Go Back   Bodybuilding Forum - Bodybuilding.net > Bodybuilding Forum > Supplements

monohydrate + cardio

Supplements discussion on monohydrate + cardio, within the Bodybuilding Forum; Blah blah blah. You still haven't proven that creatine malate or whatever is more effective than taking creatine monohydrate. Even ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-16-2009, 07:46 PM   #11
Ross86
Rank: Light Heavyweight
Experience: > 1 Year
 
Ross86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 3,268
Country:

Gender:
Send a message via AIM to Ross86
Default

Blah blah blah. You still haven't proven that creatine malate or whatever is more effective than taking creatine monohydrate. Even if a portion of the CM turns into creatinine, enough is still absorbed. You're just proving my point further. The vast majority of people don't have GI distress, or bloating. The loading period isn't required. And this part, "having to stop taking mono for periods of time", doesn't make sense. It's a very biased article. It reminds me of a...sales pitch.

You have a fetish for creatine chelate & creatine malate. It is not more effective than taking 5g of CM and you can't find any evidence that is contrary to this. If the creatine makes it into the muscle, then it's there. Creatine monohydrate gets into the muscle. Period. Quit arguing about it.

Ross86's Sig:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Ross86 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 07:49 AM   #12
roadrunner
Rank: New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross86 View Post
Blah blah blah. You still haven't proven that creatine malate or whatever is more effective than taking creatine monohydrate. Even if a portion of the CM turns into creatinine, enough is still absorbed. You're just proving my point further. The vast majority of people don't have GI distress, or bloating. The loading period isn't required. And this part, "having to stop taking mono for periods of time", doesn't make sense. It's a very biased article. It reminds me of a...sales pitch.

You have a fetish for creatine chelate & creatine malate. It is not more effective than taking 5g of CM and you can't find any evidence that is contrary to this. If the creatine makes it into the muscle, then it's there. Creatine monohydrate gets into the muscle. Period. Quit arguing about it.
Whos arguing? You are the one asking for proof that there is a difference between straight mono and newer formulas whether Chelate or Malate formulas. I have given you ample evidence that there is from unbiased studies. Sales pitch?? Whats in it for me...nothing. I have zero ties to any of the research, studies or manufacturers I have used in my referrances. I do prefer certain products but have never mentioned them so wheres your allegations of me doing the sales pitch? Obviously you are set in your ways and thats fine but Im sure others may actually want to know that there are better alternatives available to them. You just need to admit that mono, MAYBE being 30% abosbed into the muscle, is not a fully effective product. That 5gms you THINK your getting in your muscle is actually on a good day maybe 2gms--thus the loading period you state "Isnt required". EVERY study, research and manufacturer I have given you shows these as facts. Show me it doesnt. Ive proved to you Im not making all this up or being "biased" in your words. And yes I have proved to you that mono is not as effective as some of the newer formulas I have mentioned.

I would like YOU to prove to me why mono is superior or equal to any of the formulas I have given you research studies on: How much mono is actually absorbed into the muscle, Why there is bloating--of any kind, why there is a loading period required, why mass doses of fluids are required, why there are ANY gastrointestinal problems reported when all the new formulas dont have any of these requirements/problems and are more effectively absorbed.

Im not trying to be defensive with you in any way, in fact, enjoy the debate and am always willing to learn when the opportunity comes along.
roadrunner is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 08:32 AM   #13
roadrunner
Rank: New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane View Post
Albion Research Notes are also promoting their own patented magnesium creatine chelate...Sorry to say but that loses credibility right off the bat.

Gain-weight-muscle-fast.com....couldn't find anything about mono being bad or 'old school'. Didn't see any citations either. How can you say studies have shown and then not provide any of them?

Sorry, but I'm still calling bs
Ok, so I used Albions research. I only used their studies since they are one of the worlds largest most respected research laboratories. I dont know if you actually read the report regarding their findings on creatine mono or not but what was in their report, and all others, is that mono by itself is not the most effective formula. Whether or not Albion has their own creatine product is not what I was trying to relay in my referrance. The report was done showing the ineffeciancey of straight mono. Quote:

"Although creatine [as a monohydrate] has been shown to be a very effective substance, it is important to note that creatine is susceptible to cyclicaztion. It may be that the molecular configuration of creatine with the amino group [NH] gamma to the carboxylic acid, makes it prey to acid hydrolysis. Whatever the rationale, it have been clealy shown that creatine has a propensity to from creatinine, under acidic conditions. In fact, in acidic aqueous solutions, the formation of creatinine from creatine is nearly total and irreversible. From this, one can see that a great deal of creatine can be transformend irreversibly into creatinine, when exposed to the stomach's acidic conditions. Once creatinine is formed, its is no longer of any physiological benefit" [Albion research December, 1999, Vol. 8 No. 2]

What this study, and all others done with a Chelate or Malate formula whether using magnesium or malic acid, found is that with the attachment of other molecules to the creatine monohydrate has been proven to be substantially more absorbed into the muscle through the small intestines [in powder form] void the acidic conditions of the stomach, thus, the eliminating the creatinine process ie; intestinal discomfort, loading periods, mass amounts of fluids etc.

Like I mentioned to Ross, I enjoy the debate and am always willing to learn more. Thank you for your concern regarding you not being able to find what I was referring to on a site quoted. I will go back to the site and find the quotes I was trying to relay.
roadrunner is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Bodybuilding Forum - Bodybuilding.net > Bodybuilding Forum > Supplements


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.