# Creatine Ethyl Ester (CEE) the best form of creatine?



## Arnold (Mar 16, 2005)

*By Paul Cribb*


*Q:  I have a question regarding a new product called Creatine Ethyl Ester. The company that sells this product claims that it is delivered to muscles more effectively than creatine monohydrate. Would you please enlighten me on this new supplement?  * 


A:  I can't find a single research paper that documents creatine-ethyl-esters. The only information available on creatine-ethyl-esters is the advertising, marketing spin produced by the companies that sell it.

If someone can obtain something science-based that may substantiate some of the claims about this product, I like to see it because some of the claims are quite amusing. One of the claims made by marketers of creatine-ethyl-esters is that it???s proven to be better than creatine monohydrate. In what way, I???m not sure because I can???t even obtain a document showing me this compound is for real, let alone research results that may suggest this product is better than pure creatine monohydrate. If this product is proven to be better than creatine monohydrate then the evidence should be readily available to consumers.

The lack of scientific evidence on creatine-ethyl-esters might tell you something about the integrity of the companies that sell this product. If we take a closer look at some of the other claims about this product then the scientific spin starts to become transparent.

From a biochemical perspective, there is no need to ???attach??? an ester group to the creatine molecule. This attachment will not make creatine any more bioavailable. Additionally, this attachment won't prevent degradation by the liver; creatine is actually synthesized in the liver.

Another claim is that due to the ester attachment, this type of creatine is able to permeate the muscle cell membrane (outershell) and thus more creatine can enter muscle cells. This is a straight out lie. The only way creatine and other amino acid compounds enter cells is via transporters. The real research shows on the topic of creatine absorption and transport shows that regular creatine is absorbed in to the blood stream without a problem. A 5 gram dose of creatine monohydrate saturates blood plasma for up to an hour. Creatine transport (into muscle cells) occurs when the concentration outside the cell is greater than inside the cell.

I believe the whole ???ester??? thing is a scam, a by-product of the steroid (make it sound like a drug) stigma and it is you, the consumer who is paying for the sham. When companies advertise claims such as ???absorbed faster than regular creatine???, ???20 times anabolic that regular creatine??? or "40 times more potent and absorbable than regular creatine" - they are making very specific claims. Therefore, the company making the claim should have research that can substantiate the claim. If they can't back this claim up with supporting science that means they are simply making it up out of thin air. As a consumer, you have the power to call the company on their bluff and ask them to produce the evidence.

The truth is that these companies won't accommodate your request. They can't accomidate your request. As with most supplement scams; no scientific research has ever been conducted on the product and there is no evidence to support the very specific marketing claims that are made about the product.


----------



## redspy (Mar 16, 2005)

Interesting post, but given how new CEE is it's hardly surprising there isn't a wealth of clinical studies yet.  It's not even approved by the FDA yet.  The lack of solid research also applies to other \creatine forms too, like di/tri malates.  The "20 times more anabolic" is obviously crap, but for mono non-responders it's worth exploring IMO.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 16, 2005)

redspy said:
			
		

> The lack of solid research also applies to other \creatine forms too, like di/tri malates.  The "20 times more anabolic" is obviously crap, but for mono non-responders it's worth exploring IMO.



true, but there is quite a bit of difference between CEE and TriCreatine Malate.


----------



## musclepump (Mar 16, 2005)

I'm going to try CEE just because I don't think I do well with regular monohydrate. Speaking of non-responders though, is there anywhere to find more detail on this? If creatine is natural and all bodies use it/receive it, why don't all respond?


----------



## Pirate! (Mar 16, 2005)

I "respond" to creatine mono,  but I much prefer CEE. I don't need any scienctific studies to tell me how well it works. If I went by scientific studies, I'd be wasting my money on NO2, Myostatin blockers or the newest Get-Pumped type products that looks good on paper. Real world feedback holds much more weight in an industry striving to fuel itself with hype.


----------



## redspy (Mar 16, 2005)

These products that look good on paper are often backed with in-house research that's highly suspect and written by the marketing dept.  Relying exclusively on user logs isn't always that reliable either.  As an example in the PH world MethylDien was pitched as the x times more anabolic than M1T and early reports suggested it was great.  Widespread use proved this was horseshit.  M14,ADD was supposedly the "new" Dbol, but it fell flat.  Rigorous real world feedback combined with legitimate clinical trials is the ideal.


----------



## brogers (Mar 17, 2005)

PirateFromHell said:
			
		

> I "respond" to creatine mono, but I much prefer CEE. I don't need any scienctific studies to tell me how well it works. If I went by scientific studies, I'd be wasting my money on NO2, Myostatin blockers or the newest Get-Pumped type products that looks good on paper. Real world feedback holds much more weight in an industry striving to fuel itself with hype.


I agree, I don't need science to tell me what works.  I've used mono, I've used swole (DiCreatine, i think) and "responded" to both, but CEE is a far better choice for me.


----------



## gopro (Mar 17, 2005)

But there IS research on CEE, done by the University of Nebraska. No, the ethyl attachment does not allow improved uptake from bloodstream to muscle, but DOES allow FAR BETTER uptake from stomach to bloodstream, allowing there to be far more creatine AVAILABLE FOR TRANSPORT into muscle.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 17, 2005)

any chance you have a link to that...would like to read it if you do.

I *was* very interested in CEE but the more I read the less I wast to use it in one of my own products. I am very happy with the feedback I am getting on TriCreatine Malate, i.e. Maximum Pump.


----------



## WantItBad (Mar 17, 2005)

Rob is that ur arm on the max pump add? if so  lol


----------



## redspy (Mar 17, 2005)

gopro said:
			
		

> But there IS research on CEE, done by the University of Nebraska. No, the ethyl attachment does not allow improved uptake from bloodstream to muscle, but DOES allow FAR BETTER uptake from stomach to bloodstream, allowing there to be far more creatine AVAILABLE FOR TRANSPORT into muscle.


GP: Do you have a link to the study?  As a CEE user I'm interested, but can't it referenced at pubmed, medscape, scholar.google.com, AJCN or any other sites.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 17, 2005)

WantItBad said:
			
		

> Rob is that ur arm on the max pump add? if so  lol



no, this is:


----------



## gopro (Mar 17, 2005)

Wow, a link, huh? I will see what I can do to find it. I know their research was somewhat guarded, but I know I saw the link somewhere.

Anecdotally I can tell you that CEE gets TREMENDOUS feedback.


----------



## soxmuscle (Mar 17, 2005)

Thanks in advance GP for the link.  And Rob, whose arm is that if its not yours?  Where do you find people with arms like that?


----------



## topolo (Mar 17, 2005)

soxmuscle said:
			
		

> Thanks in advance GP for the link.  And Rob, whose arm is that if its not yours?  Where do you find people with arms like that?




they are mine


----------



## topolo (Mar 17, 2005)

well creatine never did anything for me, neither did cee, i have maximum pump on hand and i will be running it in a couple of weeks following this cycle of superdrol.


----------



## gopro (Mar 17, 2005)

soxmuscle said:
			
		

> Thanks in advance GP for the link.  And Rob, whose arm is that if its not yours?  Where do you find people with arms like that?



Please don't thank me yet. The only time I saw the link was on another bodybuilding board, and under a thread I am trying to remember. I know it was in a disscussion I was having (along with others) with Pat Arnold. I promise, if I can find it, it will be here!


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 18, 2005)

I don't really follow the hype of CEE because it doesn't make sense to me for most of the reasons in that article.  If it does not cause upset stomach than I see it's use for some people.  For me, Monohydrate works fine and I don't het an upset stomach.

Now, this does not mean that it doesn't do something through some mechanism that i don't know about, it may.  The problem I have is that i don't believe it gets absorbed into the bloodstream faster/more completely, and I don't believe it is transported into the muscle faster/more completely.  Since these are the avenues supplement companies are taking for advertising, and I don't believe it to be true, I won't buy it.

Oh, the study GP is talking about is prolly finished, but not published, which would be why results are somewhere and not on pubmed.  You need to be sure that these results are housed on the University of Nebraska's homepage though as it is very easy just to make shit up and put it on a web page.  Nebraska isn't all that well known for it's supp research, so I would be wary.

As for TriCreatine Malate, I think that product has some solid science behind it, but no scientific results.

If some of you supp company peeps want, let's get togerther some ideas, put them on paper, and make some sort of feedback insert for some of your products.  I am all for anecdotal research if objective and subjective measures are used in combination.  Hell, you could give discounts to peeps who are willing to do it and then there will eventually be a log of peeps that are detailed enough to be pilot subjects.


----------



## redspy (Mar 18, 2005)

Other than monhydrate we're all flying blind when it comes to clinical studies proving the effectiveness of new creatine varients.  Monohydrate has been used in sports nutrition since the 1980's and has hundreds of postive studies.  As for Creatine phosphate, Creatine magnesium chelate, Tricreatine malate, Dicreatine malate, Carnitine creatine monohydrate, Creatine pyruvate, Creatine citrate and CEE - who know's what's superior?


----------



## gopro (Mar 18, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Now, this does not mean that it doesn't do something through some mechanism that i don't know about, it may.  The problem I have is that i don't believe it gets absorbed into the bloodstream faster/more completely, and I don't believe it is transported into the muscle faster/more completely.  Since these are the avenues supplement companies are taking for advertising, and I don't believe it to be true, I won't buy it.



This is what the Nebraska research showed (although it is not a quote from the study), and also I confirmed it with a leading researcher in the industry (not selling CEE) that was very close to this study as it was taking place:

"All of the creatines currently on the market have a "dual charge"...one end is positive and the other is negative. In science, this is called a zwitterion. Zwitterions are not able to penetrate lipid (fat) membranes. So, guess what...the membranes that creatine must pass through to venture from your gut to your bloodstream are made of lipids! 

So, because regular creatine does not readily penetrate these lipid membranes, most of it just sits there in your gut. And since creatine by nature draws water with it wherever it goes, you tend to become very bloated, gassy, and uncomfortable. Not only that, but the longer that creatine sits in the harsh PH environment in the gut, the more it becomes "deactivated" and turned into the useless and potentially toxic substance, creatinine! 

However, creatine ethyl esters are different! The chemical attachment of an ester to the creatine molecule makes it incredibly lipophilic, or fat penetrating, allowing it to quickly and efficiently pass right through the lipid membranes of the gut and directly into the bloodstream for direct transport to your creatine hungry muscle cells."

The study did not show that the uptake from bloodstream to muscle was any better, however.

I should also point out that I have been using creatine from the first day it came out, and have used every kind imaginable. I have responded well to all, and until recently, felt SAN V-12 to be the best of all. However, after using CEE and truly feeling the difference, I will never go back.

It works, period.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 18, 2005)

gopro said:
			
		

> This is what the Nebraska research showed (although it is not a quote from the study), and also I confirmed it with a leading researcher in the industry (not selling CEE) that was very close to this study as it was taking place:
> 
> "All of the creatines currently on the market have a "dual charge"...one end is positive and the other is negative. In science, this is called a zwitterion. Zwitterions are not able to penetrate lipid (fat) membranes. So, guess what...the membranes that creatine must pass through to venture from your gut to your bloodstream are made of lipids!
> 
> ...




I hear ya on using creatine forever, I used it when it was part of a cybergenics kit and they didn't say what it was.

I don't understand how that scientist could say that creatine does not get through the intestine when it obviously does.  I will look this stuff up since your response is detailed enough to where this info should be readily available.  If I find it is more effective on paper, I will give er a try right way.


----------



## topolo (Mar 18, 2005)

we will be waiting patiently dale


----------



## gopro (Mar 18, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I hear ya on using creatine forever, I used it when it was part of a cybergenics kit and they didn't say what it was.
> 
> I don't understand how that scientist could say that creatine does not get through the intestine when it obviously does.  I will look this stuff up since your response is detailed enough to where this info should be readily available.  If I find it is more effective on paper, I will give er a try right way.



Only small portions of regular creatines get through...almost all of an ester gets through.


----------

