Creatine Mono VS. CEE

[EricT]

Definitely give your thoughts on it!

Read this:

http://www.nata.org/jat/readers/arch...38_01_0044.pdf

This is the thing about fluid retention I was talking about. Notice what I said about fluid distribution. See, the thing is that if the balance of fluid in the body remains fixed on CM and if increased levels of CM in the muscles go along with increased water in the muscles then if you think you are losing water (which I doubt) either the fluid distribution is being altered (which would be bad but again I doubt it) OR you are simply pissing away more than you were before when you were just on CM....not necessarily a good thing. It's not like CEE is going to magically cause you to shed EXTRAcellular water which a lot of people like to tell themslves they have an abundance of

[ENORRIS]

I appreciate the info! I wasn't sure of the specific reasoning for the water loss.. It was just an observation. Let's hope it's not a bad thing! I'll try and keep a post up on the progress of the switch, and some personal opinions.

[EricT]

Great

[ENORRIS]

I'm not sure how to quote from the adobe on that site. In the limitations of the study section, It states that they did not account for caloric and water intake. Seems like a major problem! Correct me if I have that wrong. I'm currently on the same calorie and water volume just the cee instead of monohydrate. I'm seeing weight loss on the scale and more trips to pee at greater volume. Of course I do not have a total body water volume measurement either, so I'm just going on the scale and frequent bathroom trips. This is going to be hard to pin point until a much more controlled and in-depth study is released. Preferably one comparing cee and mono between controlled groups plus the placebo group. Not to say it hasn't I just haven't seen anything definitive. This was very informative on mono though...

[EricT]

Yeah it's only one study.

But the point is about creatine in the muscles and the hydration status that comes along with it. Let me put it another way:

Creatine in the muscles has a volumising effect. It swells the cells. This is because it has osmotic activity. And it's not necessarily just simple fluid retention. It more likely has to do with metabolic control and anabolic status which may have to do with hydration status. Cell volumizing seems to be a factor in all this...things like protein synthesis. People complain about creatine "retaining water" but what they don't get is that it comes along with it and is part of the point....

It doesn't matter how the creatine gets to the muscle it still has that osmotic effect. Unless you believe that CEE is absorbed intact. The idea that people are getting a free ride with CEE doesn't make sense. So it begs the question...what is CEE doing if it doesn't have this effect?

But I'm not trying to prove or disprove CEE. Like you said their needs to be comparative studies. I'm just making clear the myths surrounding it. If you are going to step on stage it is fairly clear that ANY creatine supplementation may make dehydration much harder no doubt. Which kinda comes down to what Scorcher said in the first place. But the main point is about creatine and "water retention" not being a realistic way of looking at it.

If you increase hydration status that will have positive effects on strength gains and lean mass gains. It is not "storing water" if the PERCENTAGE of TBW is not altered. It is just more hydration.

[EricT]

Just for a little more:

Originally Posted by Dr. Stout

There are three senarios for CEE

1) CEE is a true covalently bonded ester and is absorbed into blood and tissues as the intact molecule. This is the picture that the manufacturers would have us believe and is the basis for why they claim CEE is superior to creatine monohydrate. However, inside cells CEE will be unreactive with creatine kinase and may be a potential competitive or non-competitive inhibitor to the enzyme. This would make it toxic to brain, heart, testes, muscle and all other CK containing tissues. People by now should be dying, but clearly are not and this means 2) and 3) are the more likely.

Nonethess, CEE should be treated as a potentially toxic phrarmaceutical and in the US should be treated as a drug, which requires multi species studies to estimate LD50's and potential sites of tissue damage etc. However, recently I have
been told that CEE did get new dietary ingredient status (scary).

2) CEE is hydrolysed to creatine on absorption from the gut. In this case CEE offers no advantage over creatine monohydrate which has a bioavilability of 100%. Indeed if hydrolysis of CEE is less than 100% then it will be inferior to the monohydate. But in the case of hydrolysis there are no circumstances in which it could be better than the monohydrate in increasing tissue creatine levels. Obviously CEE manufacturers would prefer 1) except that they then shoot themselves in the foot over the issue of potential toxicity.

3) CEE is not a true covalently bonded ester. The whole of this is a scam with the compound ionising in solution to free creatine, as does the monohydrate and all salts of creatine. In this case CEE would again represent no advantage over creatine monohydrate, except to the seller who can double the price.

The failure of the US sports nutrition community (industry and the universities) to call for closer examination of CEE seriously questions its credibility in the eyes of many scientist in this country and the world. A simple water solvation test would answer 3), i.e. whether or not it was a covalent or ionisable derivative of creatine. The work time would be about one
hour. Investigation of whether CEE is a competitive or non-competitive inhibitor of creatine kinase would take 2-3 hours. If either of these occured then clearly CEE must be investigated in at least two species to investigate lethality and potential organ damage. If on the other hand CEE is ionisable then I see no reason why a bioavailability study should not be undertaken comparing this, on a molar/molar basis, with creatine monohydrate. My guess is that plasma AUC would be identical.
Again a very simple study.

None of this is rocket science but could spare a few lives, if the
manufacturers claims on the absorption of CEE are to believed.

OH! and one more thought: Another aspect to consider is how CEE would overcome a huge concentration gradient from circulation to muscle if it does not use the creatine transporter and uses simple diffusion as they promote.

Bottom Line: I say stay with good old GERMAN creatine Monohydrate. 500 human studies can't be wrong. :-)

[Kane]

Just to add my $0.02... I've primarily taken Mono, but recently (few months ago) I switch to CEE. I honestly don't think that the CEE is better. I can't see/feel any noticeable performance increase and the shits more money When I'm done my bottle of CEE I'm switching back to Mono.

[ENORRIS]

All true I'm not saying there isn't water retention with either form... Of course there has to be that's part of the effectiveness of it. Well hydrated cells work much better. And I definitely have seen great benefits from mono.. I'm not knocking it at all. Just noting what is going on with my own body on the switch between the two. Of course there could be any number of other reasons for the sudden water shed. Nothing hard or factual about it just personal observations for the record. As far as strength gains I'll chime in later when I have been on Cee longer. Either way you go fella creatine is a good supp! Ask anyone I think a lot will agree. Listen to Eric he knows his stuff.. I'm completely going on personal observation. It could just be a bi-product of the switch.. new form new function! Only time will tell..

[EricT]

Oh I'm not trying to discourage you or "prove" anything. As far as I'm concerned you shedding all the water is a mystery to me as well. The anecdotal feedback for CEE is good. But then you have guys like Kane who notice no difference.

I think my biggest point is to try to stop people from complaining about water retention, lol.

[MsclemilkkiD]

Originally Posted by UmmmPain

are you sure its from the creatine? and not the protine shake? cause the protine shake makes everybody fart and shit. deadly stuff

Protein shake just makes me fart after 2 to 3 intakes, then my stomach gets used to it. But every time I take creatine, it just happens believe me! so I stopped. I'm thinking of taking it again though, but not mono.