# Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Creatine



## Will Brink (May 20, 2005)

Gang, I recently put together a long report on creatine covering just about everything a person could ever want to know about this supplement. The report covers creatine???s possible role in many human aliments as well as its more obvious sports uses. This report should be of use to both the lay public and clinicians alike. The report is FREE! 

Here is the table of contents or your perusal:

Section one:
What is creatine?
How does creatine work?
Section Two:
Creatine and Sarcopenia
Effects of creatine on older adults
The secret of aging: cellular energetics
Anti-inflammatory effects of creatine
Creatine effects on the function of healthy and damaged brains.
Creatine and the healthy brain
Creatine and neuromuscular diseases
More brain related research: Creatine and neurological protection
Creatine and heart function
References for Section Two:
Section Three
Effects on Growth Hormone (GH)
Creatine may reduce homocysteine levels
Creatine and chronic fatigue/fibromyalgia
Creatine safety issues: fact or fiction?
References for Section Three:
Section Four
Recommended doses
To load or not to load
Creatine and athletics
The creatine and sugar story
Pre made creatine/sugar mixtures	
Purity issues
So who sells Creapure brand creatine?
Conclusion
Additional references of interest

This free report can be downloaded at:

http://www.creatine-report.com/

Enjoy!


----------



## redspy (May 20, 2005)

Interesting.  Any plans to add info about di/tri creatine malate or creatine ethyl ester?


----------



## Will Brink (May 20, 2005)

redspy said:
			
		

> Interesting.  Any plans to add info about di/tri creatine malate or creatine ethyl ester?



If you read the report, I mention some other forms briefly (though not those two) and my opinions of the latest greatest wiz bang form of creatine that claims to be 8,987,023 times better then CM, none of which is supported by hard data. So no, I have no plans to add info on those two forms. ALL the data showing all those effects of creatine come from one form and one form only, which is (drum roll) the CM form.


----------



## redspy (May 20, 2005)

WillBrink said:
			
		

> If you read the report, I mention some other forms briefly (though not those two)...


I did read it and that's why I had specific questions about the creatine types mentioned above. While I agree the clincials are very strong for monhydrate there are a lot of non-repsonders out there (ask around on this board) who've had sucess with CEE and di/tri-creatine malate etc. When there are some credible clincials on the new creatine types it would be good to see them included.

Anyway, as a free download it provides some useful info. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Will Brink (May 20, 2005)

redspy said:
			
		

> I did read it and that's why I had specific questions about the creatine types mentioned above. While I agree the clincials are very strong for monhydrate there are a lot of non-repsonders out there (ask around on this board) who've had sucess with CEE and di/tri-creatine malate etc. When there are some credible clincials on the new creatine types it would be good to see them included.
> 
> Anyway, as a free download it provides some useful info. Thanks for sharing.



Non responders is approx 30% and goes down with addition of enouch simple carbs it appears. Regardless, there is no data showing those forms reduce the % of non responders. "Ask around the board" does not do me much good as there are people that will claim serum creatine worked great for them, etc, etc. Hopefully, someone will do a study directly comparing other forms vs CM directly to see if it has any different or superior effects. I would not hold my breath on that one however....


----------



## Will Brink (May 20, 2005)

WillBrink said:
			
		

> Non responders is approx 30% and goes down with addition of enouch simple carbs it appears. Regardless, there is no data showing those forms reduce the % of non responders. "Ask around the board" does not do me much good as there are people that will claim serum creatine worked great for them, etc, etc. Hopefully, someone will do a study directly comparing other forms vs CM directly to see if it has any different or superior effects. I would not hold my breath on that one however....



PS, good info on responders vs non responders:


1: J Strength Cond Res. 2004 Aug;18(3):610-7. 	
* 
Acute Creatine Monohydrate Supplementation: A Descriptive Physiological Profile of Responders vs. Nonresponders.

Syrotuik DG, Bell GJ.
Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Syrotuik, D.G., and G.J. Bell. Acute creatine monohydrate supplementation: a descriptive physiological profile of responders vs. nonresponders. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18(3):610- 617. 2004.-The purpose of this study was to describe the physiological profile of responders (>20 mmol.kg(-1) dry weight [dw] increase in total intramuscular creatine monohydrate [Cr] + phosphorylated creatine [PCr]) versus nonresponders (<10 mmol.kg(-1) dw increase) to a 5-day Cr load (0.3 g.kg(-1).d(-1)) in 11 healthy men (mean age = 22.7 years). Pre-post 5-day cellular measures included total resting Cr content (Cr + PCr), fiber type composition, and fiber type cross-sectional area (CSA) determined from muscle biopsies of the vastus lateralis. Body mass, daily dietary intake, 24-hour urine outputs, urinary Cr and creatinine (CrN), and strength performance measures (1 repetition maximum [1RM] bench and leg press) were also assessed before and after the 5-day loading period. Results indicated that there were 3 levels of response to the 5-day supplementation: responders (R), quasi responders (QR), and nonresponders (NR) with mean changes in resting Cr + PCr of 29.5 mmol.kg(-1) dw (n = 3), 14.9 mmol.kg(-1) dw (n = 5), and 5.1 mmol.kg(-1) dw (n = 3), respectively. The results support a person-by-treatment interaction to acute Cr supplementation with R possessing a biological profile of lowest initial levels of Cr + PCr, greatest percentage of type II fibers, and greatest preload muscle fiber CSA and fat-free mass. Responders also showed improvement in 1RM leg press scores following the 5-day loading period. NR had higher preload levels of Cr + PCr, less type II muscle fibers, small preload muscle CSA, and lower fat-free mass and displayed no improvements in 1RM strength scores. The results suggest that to be considered a responder to acute oral supplementation, a favorable preexisting biological profile may determine the final extent to which an individual responds to supplementation. Physiologic profiles of nonresponders appear to be different and may limit their ability to uptake Cr. This may help partially explain the reported equivocal performance findings in the Cr supplementation literature.


----------



## redspy (May 20, 2005)

I've seen the above study on Pubmed and even with the ingestion of appropriate simple carbs some people are still non responders. Users then essentially have two options: give up, or experiment with other forms of creatine and assess their results. 

While there aren't any clinicals to that demonstrate CEE or dicreatine malate is more effective than CM, there also isn't any data to suggest they are ineffective (at this point). 

My point is if CM isn't working for you what's the big deal about spending $6 on CEE or other creatine types and testing it out?


----------



## Will Brink (May 20, 2005)

redspy said:
			
		

> I've seen the above study on Pubmed and even with the ingestion of appropriate simple carbs some people are still non responders. Users then essentially have two options: give up, or experiment with other forms of creatine and assess their results.
> 
> While there aren't any clinicals to that demonstrate CEE or dicreatine malate is more effective than CM, there also isn't any data to suggest they are ineffective (at this point).
> 
> My point is if CM isn't working for you what's the big deal about spending $6 on CEE or other creatine types and testing it out?




There is also no studies showing whey does not grow horns on your head. That's not how science works. I agree with you however - and it makes no difference to me - people should try what ever they want. My job is to give them unbiased information based on science and reality vs marking BS put out by companies making claims of how superior (fill in latest wiz bang super form of creatine here) is compared to CM, when there is no data to support the claims. In addition, many of these companies make claims that there is data showing it's false, for example, that CM is poorly absorbed, which is  BS. Think about this, if many of the claims being made against CM by these companies are known to be false, why would you trust the other info to be correct? Thus, I try to inform people and educate them, and leave up to them. No matter how much fact, data, and reality I throw at some people, there is always the "I don't care what you say, serum creatine made me huge!" response.


----------



## redspy (May 20, 2005)

I agree with a lot of the above.  I think the whole area of sports supplementation is rife with marketing copy that has absolutely no science to back it up.  The regulatory framework around dietary supplements allows manufacturers to make outrageous claims with zero consequences.


----------



## Arnold (May 20, 2005)

Will, welcome to IM.


----------



## Will Brink (May 20, 2005)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> Will, welcome to IM.



Tanks


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 18, 2007)

WillBrink said:


> Gang, I recently put together a long report on creatine covering just about everything a person could ever want to know about this supplement. The report covers creatine???s possible role in many human aliments as well as its more obvious sports uses. This report should be of use to both the lay public and clinicians alike. The report is FREE!
> 
> Here is the table of contents or your perusal:
> 
> ...



Bump


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 18, 2007)

redspy said:


> Interesting.  Any plans to add info about di/tri creatine malate or creatine ethyl ester?



Speaking of which:

Creatine ethyl ester rapidly degrades to creatinine in stomach acid

Child R1 and Tallon MJ2

1Department of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom. 2University of Northumbria, Sport Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, DrChild@CR-Technologies.net

Creatine ethyl ester (CEE) is a commercially available synthetic creatine that is now widely used in dietary supplements. It comprises of creatine with an ethyl group attached and this molecular configuration is reported to provide several advantages over creatine monohydrate (CM). The Medical Research Institute (CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (CE2) provides greater solubility in lipids, leading to improved absorption. Similarly San (San Corporation, CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (San CM2 Alpha) avoids the breakdown of creatine to creatinine in stomach acids. Ultimately it is claimed that CEE products provide greater absorption and efficacy than CM. To date, none of these claims have been evaluated by an independent, or university laboratory and no comparative data are available on CEE and CM.

This study assessed the availability of creatine from three commercial creatine products during degradation in acidic conditions similar to those that occur in the stomach. They comprised of two products containing CEE (San CM2 Alpha and CE2) and commercially available CM (Creapure??). An independent laboratory, using testing guidelines recommended by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), performed the analysis. Each product was incubated in 900ml of pH 1 HCL at 37± 1oC and samples where drawn at 5, 30 and 120 minutes. Creatine availability was assessed by immediately assaying for free creatine, CEE and the creatine breakdown product creatinine, using HPLC (UV)

After 30 minutes incubation only 73% of the initial CEE present was available from CE2, while the amount of CEE available from San CM2 Alpha was even lower at only 62%. In contrast, more than 99% of the creatine remained available from the CM product. These reductions in CEE availability were accompanied by substantial creatinine formation, without the appearance of free creatine. After 120minutes incubation 72% of the CEE was available from CE2 with only 11% available from San CM2 Alpha, while more than 99% of the creatine remained available from CM.

CEE is claimed to provide several advantages over CM because of increased solubility and stability. In practice, the addition of the ethyl group to creatine actually reduces acid stability and accelerates its breakdown to creatinine. This substantially reduces creatine availability in its esterified form and as a consequence creatines such as San CM2 and CE2 are inferior to CM as a source of free creatine.


----------



## Jodi (Jun 18, 2007)

I read the studies on this last week.  It's seriously made me reconsider my usage of CEE.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 18, 2007)

Jodi said:


> I read the studies on this last week.  It's seriously made me reconsider my usage of CEE.



Plenty of info before this should have made people re consider using CEE, but if this one does the trick, well that's fine too....


----------



## Jodi (Jun 18, 2007)

Well I have to be honest........All my years of this lifestyle and I never once used CM or CEE until a few weeks ago.  So I didn't do much research on CEE until a few weeks ago.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 18, 2007)

Jodi said:


> Well I have to be honest........All my years of this lifestyle and I never once used CM or CEE until a few weeks ago.  So I didn't do much research on CEE until a few weeks ago.



Then you may want to read that free guide I wrote.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 18, 2007)

the anecdotal evidence on the efficacy of CEE is overwhelming.


----------



## Jodi (Jun 18, 2007)

Downloaded it as soon as I saw this thread   Thanks!


----------



## Jodi (Jun 18, 2007)

Prince said:


> the anecdotal evidence on the efficacy of CEE is overwhelming.


Kidney damage or disease is not worth the use of any supplement IMO.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 18, 2007)

Jodi said:


> Downloaded it as soon as I saw this thread   Thanks!



Good deal.


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 18, 2007)

Jodi said:


> Kidney damage or disease is not worth the use of any supplement IMO.



Creatinine is not toxic to healthy kidneys and will  not cause damage. Not really the issue per se, report also covers some of that in the side effects section.


----------



## Jodi (Jun 18, 2007)

I think healthy kidneys is the key right there   I have enough health issues and organs that don't want to function properly and I don't want my kidneys or the list of "needs repair" as well.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 18, 2007)

as long as you're drinking adequate water there should not be any issues with creatine and your kidneys, unless you currently have a kidney problem.


----------



## Hoglander (Jun 18, 2007)

I was thinking of trying CEE. BTW, my stomach acid is VERY reduced by meds due to GERD. 

I understand why hydration is important, as a general rule as it relates to so many things not related  to  training but important to my body's activities(hypothermia for one) I seem to be a perfect candidate for CEE, all things considered.

I really just want to experiment. If it doesn't kill me it will likely make me stronger, hehehe.  

Cool, maybe I'll try it and post results.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 19, 2007)

try it, you're like it!


----------



## Hoglander (Jul 5, 2007)

I tried it today is my fifth day. Today working out I felt really strong the first 20min then just felt normal strong. I got on the scale and noticed I was 218. I haven't been over 216 in 5 months. I'm always between 214 and 216. Nothing has changed but the CEE.  I take Cellmass. So I guess it's my muscles sucking up water. I was  a bit shocked. I'm trying to keep my weight the same or less.


----------



## Hoglander (Jul 6, 2007)

Today I was pretty burned out but hit the gym anyhow. Getting in the gym is the hardest part. Once I'm there it all comes together. Today I was 217 and hit it pretty hard. In fact I felt my muscles could get to the next level but had to rest longer between sets. I guess the CEE was doing well but the lungs lagged behind. It seems to work this CEE.


----------



## juggernaut (Jul 8, 2007)

Hoglander said:


> Today I was pretty burned out but hit the gym anyhow. Getting in the gym is the hardest part. Once I'm there it all comes together.


had the same problem. I started setting goals for myself as in competing or losing or gaining. I havent missed a day out of laziness or not wanting to go in four years.


----------



## juggernaut (Jul 8, 2007)

while we're on this subject of creatine monohydrate, along with dextrose and maltodextrin, what nutrients have been *PROVEN* to absorb cm? I hear conflicting advice on this and was wondering. ALA is the main culprit of disagreements.


----------



## Hoglander (Jul 9, 2007)

I've been on it over a week now and do think it works. I think it might be better for those that like to rest a lot between sets. I like to keep things going. I seem to lift a bit more weight to start with but... I don't like to rest. I guess this might push my lungs to catch up so I'll see what happens over the next month.


----------



## juggernaut (Jul 10, 2007)

I went back to straight micronized monohydrate due to the report and, even though I dont believe in loading, I did a 2 day-25g loading period with straight dextrose and salt. I cant believe the difference in only two days. I feel like I'm swelling up on the bodypart being worked.


----------



## juggernaut (Jul 10, 2007)

whats also interesting is that I was once a non responder to mono. maybe it was just the brand?


----------



## Hoglander (Jul 16, 2007)

I guess I can see a difference but am not really not totally spellbound by CEE. For me it's more about state of mind on lifts. Or maybe I just have naturally high creatine levels?


----------

