# Creatine on a Cut



## Jodi (Apr 30, 2002)

I heard that creatine can cause a lot of water retention.  I am currently trying to cut and not using any creatine, just glutamine and vitamins.  Should I be using any creatine?  If so any idea how much?  Stats: Female, 114lbs, 14%BF, 5'0"


----------



## nikegurl (Apr 30, 2002)

hi mochy - i posted on this a few threads back.  i'm taking a product called creatine clear that uses a sodium transport system instead of a glucose spike.  so no calories or sugar there.  it claims to be super digestable and not cause bloat.  

i've been using for 2 weeks.  i'm honestly not sure if i'm getting any benefits from it.  seriously.  i don't know that it's helping me at all.  but i haven't had any bloat or water weight gain from it (as promised)

curious - have you used creatine before?


----------



## Jodi (Apr 30, 2002)

I have used creatine before.  Then I read about the water storage and I stopped using it.  That was about a year ago.  Lately I have read of so many people using it while they were on a cut and I didn't know if I should start again or if it really does cause water gain.


----------



## nikegurl (Apr 30, 2002)

when you used it before you didn't notice any obvious water gain or bloat?  so hard.  some people say it moves water into the muscle cells and not under the skin and then someone will say they blew up and were majorily puffy.  (scares me!)

when you used it did you notice definite strength gains?  so hard to know sometimes what works because we're all hoping to get stronger from training and good nutrition so it's hard to know what part is or isn't from creatine.  ya know?

thanks!


----------



## Jodi (Apr 30, 2002)

I can't say I felt bloated or any different.  I was a little heavier then anyway.  As far as increase during training, never noticed too much difference.  Diet and nutrition alone can make one day better than another so who knows.  I am scared about the puffy thing though thats why I was asking about it.  I just want to know if I should even bother I guess.


----------



## ZECH (Apr 30, 2002)

Creatine will cause intracell(within the muscle) water retention. The idea here is more favorable conditions for growth for muscle!
It should not cause water under the skin or bloating! Some people tell a bigger difference in strength than others. GP posted some info on this in one thread but I can't find it. He explains it perfectly!


----------



## Arnold (Apr 30, 2002)

I do not see any problem with taking creatine while cutting.


----------



## Star_Scream (May 3, 2002)

Yeah, you'll lose the fat.  But you'll retain water.  But just run and sweat a bit and don't drink a ton and it will be gone.  I think Cytodyne had a product for getting water out of your system.


----------



## cornfed (May 4, 2002)

Some people experience bloat, but I never have.  Creatine is fine when cutting, just hit it post workout (w/i 30min), and avoid premixed creatines.  Too much sugar.  All you need for an isulin spike and creatine transport is 13-15g sugar (preferably dextrose).  The pos effects of 15g sugar is equal to that of 75g, but w/o the negs.  The idea that more is better is screwed... most of the time...or at least this time  .


----------



## cornfed (May 4, 2002)

oh, BTW, ijust don't get depressed at the #s on the scale.  w/o any bloat, I generally end up puttin' on 10 in the 1st week back on (water of course).  G'luck


----------



## papichulo (May 6, 2002)

So you relly want to cut.  More protein less carbs and you will have the body that you might dream of.  When you consume more protein your body burns FAT which is the best source of energy not carbs.  If anybody out there thinks or believe that carbs are the best source of energy please have some type of scientifically data to support your lies.


----------



## cornfed (May 6, 2002)

Uhhhh....  you really might wanna rethink some of that or get some "scientific data" to support your claim that "When you consume more protein your body burns FAT ", b/c that is just plainly bunk.  It's a balance of alot of things, but noone ever said carbs were the best source of energy.  Unless you don't care about catabolis, carbs are very beneficial in the proper ammounts and types post workout, regardless of your goals.


----------



## bigss75 (May 16, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Star_Scream *_
> Yeah, you'll lose the fat.  But you'll retain water.  But just run and sweat a bit and don't drink a ton and it will be gone.  I think Cytodyne had a product for getting water out of your system.



Yeah Tarxatone works pretty good. I used it and had to pee every ten minutes.


----------



## KryptoAllez (May 17, 2002)

I generally hold about 2 lbs of extra water weight while on creatine but I would not say that I look puffy or bloated.  I think it may blur my definition some but not enough to be noticeable to probably anyone else but myself, either that or I'm imagining things, lol.  I didn't see any benefits from creatine when I was on a bulking cycle but with my cutting, it seems to keep my energy level stable for longer than without it.  I have noticed that I lift about 2 reps less using the same weight than I do when I'm on it.  So overall, I personally don't notice any big gains with it.  Best thing to do is just to try it for yourself and see.  I also used just the plain 'ole creatine monohydrate mixed in Crystal Light and I usually have it post workout with some complex carbs.


----------



## LAM (May 18, 2002)

the benefits of creatine supplementation and it's effects on ATP (the biological energy source of all anabolic and catabolic processes) production and storage far out weigh any unwanted water weight.

a good creatine supp made from a quality raw material will be very low sodium as compared to others made with a lesser quality raw material.  water weight should be minimum, unless one's body already has the predispostion to store excess water.


----------



## Burner02 (May 19, 2002)

Glad I ran across this. I had been holding off my creatine as I jsut started back after my injury and gained some unwanted poundage. I wanted to see a drop in lbs before starting back onto it, but looks as if I will hit it again tomorrow.
I will grow! I will be lean! Girls will take notice of me! Ok, maybe too much to ask for right away....baby steps....


----------



## Xeldrine (May 27, 2002)

There's more to take than creatine, anywayz!


----------



## micflint001 (Jul 19, 2004)

when i take creatine i feal like i get like a wierd fealing in my stommach but it is right in the middle of my workout when i get the fealing in my stomach but after 15-30 mins i feal fine and i get alot better work out when i take creatine i get alot more of a work out for one thing and also i get a huge pump and seem to be able to do a little more than i can without it


----------



## NEW_IN_THE_GAME (Jul 19, 2004)

The Product That Cytodyne Makes Is Called Taraxatone - 3 Pills Taken 2times A Day- With Breakfast And Lunch. 1 Bottle Will Last 10 Days But I Get The Results I Need For Taking Off Water In Like 3-5 Days. If Your Cutting You Could Try My Stack, Tight -animal Cuts- And Taraxatone. Tight Is Made By S.a.n.- 1 Pill With Meals 1-2 Times A Day- Animal Cuts Is Made By Universal And Is 2 Paks A Day- 1 In The Morning And One Early Afternoon- And I Use Taraxatone Just Incase Any Water Is Still Hiding, Which Isnt Much, And I Go Like 12 Weeks Before Doing This Cycle Again And No Fat Gain Is Made. Hope It Helped


----------



## NEW_IN_THE_GAME (Jul 19, 2004)

Also When Taking Taraxatone Drink At Least 8 - 8 Oz. Glasses Of Water A Day- And When Using The Stack Shoot For 12 Or More.


----------



## SPIKE1257 (Jul 19, 2004)

I Use Creatine, And I'm On A Cut.


----------



## Pirate! (Jul 19, 2004)

Taking a diuretic will negate the benifits of creatine. Like dg806 said, the muscles retain water, it is not the type of "bloating" you get during your period where the water is under the skin. There is no problem using creatine on a cut, and a few days after you stop the creatine cycle, the excess water will be gone. During the creatine cycle, you will weigh a few pounds more, but not lose definition or appear fatter (nor will you be fatter). In fact, your muscles will look a bit bigger if anything.


----------



## Monolith (Jul 19, 2004)

micflint001 said:
			
		

> when i take creatine i feal like i get like a wierd fealing in my stommach but it is right in the middle of my workout when i get the fealing in my stomach but after 15-30 mins i feal fine and i get alot better work out when i take creatine i get alot more of a work out for one thing and also i get a huge pump and seem to be able to do a little more than i can without it


 why the fuck did you just reply to a 2 year old thread?


----------



## zenreich6005 (Jul 19, 2004)

why not?


----------



## Pirate! (Jul 19, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> why the fuck did you just reply to a 2 year old thread?


  Digging in the dirt. Keep em' in check Monolith!


----------



## PreMier (Jul 19, 2004)

zenreich6005 said:
			
		

> why not?



Old threads contain OLD information.  New knowledge is aquired about supplements daily.  This has old info in it that may be irrelavent.


----------



## kvyd (Jul 20, 2004)

lol somebody got bored in the archives


----------



## zenreich6005 (Jul 20, 2004)

premier...not much has changed in weightlifting over the past 50 years really....so a 2 year old supplement question isnt gonna be irrelevant. mentzer, draper, gironda, arnold...everyone figured out their own thing and since then, different people have just repeated it...charles staley preaches gironda's methods....poliquins are very similar to draper's...actuallly, poliquins gvt is just a gironda workout....HST is basically modeled on steeve reeve's old training protocol....yates preaches mentzer....the magazines preach arnolds stuff..thats training for you. 

as for supplements? creatine monohydrate was released how long ago? last good supplement to come out , in my opinion at least...


----------



## PreMier (Jul 20, 2004)

If you think not much has changed in the BB game in the last 50yrs you are blind.  Look how the physiques have progressed.  It takes KNOWLEDGE to build a physique like the BB's of today have.  The BB's of past didnt posess this knowledge.


----------



## zenreich6005 (Jul 20, 2004)

im gonna have to disagree with you here. many point to the increased steroid use. if what your saying is true, what "new training knowledge" has helped these guys get these physiques? im interested...


----------



## SPIKE1257 (Jul 20, 2004)

PreMier said:
			
		

> If you think not much has changed in the BB game in the last 50yrs you are blind.  Look how the physiques have progressed.  It takes KNOWLEDGE to build a physique like the BB's of today have.  The BB's of past didnt posess this knowledge.


THE DIFFERENCE IS DRUGS... YOU KNOW THAT.


----------



## zenreich6005 (Jul 20, 2004)

as for shit being a year old and outdated....i used to read musclemag.com board about 5 years ago. the main supplement advice? take whey protein and carbs in a 2 to 1 ratio within 45 minutes after a workout. drink whey and carbs preworkout. dont waste ur money on cell tech, grape juice and micronized creatine work just as well. take an eca stack if your cutting but diets the most important cut out your carbs. 

only thing thats changed imo is prohormones...they work nowadays whereas they didnt before..


----------



## zenreich6005 (Jul 20, 2004)

im with spike


----------



## PreMier (Jul 20, 2004)

SPIKE1257 said:
			
		

> THE DIFFERENCE IS DRUGS... YOU KNOW THAT.




You like your caps key, dont you.  

Thats also bullshit.  If you think that training, and diet arent what build them I dont know what to say.  Even with the best drugs, you wont be a champion BB unless you eat and train right.  Drugs are only a small part of the equation.


----------



## zenreich6005 (Jul 20, 2004)

premier we know that.

"Even with the best drugs, you wont be a champion BB unless you eat and train right. Drugs are only a small part of the equation."

this was true in the 60's too. but these days the pros are bigger. they take more steroids and gh than they used to...thats why todays pros are bigger than yesterdays pros. 

NOTHING else has changed.


----------



## PreMier (Jul 20, 2004)

Whatever man.  I am done arguing with you.  Diet is 90% no matter what.  Its a science, and the pros of old didnt know what is known today.  I feel sorry for you.


----------



## SPIKE1257 (Jul 20, 2004)

zenreich6005 said:
			
		

> premier we know that.
> 
> "Even with the best drugs, you wont be a champion BB unless you eat and train right. Drugs are only a small part of the equation."
> 
> ...


Are we still debating this ?


----------



## zenreich6005 (Jul 20, 2004)

lol


----------



## Monolith (Jul 20, 2004)

zenreich6005 said:
			
		

> premier we know that.
> 
> "Even with the best drugs, you wont be a champion BB unless you eat and train right. Drugs are only a small part of the equation."
> 
> ...


 wtf

 Remove the crackpipe from your mouth before posting.

 Ever notice that Arnold and his peers were _never_ as ripped as todays competitors are?  Even natural atheletes today have a much lower bodyfat than the "golden age" competitors ever achieved.

 As for training... youve got to be kidding.  Arnold spent days on end in the gym.  The thinking back then was pretty simplistic - the more you train the bigger you get.  Overtraining wasnt even in their vocabulary.  Their post workout nutrition was a piece of chicken.  Today, youve got literally dozens of very effective training styles - all completely unique unto themselves.  And what sets them truly apart from the routines of 50 years ago is that they have the scientific knowledge backing them up.  We know which routines can maximise hypertrophy, and which can maximize strength... and _why_.

 I can go on and on here... but hopefully you get the point.


----------



## P-funk (Jul 20, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> why the fuck did you just reply to a 2 year old thread?




 that is the first time I have ever see MONO get hostile!


----------



## Monolith (Jul 20, 2004)

P-funk said:
			
		

> that is the first time I have ever see MONO get hostile!


  Some things just rile me 

 Good thing im not a moderator, or thered be a lot of people banned.


----------



## PreMier (Jul 20, 2004)

Like P-funk?


----------



## P-funk (Jul 20, 2004)

PreMier said:
			
		

> Like P-funk?



PreMeir......YOU'RE BANNED


----------



## PreMier (Jul 20, 2004)

We all know only SUPER moderators can ban.  So


----------



## Var (Jul 20, 2004)

When are you gonna get bumped to super mod, Funk???  Whats the criteria?


----------



## Monolith (Jul 20, 2004)

LOL @ PM's title


----------



## P-funk (Jul 20, 2004)

PreMier said:
			
		

> We all know only SUPER moderators can ban.  So




Oh well........Don't worry, if I ever become super mod you aren't my first person to ban.  there are a few others that I would get rid of first.


----------



## Monolith (Jul 20, 2004)

P-funk said:
			
		

> Oh well........Don't worry, if I ever become super mod you aren't my first person to ban. there are a few others that I would get rid of first.


 Hopefully Johnnny is at the top of your list.


----------



## P-funk (Jul 20, 2004)

Var said:
			
		

> When are you gonna get bumped to super mod, Funk???  Whats the criteria?



I believe it has something to do with being able to bend over and grab your ankles....so in short....never.


----------



## P-funk (Jul 20, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Hopefully Johnnny is at the top of your list.




I didn't want to say it.....thanks


----------



## Monolith (Jul 20, 2004)

P-funk said:
			
		

> I believe it has something to do with being able to bend over and grab your ankles....so in short....never.


 lmfao, better watch it, P... i hear Mudge has a nasty temper


----------



## P-funk (Jul 20, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> LOL @ PM's title




wise ass


----------



## Var (Jul 20, 2004)

I thought there might be some "back door" training involved!


----------



## P-funk (Jul 20, 2004)

Var said:
			
		

> I thought there might be some "back door" training involved!


----------



## zenreich6005 (Jul 20, 2004)

"Whatever man. I am done arguing with you. Diet is 90% no matter what. Its a science, and the pros of old didnt know what is known today. I feel sorry for you."

first off why do you feel sorry for me? because i have a different opinion than you on something? your acting like a baby. we're having a discussion here, not a cat fight...

Vince gironda who guided many of the golden ages top guys recommended a diet that went something like this: Eat low carbohydrates and high protein and high fat for 3 days, then high carbs for one day and repeat. 

Draper decided that he liked his diet to be more of a 40 40 20 scheme.. 

i dont understand how you could possibly say that our diets now are that much better? isnt that what is currently being done? I dont understand how understanding the science behind something actually makes it more effective. just because draper didnt know what leptin was, he couldnt get lean? isnt food just food? and a caloric deficit a caloric deficit?


get this, all the old school guys didnt do 45 minutes of cardio! they rocked the supersets and 15 minute bouts of hiit training. dont believe me? read drapers stuff sometime. read gironda's.  sounds very similar to what the guys are rercommending these days...now that scientifc studies have confirmed it...

your comment on their eating chicken post workout? Since when didn't they have protein shakes? if i remember correctly, they chugged down the rheo blair formula which was VERY heavy on whey and milk. and btw, a good slow releasing protein i.e. chicken isn't all that bad post workout...brian haycock a top modern guru recomends taking slow releasing stuff post workout. WHEY ISNT THAT GREAT!

have you ever seen ronnie coleman's video? He claims he's doing low carb 5 days, high carb 1 day. but pours tons of bbq on top of his chicken at every meal. at least 20 grams of sugar... is that some sort of modern day scientific diet? 

in the latest flex magazine, ronnie coleman explained that because biceps are a small muscle, you have to hit them 3 days a week. he says that u need to keep each workout short, about 16 sets for the biceps.....not overtraining right? Oh yeah, on a another page it was telling me to do about 20 sets for shoulders. mmm...overtraining..
some other rguy named branch something or other was telling a story about how he would squat so much that he would puke and be unable to walk. he bragged about having to crawl on his hands and his knees because he couldnt walk and that he vomitted all over a bathroom floor. not too scientific...

and if u wanna tell me that flex magazine is bullshit, which it is, then lets talk about the top minds in modern day training.

charles staley and charles poliquin. almost everything that i see from these 2 guys is straight out of gironda's book. i do not mean to discredit them one bit. the good stuff works and these guys have scientifically proven that this stuff is better than others. but honestly....staley's claim to fame is "escalating density training" what is it? he says that the most work should be done in the shortest amount of time. sounds alot like the iron guru gironda's advice. wait, its the same! Gironda advocated workouts to be under an hour and rest at least 72 hours between bodyparts... sound familiar? p.s. he invented german volume training. and 20 rep squats.....those work like a mother fucker...and they have been around since the turn of the century... NOTHING IS NEW.

and i dont understand how you can say, well diet is 90% of it. ok, yes, i know that. and old school bodybuilders knew that too. whats your point? 

anyone else care to jump in here with me? i feel like im going crazy..


----------



## zenreich6005 (Jul 20, 2004)

p.s. the one thing that the modern guys do know more about is diuretics, steroids, and carb loading/ water depleting....

oh yeah,m mentzer definately didnt overtrain come to think of it....


----------



## zenreich6005 (Jul 20, 2004)

and also about whey vs casein...here's something i just found on pubmed...interesting study actually! (this doesnt really have much to do with this thread but i thought it to be a good+interesting read)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10838463


----------



## SPIKE1257 (Jul 20, 2004)

zenreich6005 said:
			
		

> "Whatever man. I am done arguing with you. Diet is 90% no matter what. Its a science, and the pros of old didnt know what is known today. I feel sorry for you."
> 
> first off why do you feel sorry for me? because i have a different opinion than you on something? your acting like a baby. we're having a discussion here, not a cat fight...
> 
> ...


HEY MAN I'M WITH YOU.. YOU DO A SHITLOAD OF READING.


----------

