I've tried con-cret a couple of times and I've also had a bottle of creatine nitrate. IMO they both have great strength gaining properties with CN working a little faster than con-cret. However, CN was far more superior in pumps,vascularity,and fullness.
I'd go with either Mesomorph(which I believe is roughly 1 gram or so but somebody please confirm/correct me),cellucor( I personally haven't used but my buddy really likes the stuff), or just plain APS Bulk CN
The Creatine Nitrate for the recommended 8 cap daily serving contains 3g of Creatine Nitrate.
this
Are you sure? Then I'll buy it if 3 grams of nitrate in a single dose, as this is the only product that we sell with CN.
Ive heard ~3g/serving from ergogenix reps.
Are you sure? I love creatine nitrate.
Great pick. I use it and it's an awesome product, dosed correctly.
Same. Altho I do like Orotate quite a bit as well
Please explain why you think this
I like the shark avi better.
Agreed, the Shark avi is pretty beast (badum ching)
There are two studies (one out of Manitoba, and one out of Univ NE Lincoln) that show superior solubility compared to creatine mono (were talking very significant results). There is a ceiling when it comes to creatine saturation. The best thing you can do to make a superior form of creatine is decrease the time it takes to reach that ceiling.
Solubility is irrelevant in my opinion. Once at saturation it does not matter.There are two studies (one out of Manitoba, and one out of Univ NE Lincoln) that show superior solubility compared to creatine mono (were talking very significant results). There is a ceiling when it comes to creatine saturation. The best thing you can do to make a superior form of creatine is decrease the time it takes to reach that ceiling.
The only other benefits are a form that reduces gastric issues (which a better solubility will do), and perhaps reduce the extracellular/intracellular water ratio (which as far as I know only MCC has been shown to do).
There are currently no studies on creatine nitrate solubility, only a patent. It's possible it has greater solubility but at this point the evidence lies in favor of creatine hcl. I know Ron's team was working on funding a study. Not sure whatever came of it.
To answer your question though, creatine is creatine. Creatine itself doesnt change, only the molecule you choose to bond it with. Nitrates have awesome benefits and people should use it. And right now there are not a lot of supplemental options when it comes to nitrates and last I checked it's hard to come by beet root juice at your local grocer, and I dont want to eat 6lbs of spinach pre-workout and **** my pants half way through.
New White Flood, I wasn't aware.Solubility is irrelevant in my opinion. Once at saturation it does not matter.
I honestly dont see much of a reason to go with HCl over regular mono
I agree with you with regards to creatine nitrate and solubility. I have yet to see a study showing it has greater solubility, I only hear claims. Altho given a choice between HCl and CN. I would go with CN simply for the nitrate benefits
This is why I stick with MCC when I go with a designer creatine
The new version of White Flood that was just announced today has nitrates from beet root by the way
Solubility does matter though. I suppose it may not to those that are more conscious of their wallet than their appearance (referring to extra/intracellular water retention).Solubility is irrelevant in my opinion. Once at saturation it does not matter.
I honestly dont see much of a reason to go with HCl over regular mono
I agree with you with regards to creatine nitrate and solubility. I have yet to see a study showing it has greater solubility, I only hear claims. Altho given a choice between HCl and CN. I would go with CN simply for the nitrate benefits
This is why I stick with MCC when I go with a designer creatine
The new version of White Flood that was just announced today has nitrates from beet root by the way
You wont bloat with pretty much any creatine if you stay within 2.5g-5g daily
Research shows otherwise to a significant degree. The below study compared intracellular and extracellular water with MCC and no creatine. It was interesting because they found MCC increased ICF and decreased ECF. If you add up the total fluid weight you almost net the same. What this would produce is fuller muscles with less "flat" look.
Oh cool, thanks.
This research was not trying to determine time to saturation. It was looking at water retention. Which is well documented when it comes to mono.
CL does not sell creatine nitrate
My point is that the bold portion of your statement has been studied on multiple occasions, which is why it was not included in this study. Read the mono studies. In the short term (6-8 weeks) it's always noted that an increase in bodyweight was due to water retention (not actual LBM). Now go back to where I said:
You want greater intracellular water retention. Less is not a sign of a superior form of creatine.If you look at the study. The second form of creatine even has less water retention than the placebo in both intracellular and extracellular. Obviously there is something going on there
Post #47 explains why this is actually a benefit, and different than mono.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | Unanswered What's the best form of creatine? | Supplements | 92 | |
| Y | Best form of creatine | Supplements | 45 | |
| J | Best creatine in pill form | Supplements | 41 | |
|
best creatine formula in your oppinion | Supplements | 52 | |
|
which form of creatine is best? | Supplements | 82 |