented. I didn't realize it was happening while I was taking the stuff, but CEE has to have been the culprit. Regular old mono does the same thing to me, so this too makes me doubt that CEE is really any different than mono. I plan on trying a bufferred product tomorrow to see if there is any difference with that.
 
Very informative thread, I've tried many different brands of CEE, and got nothing from them (slight increase in strength but not enough to dertemine if it was CEE or just diet), but got good results from mono. I could never understand why I would be a responder to mono but not CEE. This thread sheds some light on this.
 
Bruhs,
Good work...this thread is VERY interesting and informative. I feel so enlightened.

I do have an interesting comment though. When I was taking CEE, or what I thought was CEE, I had waaaayyyy less water retention and much more vascularity than with C Mono...so what else could the extras be to produce this. I did notice the diuretic effect when I came off CEE but then again it didn't make me hold that much water to begin with.

I'm confused :think:
 
anabolik1 said:
Bruhs,
Good work...this thread is VERY interesting and informative. I feel so enlightened.

I do have an interesting comment though. When I was taking CEE, or what I thought was CEE, I had waaaayyyy less water retention and much more vascularity than with C Mono...so what else could the extras be to produce this. I did notice the diuretic effect when I came off CEE but then again it didn't make me hold that much water to begin with.

I'm confused :think:
Click to expand...
Good question...bump for an answer!:blink:
 
anabolik1 said:
Bruhs,
Good work...this thread is VERY interesting and informative. I feel so enlightened.

I do have an interesting comment though. When I was taking CEE, or what I thought was CEE, I had waaaayyyy less water retention and much more vascularity than with C Mono...so what else could the extras be to produce this. I did notice the diuretic effect when I came off CEE but then again it didn't make me hold that much water to begin with.

I'm confused :think:
Click to expand...

Just a shot in the dark, but could it be because you took less CEE than you did of mono?

Edit: I just wanted to explain the thought behind this theory. Granted, I'm not a biologist or chemist, but I'm working through this logically, so bear with me. Please feel free to correct me where I'm mistaken. We've all heard that of the creatine we ingest very little gets absorbed. Also, it's been said that creatine side effects are caused by the unabsorbed or unutilized creatine. Thus, if we are taking in more creatine we can expect more unabsorbed creatine in our system thus causing more sides.

I experienced this myself with CEE. I was doing totally fine with no pain in my lower back or sides when I was only taking 3 grams a day. When I upped it to 6 is when I started having trouble. I'm also assuming that's when I started blowing up like a water balloon. Against my better judgement, today I started a pure kre alkalyn product. We'll see how that goes.
 
ocyeoman said:
Just a shot in the dark, but could it be because you took less CEE than you did of mono?

Edit: I just wanted to explain the thought behind this theory. Granted, I'm not a biologist or chemist, but I'm working through this logically, so bear with me. Please feel free to correct me where I'm mistaken. We've all heard that of the creatine we ingest very little gets absorbed. Also, it's been said that creatine side effects are caused by the unabsorbed or unutilized creatine. Thus, if we are taking in more creatine we can expect more unabsorbed creatine in our system thus causing more sides.

I experienced this myself with CEE. I was doing totally fine with no pain in my lower back or sides when I was only taking 3 grams a day. When I upped it to 6 is when I started having trouble. I'm also assuming that's when I started blowing up like a water balloon. Against my better judgement, today I started a pure kre alkalyn product. We'll see how that goes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I take low doses of CEE because at higher doses I got headaches as I mentioned above. I've never felt bloated or even less defined at my current dosage. Actually, when I started CEE last year, first thing I noticed was increased vacularity when I got a little pump going during workouts. I figured it was water retention INSIDE the skeletal muscle, which pushed the veins out against the underside of the skin.

So IMO, the take home message is be very conservative with creatine use in general.
 
SubliminalX said:
So IMO, the take home message is be very conservative with creatine use in general.
Click to expand...


I agree wholeheartedly. Save your organs and save a few bucks in the process.
 
I been on creatine off and on about 9 yrs. now.I switch to cee for about a week and thats when all the problems started for me at least that my guess .I wonder if all thoses years of prior uset had anything to do it?I'm amazed at the amount of people having the small problems.I got my final test results back aswell after a **** load of test and my levels was 1.2 but was without working out and cutting my protein down to 100 grams and driving about a less than a gallon of water a day.Who knew that this would be so tough on the body i always assume creatine was safe!I know now it does causes some people problems including me.I wonder what the pro's creatinine levels at because my Dr. mention the more muscle the higher the creatinine in body and if mine on avg. is about 1.4 and 1.6 i assume their would a few points high?
 
ocyeoman said:
I experienced this myself with CEE. I was doing totally fine with no pain in my lower back or sides when I was only taking 3 grams a day. When I upped it to 6 is when I started having trouble. I'm also assuming that's when I started blowing up like a water balloon. Against my better judgement, today I started a pure kre alkalyn product. We'll see how that goes.
Click to expand...
Funny thing is yesturday was my second day of the cycle at 2.5g ED of cee. I started feeling the symptoms on day one, but really started feeling the kidney pressure on day two. Then again i seem to be more sensitive to supplements, always having to dose at a lower dose then what's recommended. I too never felt the problems on regular mono, but regular mono never really did anything for me at 10g's ED besides giving me stomach cramps.

Even after only two days of CEE i definitely notice the vascularity difference between being on it and not. But my kidney is numero uno so no more CEE for me. Great discussion.
 
Anyone have any thoughts on the safety of CEO (used in MAN's Orotine or Nutrabolic's Full Throttle)?

I ask because this is also another form of Creatine that has not been available for a long period of time yet..

If the consensus is to be wary of all creatine consumption, then I guess it would only make sense that CEO would be right along side of CEE and mono in terms of safety..

One more question, how often do you guys cycle the various forms of creatine?

Thanks
 
Beneath_the_Sea said:
One more question, how often do you guys cycle the various forms of creatine?

Thanks
Click to expand...

I consider creatine to be a basic supp, so I haven't been off at all for over 1 year (CEE) except for some rest days here and there. I just keep the doses low. Remember, creatine is found in meats so it's not an unnatural compound. Much in the same way you wouldn't take in 1000 grams of protein per day, I wouldn't ingest more than 2-3 grams of CEE per day on average. I've actually been lowering it down to 0.5-1 gram per day since I started EXCEED. All I'm shooting for is higher than "average" creatine intake to optimize natural growth and endurance, all the while not trying to throw my system too far off its baseline chemistry.
 
SubliminalX said:
I consider creatine to be a basic supp, so I haven't been off at all for over 1 year (CEE) except for some rest days here and there. I just keep the doses low. Remember, creatine is found in meats so it's not an unnatural compound. Much in the same way you wouldn't take in 1000 grams of protein per day, I wouldn't ingest more than 2-3 grams of CEE per day on average. I've actually been lowering it down to 0.5-1 gram per day since I started EXCEED. All I'm shooting for is higher than "average" creatine intake to optimize natural growth and endurance, all the while not trying to throw my system too far off its baseline chemistry.
Click to expand...

YEP, I've always squirmed when reading about people taking 10 grams of creatine a day. The difference between a supplement and a poison is in the size of the dose.
 
As I said ealier, my blood tests showed my kidney functions to be much better after ending cee for a few days and drinking gallons of water.

When I switched to another form of creatine, like in Pro's "Pump Juice", I had a slight raise in my Cratine level, but no where near as bad as when using CEE.

Bottom line for me: I wont be using any CEE products anymore. I will be using creatine products containing real creatine monohydrate or a few others, like the form found in Pump Juice. I get great results from it and my kidney doesn't seem to suffer! Great product Pro!:bow28:
 
I don't think I have any issues w/CEE, but have you tried the POWDER form? I swear, after 1 serving, I almost puked. Just the smell of the powder makes me wretch. I smells as if there's some toxic compound in there. The taste is absolutely horrendous! I got the pills now. Been taking it for months now, and no issues (no pain anyways).

Thanks for starting this post. It's good to know when others are having adverse reactions to supps.
 
It's the worst tasting supplement out there IMO but thats the least of its problems it seems:blink:
 
workin2005 said:
It's the worst tasting supplement out there IMO but thats the least of its problems it seems:blink:
Click to expand...

Ha, but no - not even close to some stuff.

On a general note - I don't know if this has been stated before in this thread (apologize if it did) but the absorption of CEE is according to the numbers provided in the patent application by the Univ. of Nebraska vastly higher than that of monhydrate (at least 10 times). So if you think you can dose it like mono you might screw yourself.
 
rocketscientist said:
Ha, but no - not even close to some stuff.

On a general note - I don't know if this has been stated before in this thread (apologize if it did) but the absorption of CEE is according to the numbers provided in the patent application by the Univ. of Nebraska vastly higher than that of monhydrate (at least 10 times). So if you think you can dose it like mono you might screw yourself.
Click to expand...

True, But I have used regular creatine at 20 grams per day with no problem. The CEE gave me trouble at 5 grams per day, so I dropped it to 2-3 grams per day. Still had the same problems with my kidney.:blink:

This is a real bummer because I love the pump CEE would give me, especially stacked with a good NO product! But, I guess sacraficing ones kidney is not worth a good pump:bb2:
 
interesting...

I was about to run CEE at 7 grams per day 5g b4 workout and 2g post

The brand of CEE I have runs high at 5g per 1 scoop.

the pills and even Bulk CEE are only 2g

I did find one pill brand that was 3g per 4 pills
 
BTW - I just had a little time. Below is the link from the fda website. So far this contains the only comparison on CEE vs mono that I know of.

Invalid Link Removed

The results are somewhat theoretical. But the point to take away IMO is that CEE seems very potent compared to mono.
 
rocketscientist said:
BTW - I just had a little time. Below is the link from the fda website. So far this contains the only comparison on CEE vs mono that I know of.

Invalid Link Removed

The results are somewhat theoretical. But the point to take away IMO is that CEE seems very potent compared to mono.
Click to expand...

Good job pulling that up. I wasn't sure who originally filed the patent, so I wasn't able to find it. Thanks. I really wanted to see it.

As I've stated numerous times, I'm no chemist. So you won't find me trying to dicipher the esoteric terminology used in the patent. However, it is clear that the methodology used is based on a previously disproved paper. The patent references and draws heavily on the previous work of Dox and Yoder and their 1922 paper The Esterfication of Creatine. One such example is the following paragraph:

Although the formulation of creatine ethyl ester is disclosed, it should be apparent that a variety of creatine esters may be produced utilizing analogous reaction systems without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention. See Dox., A.W.; Yoder, L. Esterifcation of Creatine. J. Biol. Chem. 1922, 67,671-673, 20 which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety. For instance, a variety of methods of producing a creatine ester are contemplated without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention, such as the methods aud process shown in FIG. 4, wherein X may include a leaving group. Although the use of creatine monohydrate is disclosed, a variety of creatine containing starting compounds are 25 contemplated by the present invention, creatine monohydrate being disclosed merely because of its availability.

The problem lies in the fact that Dox and Yoder were proven wrong over fifty years ago. Dox and Yoder claimed to create creatine ethyl ester but it was proven to be just creatinine. The paper I linked to earlier (Creatine Ethyl Ether BY JAMES D. MOLD, ROBERT C. GORE, JOSEPH M. LYNCH AND E. J. SCHANTZ) itself dismantles Dox and Yoder's work as well as references others who have as well. Here are snippets:

Kapfhammer repeated the preparation of several of these compounds and confirmed the findings of Dox and Yoder. He pointed out, however, that the behavior of these compounds in chemical reactions and toward colorimetric tests and precipitating agents was typical of creatinine and not of creatine.

More.........

Farlane later showed ........ when the chloride was re-moved by shaking creatine methyl ester hydro-chloride with silver carbonate prior to the nitrous acid treatment, only 41y0 of the total nitrogen was evolved, suggesting that a conversion to creatinine may have occurred. Failey and Brand, upon careful electrometric titration of creatine methyl ester hydrochloride with sodium hydroxide, noted an irreversible conversion during the titration, with the end-product giving a titration curve identical to creatinine.


So, I know people will continue using and buying CEE, but I'm quite satisfied that it is bunk now. I have no doubt that the esterfication of creatine would be a boon and would be theoretically superior, but it just doesn't seem to actually have been executed. The fact that the University of Nebraska is involved doesn't impress me either. That's not me being an Ivy League snob, that's me knowing that academics are incredibly fallable. There is a lot to be gained from fudging your lab results.

Overall, given what the patent application contained, I'm not surprised that it was rejected. But does anyone know the exact reason stated for its rejection? I mean, CreaTate is based on dubious science as well, yet it was approved for a patent. How unsubstantiated does something have to be to be outright rejected?
 
This post makes a ton of sense. I've used Creatine Monohydrate for years without trouble. This year I started CEE / Dymatize Xpand and was diagnosed with a kidney stone. I believe the stone may have broken up as I don't feel it any more but I DO experience kidney pains occaisionally when I take my X-Pand.

Xpand works, but after reading this thread, I am chucking my Xpand, Fast Twitch & my CEE Pills. I am going back to good ol' Eas Phosphagen HP. Cheap and effective.

I think I always new these new pre-workout shakes were causing problems but I just needed to hear it from others.

Thanx guys!!!
 
joseph_d79 said:
This post makes a ton of sense. I've used Creatine Monohydrate for years without trouble. This year I started CEE / Dymatize Xpand and was diagnosed with a kidney stone. I believe the stone may have broken up as I don't feel it any more but I DO experience kidney pains occaisionally when I take my X-Pand.

Xpand works, but after reading this thread, I am chucking my Xpand, Fast Twitch & my CEE Pills. I am going back to good ol' Eas Phosphagen HP. Cheap and effective.

I think I always new these new pre-workout shakes were causing problems but I just needed to hear it from others.

Thanx guys!!!
Click to expand...


Hey guys, let me ask you something. Not that I'm an illegal performance enhancing drug "abuser" or anything, but with all these new "wonder drugs" available OTC (over-the-counter), such as Creatines, pro-steroids, pro-hormones, "Boosters", muscle volumizers, etc, it seems that the useage of products with YEARS of research and human testing/results, ie steroids, aren't such a bad idea.

What I'm saying is that bodybuilders and other sports enthusiasts are trying their hardest to put on muscle, lose fat, and increase endurance by using substances, "supplements", that are, in all effect, completely untested (for efficacy and safety). I'm fairly concerned that there are serious health risks associated with these substances. Maybe this is an old topic of debate, but after reading so many posts about claimed adverse affects from supplements, it kind of gets me thinking.

Does anyone REALLY know WTF even half of these supplements are doing to us in the short-term? Long-term? Short-term, maybe. Long-term, highly doubtful. Sometimes I just think it's stupid that we're jamming all these chemicals into ourselves, blowing wads of money, then reaping a few measly pounds of muscle (if any!). All the while, we may be destorying our livers, kidneys, heart (thermos!), etc.

Ok, I'm done ranting. Just wanted to throw that out there for all of you who have had a clinically/physiologically negative experience with supplementation. You're not alone and I want to thank those who POST their experiences for all to learn from. Be safe, and if something "hurts", investigate, then remedy!
 
Well founded points. Risk/reward is skewed. However, I don't think you need to take it to the extreme of AAS or other illegal supplementation. There are many other time test substances on the market (why protein, creatine monohydrate). Because most of us here demand so much of ourselves, we push what we put in our bodies. This plays into the hands of many supplement providers.

I'm not saying that all supplement providers nor all CEE providers have opportunistic intentions. But many of us curse our lawmakers for taking away a whole class of supplements (PHs) for the purpose of protecting a minority that refused to educate and safeguard itself, while we do the exact such thing with supplements such as CEE. If we provide lip service to the idea of self-regulation, then we should not be surprised when such a privilege is taken away from us. Unfortunately, widespread cynicism is the key. We can't take it for granted when a supplement provider's information regarding the safety of their product is based on an entirely different compound, as it is with CEE. Saying Creatine Ethyl Ester is safe because it is made from Creatine Monohydrate is like saying methanphetamine is safe because it is made from sudafed. IMHO, of course.
 
ocyeoman said:
Well founded points. Risk/reward is skewed. However, I don't think you need to take it to the extreme of anabolic steroids or other illegal supplementation. There are many other time test substances on the market (why protein, creatine monohydrate). Because most of us here demand so much of ourselves, we push what we put in our bodies. This plays into the hands of many supplement providers.

I'm not saying that all supplement providers nor all CEE providers have opportunistic intentions. But many of us curse our lawmakers for taking away a whole class of supplements (PHs) for the purpose of protecting a minority that refused to educate and safeguard itself, while we do the exact such thing with supplements such as CEE. If we provide lip service to the idea of self-regulation, then we should not be surprised when such a privilege is taken away from us. Unfortunately, widespread cynicism is the key. We can't take it for granted when a supplement provider's information regarding the safety of their product is based on an entirely different compound, as it is with CEE. Saying Creatine Ethyl Ester is safe because it is made from Creatine Monohydrate is like saying methanphetamine is safe because it is made from sudafed. IMHO, of course.
Click to expand...

Great response. If you truely want to play it safe, stick with the tried and true supplements that have been around for years.
We all want the "magic pill" that will allow us make huge gains in muscle mass and drop pounds of body fat overnight. The truth is, no compound can take the place of a well planned diet and training program. Steroids may speed up the process, but unless your competing, I would think twice about using them. I'm not sure the pros out weigh the cons.
I advise most people to stick to:

Whey Protien
BCAA's
Creatine Monohydrate
Glutamine
Fish/Flax oil
Multi-Vitamine
Vita-C
Amino Acid Tabs
Liver Tabs
Caffine
Green Tea
Digestive enzymes

Their are more, but you get the point...Their's pleanty of supplements that are very effective and won't cause your body potential harm...
If you do decide to use a supplement or steroid that has the potential to cause complications, or if your just not sure, get blood tests done before, during and after if at all possible. You will want to monitor your blood pressure, liver, kidneys, Cholesterol and thyroid.
Good luck with whatever you decide!
 
I read sopmewhere that CEE can convert to creatinine much more easily, before it eve reaches the kidney. So it might not even be your kidney producing it. Lately, the effectiveness of CEE has been called into question anyway.
 
By the way, has anyone noticed digestive problems on this stuff? I had to take Acidophoulus pearls just to poop normal, and that's more money!
 
Wow...it's strange this thread popped up. No more than 30min. ago I was on the phone with my mom, she was talking to the mother of an old friend of mine. She said that her son (my old friend) just got out of the hospital a couple weeks ago from acute kidney failure and something else with his heart. I just found out that he had been using creatine (don't know exactly what kind) pretty much non stop since the 9th grade (we are now 27). When he told the doc's this they pretty much flipped out, told him that was the reason for all the problems, and told him that he can never use the stuff again, that they saved his life once and may not be able to do it again. I don't have the full on, exact details of it all b/c I lost touch with him a while back...but just thought it was crazy as hell. I guess he told his mom that he probably wasn't drinking enough water, and was boozing here and there. It's obvious that, especially w/ creatine use, that's not a good combo. Just some food for thought for you guys.
 
I think the real thing we need to worry about isn't natural creatine so much as all these altered amino acids. We consume these compounds that are basically made of natural compound stuck together and made into something that is not natural. Chemically enhanced amino acids are not natural and need more research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top