Guest viewing is limited

Why I think Con-Cret is some BS

i think you guys need to be fitted with some con-cret boots.:chairfall:
 
why the f-do i keep hearing about this "pump"? what the hell are we talking about here, lifting or penis enlargement?

people need to forget about this long-sought "pump" and eat some damn food, lift some heavy weights and learn to sleep like babies. oh yeah, and never underestimate the power of the placebo effect. :)
 
purebred said:
why the f-do i keep hearing about this "pump"? what the hell are we talking about here, lifting or penis enlargement?

people need to forget about this long-sought "pump" and eat some damn food, lift some heavy weights and learn to sleep like babies. oh yeah, and never underestimate the power of the placebo effect. :)
Click to expand...

What are you saying? I can use a penis enlargement pump to increase the size of my biceps??? Damn, I wish I would have come up with that idea. :sgrin:
 
That's funny because I actually invented Extenze. Through various lab research I am able to prove penor growth of just over 6" a month while on Extenze. Of course my study has been repeated many times, with average increases even more than 6", almost 8".

This study was funded by company, and also done by my company with absolutely no independent party. You cannot refute the claims of Extenze.
 
slimcharles said:
That's funny because I actually invented Extenze. Through various lab research I am able to prove penor growth of just over 6" a month while on Extenze. Of course my study has been repeated many times, with average increases even more than 6", almost 8".

This study was funded by company, and also done by my company with absolutely no independent party. You cannot refute the claims of Extenze.
Click to expand...

what the hell is a penor?
 
Hi again,

This is for Mr. Heretostudy -- I apologize if I got the posts mixed up but I thought I saw someone on an earlier post that had the handle "Hatefulone" so I was trying to respond to his comment or question. I wasn't referring to you and haven't taken anything that you posted as negative...you seem pragmatic and logical. I'm in a hurry to run to a meeting so will do this quickly but frankly, I like your approach to assessing the products.

Here's my take on it and if necessary I can try to comment more later but basically, the CC on the market right now (the 75 svg was discontinued and what's sold on the website is the last of that) is being sold for $39.99 (list) for 48 servings....so about 83 cents per serving.

The CM you reference is $16.99 for 200 servings or about 9 cents per serving.

The difference lies in the solubility/absorbtion...with the CM having about a 15% solubility, you are largely excreting about 85% of each dose through the feces (i.e. wasted product) so if you normalize, the prices are much closer...basically 9 cents divided by 15% (9 / .15) for a real cost of usable product of 60 cents per serving.

There's a bit more to this but suffice to say, there is, in this example, a 23 cent per serving "premium" for getting a product that works better and has no side effects (bloat, edema, cramping, diarrhea, etc.)...it's for the consumer to judge if avoiding those side effects is worth the extra money and thankfully a lot of people think it is...it's basically about $7 difference over 30 servings to avoid bloat and cramps and such (and to really get a much better strength, endurance, and recovery experience).

Thanks and best regards,

Mark Faulkner
 
Mark Faulkner said:
Hi again,

This is for Mr. Heretostudy -- I apologize if I got the posts mixed up but I thought I saw someone on an earlier post that had the handle "Hatefulone" so I was trying to respond to his comment or question. I wasn't referring to you and haven't taken anything that you posted as negative...you seem pragmatic and logical. I'm in a hurry to run to a meeting so will do this quickly but frankly, I like your approach to assessing the products.

Here's my take on it and if necessary I can try to comment more later but basically, the CC on the market right now (the 75 svg was discontinued and what's sold on the website is the last of that) is being sold for $39.99 (list) for 48 servings....so about 83 cents per serving.

The CM you reference is $16.99 for 200 servings or about 9 cents per serving.

The difference lies in the solubility/absorbtion...with the CM having about a 15% solubility, you are largely excreting about 85% of each dose through the feces (i.e. wasted product) so if you normalize, the prices are much closer...basically 9 cents divided by 15% (9 / .15) for a real cost of usable product of 60 cents per serving.

There's a bit more to this but suffice to say, there is, in this example, a 23 cent per serving "premium" for getting a product that works better and has no side effects (bloat, edema, cramping, diarrhea, etc.)...it's for the consumer to judge if avoiding those side effects is worth the extra money and thankfully a lot of people think it is...it's basically about $7 difference over 30 servings to avoid bloat and cramps and such (and to really get a much better strength, endurance, and recovery experience).

Thanks and best regards,

Mark Faulkner
Click to expand...

Look Mr. Snake Oil salesman, CM is the ONLY PROVEN creatine. There have been HUNDREDS of studies on CREATINE MONOHYDRATE, not the BS creatine that your company puts out. Once your product garners peer reviewed studies then you can talk, until then you have no argument.
 
Well Im both happy and disappointed to not be the hatefulone, I don't like being called names but that would have been a decent one.

In seriousness:

This is all assuming your correct on the superior absorbtion of C-HL. Like I said earlier, all attempts at better creatine are always later debunked. Earlier you demonstrated that you found beneficial effects in the use of CEE. I can't agree with this at all. Basic summary of why:
A recent double blind placebo controlled study compared creatine ethyl ester(CEE) to creatine monohydrate. The study lasted seven weeks and included thirty men who underwent a resistance training protocol, while receiving one of the three treatments. Subjects took 20g/day of either creatine monohydrate, CEE or placebo for the first five days and then took 5g/day for the remaining 42 days. Some of the key take home points of this study are as follows:

1. Creatine monohydrate showed statistically higher blood serum creatine concentrations compared to CEE, certainly a good thing in favor of creatine monohydrate over CEE and goes directly against the marketing tactics of CEE�s supposed superiority of bioavailability over creatine monohydrate. A definite strike against CEE’s efficacy.

2. When creatine is metabolized, it is broken down into a waste product called creatinine, which our body excretes. The researchers found that CEE actually increased creatinine levels 3x greater than creatine monohydrate, again not a good thing. Another strike two against CEE.

3. Very importantly, muscle creatine levels with creatine monohydrate where significantly higher than CEE. And creatine monohydrate showed increases in muscle creatine levels at day 6, while it took CEE 27 days to show a similar increase. This should come as no surprise, as a previous study(Tallon) showed much of CEE gets converted in the stomach acid into the waste product creatinine. So by the time it reached the blood serum, there would be less available to be transported into skeletal muscle and raise muscle creatine concentrations. Another strike against CEE and again this data goes directly the marketing claims from CEE containing products, that CEE works faster than creatine monohydrate.

4. Lastly, extracellular water(bloat) was increased greatest in the CEE group, again go directly against the marketing claims put forth by CEE products, that CEE causes less water retention(bloat) compared to creatine monohydrate.

Mike Spillane1, Ryan Schoch4, Matt Cooke1, Travis Harvey5, Mike Greenwood1, Richard Kreider3 and Darryn S Willoughby
The effects of creatine ethyl ester supplementation combined with heavy resistance training on body composition, muscle
performance, and serum and muscle creatine levels. Journal of the international society of sports nutrition 2009, 6:6
Click to expand...

If your studies show a "59x greater solubility" provide all support studies. See the problem is your product could be 1million times better, but as of now you are claiming it to be much as every other company claims thier products to be. It is the situation however that AM has seen them all come and go, and they most certainly always go. The companies that are popular here: Primordial, Anabolic Innovations, Controlled Labs, LG Sciences, etc. etc.. take a nothing to hide approach. Examples of this would be LG releasing blood work of a test booster they produced, Primordial providing detailed write up information with refrences to ALL 100% Independent studies.

I am still going to disagree on the financial benefit. First I will say that your argument is flawed as the difference in serving size is drastic and almost compensates for the difference in proposed absorbtion. I will attempt to correct this:
If you are saying that 15% of my CM is absorbed, and 100% of your C-HL is (Which is insanely insanely hard to believe, but for the sake of argument....) Then still my 5g dose of creapure will provide me with .75g of creatine absorbed. Your product, at 100% will provide .8g absorbed. If we want to go completely apples to apples, then I could increase my dosage of CM to 5.3333g to get the same .8 of creatine, which for simplicity we will round to 5.4g. So If I take 5.4g, I will have the same amount of creatine absorbed, but as opposed to your 48 servings, I will have 185.185185, Which we can round down to 185. Now that $185/16.95, provides me with 9.1cents a serving. No need to divide this number by .15, as I have already worked into the calculation the difference in absorbtion.

So we are still at 9.1 cents a serving against your 83 cents a serving. Your product is over 9 times a pricey. Since the C-HL's benefit is in absorbtion, this is negated by the equated absorbtion. I don't need to be reminded that my creatine will have the non absorbed portions excreted, it isn't costing me a penny more to do so.

I welcome your response.

Additional commentary, I have not suffered from any bloat on my Creapure, and bloat is a highly subjective term. Matters such as diet and exercise depend on this, and every creatine product ever has those that suffered bloat and those that saw none. I will take Con Cret's reduced bloat with the same grain of salt as I take CEE's reduced bloat.
 
I also found this on another forum:

"Adding a phosphate molecule to a creatine supplement doesn't add anything, since the phosphate is disassociated with the creatine during the digestive process. Similarly to Aplodan, these companies are attempting to foist the notion that since creatine is stored with phosphate in muscle, taking it "pre-formed" makes it superior."

Looks like everyone agrees this product is bs.
 
Interesting stuff going on here, I think what we all get out of this discussion is everyone wants to be hatefulONE, however, much like in Highlander, there can only be one, if anyone wants to challenge me for the name, meet me in the power rack with strong bands on.

In more seriousness, I have tried both bulk CEE, creapure (CM), and I have tried Green Magnitude, which has the following creatines, magnesium creatine chelate and dicreatine malate 2.5g each. I understand what the studies say about absorption and excretion and solubility. With that said, I feel most supplements site studies that use one of the ingredients in their product but never seem to use their own product, so until a study is done using the exact product, I hold little trust in actual performance of the products from brand to brand. With that being said until some tries a product and gives the real world results I am skeptical.

My results: CEE tastes pretty bad however I didn't notice anything ground breaking with results, and price wise is the highest. Green magnitude I noticed a decent flavor, nothing crazy with muscle gains or strength, but energy was improved during workout however the gm has betaine, taurine, and tyrosine. The creapure was the cheapest and gave me the best results, strength and energy improved, gained lean body mass, no bloat or cramps.

My personal real world opinion is that I prefer creatine monohydrate, and creapure is a very solid choice. If anyone wishes to challenge this post please understand this is my experience and nothing anyone says will change what actually happened to me, I would however greatly appreciate everyone posting their own personal experiences with any creatine products.
 
HATEFULone said:
Interesting stuff going on here, I think what we all get out of this discussion is everyone wants to be hatefulONE, however, much like in Highlander, there can only be one, if anyone wants to challenge me for the name, meet me in the power rack with strong bands on.
Click to expand...

Damn, I was so close to taking your identity!

-Sorry about that, I thought it was a response to me and not an actual person, I missed your name when scanning the thread.
 
No problem heretostudy, I take that as a huge complement that you both wish to be and not be hatefulONE, it is a rare trait to be able to both attract and repulse at the same time, I am proud.
 
HATEFULone said:
No problem heretostudy, I take that as a huge complement that you both wish to be and not be hatefulONE, it is a rare trait to be able to both attract and repulse at the same time, I am proud.
Click to expand...

hahaha, well said. repped!
 
For the love that is all Holy in the dam world Just take FING CREATINE MONOHYDRATE Why very simple because it has the most Research.. Come folks... ALl these Crazy talk is driving me crazy I read and I read I read guess what it comes down to if you read and do your own reasearch then you will know what to take and what is BS... All of togather now you can do it say it with me now CREATINE MONOHYDRATE is the proven and it works for most normal humans and a$$ holes! Son of the word that is my mother!
 
islandmagic said:
For the love that is all Holy in the dam world Just take FING CREATINE MONOHYDRATE Why very simple because it has the most Research.. Come folks... ALl these Crazy talk is driving me crazy I read and I read I read guess what it comes down to if you read and do your own reasearch then you will know what to take and what is BS... All of togather now you can do it say it with me now CREATINE MONOHYDRATE is the proven and it works for most normal humans and a$$ holes! Son of the word that is my mother!
Click to expand...

LOL chillax my brother u mad :lol: i 100% agree with you CM is tried and true but that doesnt mean discussions of all other forms of creatine are sacrilege. i am actually enjoying the conversation.
 
I will be doing a double blind randomized sample study on the effects of creapure vs. turbotine vs. placebo. For all those wondering turbotine is the newest brain child of hatefulONE home brew labs. I will be giving my pet tyrannosaurus rex megadoses of celltech while on an alkaline diet and then collecting his urine and stool, then processing it to micronize until the particles are small enough to osmose through a sheep skin condom, also home made, this process will be repeated 10.783452 to the 20th times. Then the turbotine will be cryogenically frozen until Bender from Futurama stumbles upon it and markets it as PED that Brian Cushing will get busted for and also a new clean fuel to power space ships.

Anyone interesting in investing in hatefulONE home brew labs please contact hatefulONE just start digging until you get to hell, you'll know who I am.
 
HATEFULone said:
I will be doing a double blind randomized sample study on the effects of creapure vs. turbotine vs. placebo. For all those wondering turbotine is the newest brain child of hatefulONE home brew labs. I will be giving my pet tyrannosaurus rex megadoses of celltech while on an alkaline diet and then collecting his urine and stool, then processing it to micronize until the particles are small enough to osmose through a sheep skin condom, also home made, this process will be repeated 10.783452 to the 20th times. Then the turbotine will be cryogenically frozen until Bender from Futurama stumbles upon it and markets it as PED that Brian Cushing will get busted for and also a new clean fuel to power space ships.

Anyone interesting in investing in hatefulONE home brew labs please contact hatefulONE just start digging until you get to hell, you'll know who I am.
Click to expand...

homemade sheepskin condom, eh. what else you doing with those sheep?:sgrin:
 
HATEFULone said:
I will be doing a double blind randomized sample study on the effects of creapure vs. turbotine vs. placebo. For all those wondering turbotine is the newest brain child of hatefulONE home brew labs. I will be giving my pet tyrannosaurus rex megadoses of celltech while on an alkaline diet and then collecting his urine and stool, then processing it to micronize until the particles are small enough to osmose through a sheep skin condom, also home made, this process will be repeated 10.783452 to the 20th times. Then the turbotine will be cryogenically frozen until Bender from Futurama stumbles upon it and markets it as PED that Brian Cushing will get busted for and also a new clean fuel to power space ships.

Anyone interesting in investing in hatefulONE home brew labs please contact hatefulONE just start digging until you get to hell, you'll know who I am.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

This is awesome, I spit out some drink at "small enough to osmose through a sheep skin condom"
 
I can't divulge too much about the sheep, but hatefulONE home brew labs is a self sustaining organism separate from the rest of the world. Back to the sheep, developing a virgin sheep protein isolate that has a BV of 303, this will revolutionize the non cow derived protein market.
 
HATEFULone said:
I can't divulge too much about the sheep, but hatefulONE home brew labs is a self sustaining organism separate from the rest of the world. Back to the sheep, developing a virgin sheep protein isolate that has a BV of 303, this will revolutionize the non cow derived protein market.
Click to expand...

Where can i put and app to log this.:food:
 
HATEFULone said:
I can't divulge too much about the sheep, but hatefulONE home brew labs is a self sustaining organism separate from the rest of the world. Back to the sheep, developing a virgin sheep protein isolate that has a BV of 303, this will revolutionize the non cow derived protein market.
Click to expand...

fat chance those sheep are virgins.:sgrin:
 
HereToStudy said:
The dicreatine malate is actually one of the forms of creatine I am not completely familiar with, what are you experiences?
Click to expand...

i originally started on it because it was in GM, but then after reading how its supposed to increase ATP production over mono and other forms of creatines based on its favorable chemical structure, i had to try it out stand alone--

currently on week 2 of DiCM, i have no bloating or cramping issues as i did with other forms of creatine (i'm one of the unfortunate people that mono just tears me up) although i've yet to notice and significant increase in muscle mass- but i know its still too early to tell.

from a website that i dont think i can post on here:

"Dicreatine Malate vastly improves the production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), far greater than creatine monohydrate or any other creatine analog to improve athletic performance & endurance, to quickly replenish ATP for peak power output, and to maximize your body's production of energy. It also acts as a lactic acid buffer and thus prevents cramping or an upset stomach so individuals engaged in exercise or training can train harder and longer."
 
Well do keep me updated. I am skeptical to say the least of it, but I trust your opinion so I would like to know. I am one of the lucky ones that responds very nicely to CM, and don't see any bloat. Therefor for me, it was an easy choice to choose creapure.
 
HereToStudy said:
Well do keep me updated. I am skeptical to say the least of it, but I trust your opinion so I would like to know. I am one of the lucky ones that responds very nicely to CM, and don't see any bloat. Therefor for me, it was an easy choice to choose creapure.
Click to expand...

for sure. yeah you are lucky because creapure is definitely the way to go if your gut likes it :sad3:
 
islandmagic said:
For the love that is all Holy in the dam world Just take FING CREATINE MONOHYDRATE Why very simple because it has the most Research.. Come folks... ALl these Crazy talk is driving me crazy I read and I read I read guess what it comes down to if you read and do your own reasearch then you will know what to take and what is BS... All of togather now you can do it say it with me now CREATINE MONOHYDRATE is the proven and it works for most normal humans and a$$ holes! Son of the word that is my mother!
Click to expand...
are you mad?
 
If most brands of creatine are so bogus than why from a ethical stand point does Anabolic minds let them be sponsers. Sure it makes money for AM but does it mean its the right thing to do? Logically yes profits are good but by supporting companys that rip the consumer off is not right ether. I stick to CM and CC but I personally like CC. I have never bought any other form of creatine. Even if CC was bogus at least there marketing looks way more legit than other forms of Creatine. Also the fact that theres some science and testing behind there product not that its pubhsied and Peer review is the way to go. If I had to make a choice between CEE KA and CC I willl hands down pick CC.
 
purebred said:
are you mad?
Click to expand...

Not yet broheim.. Ok if it works for some cool but CM IS PROVEN FOR 20 years please correct me if I am smoking.. Some times it is better to use old school supps that have some history that is all
 
djbombsquad said:
If most brands of creatine are so bogus than why from a ethical stand point does Anabolic minds let them be sponsers. Sure it makes money for AM but does it mean its the right thing to do? Logically yes profits are good but by supporting companys that rip the consumer off is not right ether. I stick to CM and CC but I personally like CC. I have never bought any other form of creatine. Even if CC was bogus at least there marketing looks way more legit than other forms of Creatine. Also the fact that theres some science and testing behind there product not that its pubhsied and Peer review is the way to go. If I had to make a choice between CEE KA and CC I willl hands down pick CC.
Click to expand...

so you didn't like cre02?
 
Did you see my cre 02 log and my final verdict? I did not give it 100% raiting.
 
It was not a mono. Was it any better than mono? I can't tell. That was the whole point. I can tell a big difference between mono and CC bar non.
 
Hey folks,

First off, I'm never hesitant to admit when I'm wrong and I should not have posted in such a hurry last week. My schedule keeps me too busy but suffice to say that I agree with Mr. HeretoStudy that I "double dipped" on my math, unintentionally, and yes, that puts CON-CRET (CC) at a larger price delta compared to CM. And for the record, other than the side-effects that some people experience, I have never contended that CM is not a good supplement. It is! It clearly works well for many, but for those for whom it doesn't, we appreciate that some of them prefer CC and see the price differential as worth avoiding the negative side effects that they experience. I do not discount that you and Mr. Hatefulone and others have had GOOD experiences with CM and therefore are passionately committed to it. That's great and you should keep right on with it.

I am sensitive about posting too long a response in here but I'll post a summary of the write up from the University of Manitoba that confirmed the work that Vireo and the University of Nebraska did (separately)...actually, the researchers at Manitoba demonstrated a 68x greater solubility over CM but we try not to overstate things and there is always inter-lab variation (coefficients of variation, inter and intra, too, depending on the scientist running the procedure). I'll spare you here but if anyone wants the raw data, feel free to email me off-line and I'm happy to provide it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the study, an excess amount of the various creatine salt forms are added to an aqueous solution and then sampled, filtered to remove any particulate and/or precipitate, and then analyzed via high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Our studies suggested that the creatine hydrochloride salt had the best aqueous solubility of all the creatine salts examined (included creatine monohydrate, creatine citrate and creatine pyruvate salts). There were temperature and stirring variations in the fist round so the study was repeated using the titration methodology which was employed by previous studies. These are summarized below

The studies were performed at 60 degrees F (to mimic average temp of cool tap water or drinks that have been removed from refrigeration for a short time) using creatine monohydrate and creatine hydrochloride. Mixtures were stirred at a rate of 100 rpm with magnetic stir plate and 2 minutes for each titration (note: again, to mimic that most athletes do not stir their supplement mixes more than 2 minutes). Under these conditions the following was observed:

Standard Creatine monohydrate: Aqueous solubility 13 + 1 mg/ml

Creatine hydrochloride: Aqueous solubility 900 + 11 mg/ml

This represents a 68-fold increase in aqueous solubility for creatine hydrochloride salt compared to standard creatine monohydrate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For "fuller" disclosure, the study also tried micro-crystalline creatine monohydrate and the comparitive solubility was closer to what we saw (59x)...CC demonstrated 53x greater solubility than that form of CM.

As for Mr. Slimcharles, just 2 comments, 1) we don't add a phosphate molecule to CC (it was unclear if you were insinuating that we say we do???) and 2) yes, there are hundreds of articles on CM which is terrific and which is a result of it being around to be studied for over 20 years. CC has been around a much shorter time but I feel very confident that it will not be debunked in terms of it's physical properties and the efficacies that flow from them.

Turning to CEE, which I am not here to defend, but simply to share observations...I remember that Spillane article (and the Tallon one), and will comment on Mr. HeretoStudy’s post next but will wrap this one up so that it doesn’t get too long.
 
Okay, on CEE, I would encourage everyone to actually read the manuscript being discussed and look critically at the actual data. Essentially in terms of muscle content and performance, there was no significant difference between the CEE and CM treatment groups. So if CEE “failed” in terms of increasing muscle creatine content and increasing exercise performance, then CM also failed as it is statistically no different than CEE. But with regard to Mr. HeretoStudy’s points:

1. “Creatine monohydrate showed statistically higher blood serum creatine
concentrations compared to CEE, certainly a good thing in favor of creatine
monohydrate over CEE and goes directly against the marketing tactics of
CEE’s supposed superiority of bioavailability over creatine monohydrate.
A definite strike against CEE's efficacy.”

I think it’s interesting to note that a university researcher at Ohio Univeristy (or maybe Ohio State, I can’t recall off the top of my head) who read the study wrote a letter to the publication board of the ISSN commenting on the design and data interpretation flaws of the article and how he rejected it’s conclusions based on format and data assessment abnormalities, but the ISSN journal wouldn’t publish it as a letter to the editor response and the researcher didn’t care to pay the journal fee to get his letter published – anyway, the first chart on serum concentrations misses several important items. First off, to determine bioavailability of a compound one would need to take samples over an extended time following dosing to get the complete area under the plasma concentration curve (i.e. baseline and then change in concentrations observed over time after dosing). Not one blood draw. NOTHING can be said regarding bioavailability based on one blood draw. This paper does not indicate when the blood sample was taken for the subjects (this is basic pharmacokinetic information that should be part of any study)…was it immediately after dosing or 8 hours after dosing or ?? Based on the values for CM (approximately 300 uM) the blood sampling time could easily be 4 hours after dosing, because based on the doses given, one would expect the blood concentrations, even of CM, to be about 800 uM. We know from other studies that creatine spikes in the blood about an hour after dosing and that most of the excretion curve is observed from 0 minutes to 2 hours…so a blood draw after this would completely miss most of the increases in creatine to be gained from the ingested dose (that stands true whether you are talking CM or CEE). Furthermore, there seems to be a great deal of variability in the data, such that when you look at Figure 1 and take into consideration the standard deviations, it is surprising that statistical significance was achieved. CM may have resulted in significantly greater creatine in the blood based on Tukey post hoc comparisons, but it fails the obvious test that everyone who looks at the graph can see which is to say taking into account the range of values around the mean, there is really no difference between the CM and CEE group. In fact, looking at the 90% confidence intervals in the CM and CEE groups, these 2 treatment groups overlap.

2. “When creatine is metabolized, it is broken down into a waste product called creatinine, which our body excretes. The researchers found that CEE actually increased creatinine levels 3x greater than creatine monohydrate, again not a good thing. Another strike two against CEE.”

Well, it is pretty clear from previous studies (Enzymatic hydrolysis of creatine ethyl ester Nicholas S. Katseres, David W. Reading, Luay Shayya, John C. DiCesare, Gordon H. Purser, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 2009, that CEE in an aqueous solution of pH 7, such as serum, will readily convert (half-life of minutes) to creatine/creatinine. Thus by the time a blood sample is collected and plasma/serum is obtained there is likely to be significant conversion of CEE to creatinine. However, in acid aqueous solutions, like that present in the stomach, this same study showed that the half-life for CEE is quite stable i.e. 2-3 days. This is despite the abstract from Tallon several years ago at the ISSN meeting that garnered headlines, but which has never been published as a peer-reviewed manuscript.

To expound on this, it is true that the ester bond in CEE is rapidly broken down at neutral pH and that cyclization following water hydrolysis results in creatinine. However, I would argue that what this assumes, and that studies such as this construct, is not normal physiological conditions because as Katseres showed, CEE is stable in the physiological conditions of the stomach (low pH) and hence why it is suggested to dose in capsule form (to get it straight into the stomach) – or you can mix CEE in orange juice (low pH) or such.……but once it is taken up from the G.I. track, it is in an efficacious form.

As stated, in acidic conditions, the ester is very stable with half-lifes measured in hours and days instead of minutes. The cytosolic pH of a working muscle cell is around 6.3, at this pH (enough below neutral to matter) the CEE would have good stability. At pH of 2-3, which is the pH of the stomach, again the CEE is stable. Both of the preceding conditions are normal "physiological conditions”. So for people to say, as did the some of aforementioned researchers, that there would be no compartment or tissue where CEE would not be instantaneously converted to creatinine is not true.

But with regard to the 3x greater creatinine found in the serum of CEE users, I would suggest 2 things:

A. If CEE were to stay in the aqueous compartment of the blood, rather than being taken up by red blood cells, then it will have a very fast conversion to creatinine, but there is no prevailing reason to think that CEE would remain in the aqueous compartment of the blood. And most likely, by the time you take a sample and prep it and spin out the red blood cells, any CEE that had been left in the aqueous compartment of the blood or spun into such, then it would be converted into creatinine…but this comes from study design, not some physiological condition. But one should rightly ask, “so how then do you measure the presence of CEE vs. creatinine if the process of measuring destroys the CEE and increases the creatinine??” Well, you have to use methods that stabilize the serum so that it gives a true snap shot of what was happening at the time of the draw…and this is more than putting preservatives into blood tubes. I know researchers that are working on this but I am not sure what results they have had yet.

B. And just for fun, to play devil’s advocate, it is not out of line that one might argue the reason for a greater creatinine level in the CEE sample is that there was actually more CEE in the system and that therefore, with muscle work, more creatine was able to be used and therefore more creatinine was produced (i.e. a car that doesn’t go far doesn’t produce much exhaust as one that runs it’s engine hot and long and thereby produces much more exhaust). I am NOT arguing that to be the case, but one easily could.

One issue that might support B. though is that CEE not only has better stomach stability but also better cellular penetration. The improved cell penetration is indicated by the fact that CEE has about a 2.5 fold partitioning into octanol (lipid solvent) compared to CM. That is significant! So, once CEE makes it into the cell membrane, which it does 2.5 times better, it should be stable there (since there is little water available for hydration). At that point its breakdown would shift from non-enzymatic water hydrolysis to enzymatic hydrolysis by various esterases in the cell. And no, you don’t need specific CEE esterases – the body is very adept and there are not specific esterases for all sorts of compounds and drugs – the body adjusts well to process them.


3. “Very importantly, muscle creatine levels with creatine monohydrate were
significantly higher than CEE. And creatine monohydrate showed increases in
muscle creatine levels at day 6, while it took CEE 27 days to show a similar
increase. This should come as no surprise, as a previous study (Tallon) showed much of CEE gets converted in the stomach acid into the waste product creatinine. So by the time it reached the blood serum, there would be less available to be transported into skeletal muscle and raise muscle creatine concentrations. Another strike against CEE and again this data goes directly the marketing claims from CEE containing products, that CEE works faster than creatine monohydrate.”

First on Tallon…and as already stated, because of the ester stability in acidic situations as shown in the Katseres study, the stability of CEE in the stomach actually would be better than CM, despite the Tallon abstract at ISSN couple years ago.

Back to the other…in the article it says "Total muscle creatine content was significantly higher in CRT (p = 0.026) and CEE (p =0.041) compared to PLA, with no differences between CRT and CEE."

Regardless of what is going on with CRT in the blood, the amount in the muscle is similar to CM so if this study somehow condemns CEE, it is equally condemning CM (that’s what the data shows!). And remember that it is the plasma and muscle content that is important for delivering the strength aspects of creatine. As for differences with CM at 6 days vs 27 for CEE, again, take a look at the actual data. The study design talks about a loading phase (for CM) vs. previously recommended guidelines / dosing regimens for CEE (i.e. no loading). So after 5 days of taking 20 grams of CM it would be a huge surprise if the on day 6 there weren’t still a significant bolus level of creatine in the system from such large doses of CM. Suffice to say that Day 6 is a very opportunistic day to sample if you’re a CM fan. Look at the data in Figure 2 for yourself. Other than at the loading phase, there is no difference in the levels…and Day 48 shows none of the groups are different from control. (which is sort of humorous on it’s own!!)

A further very telling item in this muscle data is what Table 3 (body composition) shows. First of all it struck me as sort of funny that the group of guys used for the CEE portion of the study are by far the lightest (basically they put all the “90 lb weaklings” in the CEE group) and the bigger guys in the CM and placebo portion of the study. And then they measured thigh mass as an indication of performance but they had no real ability comment because as one would expect, if you work out, you gain mass…BUT…something they don’t point out…look at the starting vs. ending numbers for each group and BY FAR, the largest delta (change) came in the CEE group which leaves one to either say that being small, they had more room for improvement or that simply, the CEE produced more results (hmmm, another vote for B. above...??? chuckle...I'm just saying...!).

Sorry for the length of this but you brought up a number of interesting things that were worth commenting on! And again, while there are some characteristics of CEE that I like and find unique, I mostly don’t like people giving ANYTHING a bad rap if it’s not deserved. As for myself, and yes I’m biased, I’m a hockey player and I use CC before games because it works better (for me) than the other forms. I’m old enough that I can tell a significant difference!

Best,

Mark Faulkner
 
Mark Faulkner said:
As for myself, and yes I’m biased, I’m a hockey player
Click to expand...

Damn now I can't argue with you. I love hockey and I want to get back into playing it. I am also a HUGE blackhawks fan, so I am in the height of Hockey glory!

In reality, my first response irregardless of the hockey comment, was going to be of the tremendous level of respect you deserve for how you have presented yourself, your knowledge, and your honest dedication to your product. It is quite refreshing to see a person of your affiliation that doesn't disappear after a counter argument is presented. To that Kudos.

I still am not convinced to not use Creatine Monohydrate (and specifically Creapure), but have come to believe that your product itself is beneficial. For affiliates of mine whom have issues with taking creatine mono, I will certainly recommend that they try your product. Hopefully it will provide an experience similar to that which your describe.

You have to understand my opposition to products that make themselves appear as "revolutionary." Unfortunately, this industry is funded by hype and viral campaign as opposed to fact. This has led to myself, as well as many of the respected members here (..and I by far am not associating myself with that group - I am a peanut here), to throw up a shield to any product. I want to assure you that none of my argument was meant to be argumentive or slander-like.

Thank you for taking the time to reply, even on CEE, a product you have no personal stake in.
 
I think that a FLASHSALE of con-cret at nutra would encourage many to try it to see for themselves. a lot of people don't want to shell out full price for a product that looks promising on paper, but the few reviews on this forum seem mixed at best.
 
One goal! Its cup time heretostudy I'm a Chicagoan myself but living in St. Pete right now, its tough to find a bar that shows the games :(
 
Look, the bottom line is Con Crete BS ?....I do agree with some fellow AM members that promera is really out there on there claims and there testomonials. I'm not calling it out yet nor am I gonna back it up, the same could go for Kre-alk, Cee ( which was pure evil to my kidneys ) or even Cre02.....you can pan out as many valid scientific data and if any pub med articles linked to it but it all in lies with the individual consumer and how they respond to it.....there are thousands of articles and publishing's to what benefits CM provides, from the gym rat, the 75 year old with demensia to that person with Mcardles disease but myself can't stand it, I blow up like stay puft.

Will I use or ever try Con-cret, nope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top