Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum

Anyone taking this or should I just get the powder form. In two tablets it has 5 grams of creatine. How many mg's should one take on a daily basis (workout days and non days)? Or is this another GNC ripoff?

Two tablets should be fine. It's Creatine Hydrochloride. It doesn't need a carrier molecule, like Creatine Monohydrate does, to get into the blood stream. I would take it every day for a couple of weeks and then just on workout days right after my workout...or right before. It's expensive for what it is, but you don't need to take it with anything else, so it's convenient.

Like it says on the side of the box, two pills are the equivalent of 5g of Creatine Monohydrate. Creatine Monohydrate is a lot cheaper.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Wasn't sure if you needed more than 5mg a day. Thanks Ross. Next time i'll read the bottle a little closer, can't believe I didn't see it!!

Just to clarify, it's 5 grams of CM. And the Creatine HCl is 1250 milligrams (per two tablets).

Next time stick with tried and true creatine mono...these designer creatines have no scientific backup and the only creatine that has REALLY been studied is mono...these others are based on nothing but hot air and assumptions.

LOL, I had to steal this blog post from Mike Rousell, it's sorta kinda related...but I'll plug his site again to help make up for it: Naked Nutrition Network

Written by Mike Roussell · Filed Under Blog | Leave a Comment

The Blind Leading the Blind

February 8, 2007

I occasionally lurk around the bodybuilding.com forums since my post yesterday was about nitric oxide supplement I thought highlighting some of my findings would only be fitting.
“Out of all my experience, N.O. Shotgun is by far the best. It’s got arginine-ethyl-ester, creatine-ethyl-ester, glutamine-ethyl-ester….Pretty much everything in it is -ethyl-ester, so you know it has a very fast delivery system.”


My favorite part is “so you know it has a very fast delivery system”. Really? I wasn’t aware that -ethyl-esters automatically increase the speed of nutrient delivery (said with extreme sarcasm)

“The taste is horrible, but the product is well worth the money.”

Why would you want to pay lots of money and ingest something everyday if it tastes horrible? It isn’t like this guy is drinking androgens.

“I did, however, have many problems with taking this product. Instead of creatine-ethyl-ester or creatine-gluconate (like most other pre workout products have), this product just came with outdated creatine monohydrate, and lots of it. Along with that, the digestive problems were horrible. 2 hours after taking it I had massive diarrhea, and stomach cramps like no other. The taste doesn’t help much either….”

Honestly this post gets more entertaining the more this person writes. I love how he refers to creatine monohydrate as “outdated” as if it doesn’t work anymore.
Please, let this post serve as a warning about fitness and nutrition forums. They should mainly be treated as entertainment unless you know the person giving out information is a reputable source.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
or
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you act sanctimonious I will just list out your logical fallacies until you get pissed off and spew blasphemous remarks.

If I can find it, I'll post the study that GNC (or someone else) did on Creatine HCl if I can find it. I'm kind of curious about it.

There really is no way to test the effects of supplements on muscle building. Thats the gimmick that "fake" companies use. For example, if i train for two months without supplements and put an inch on each arm, then train the left arm only with supplements and every other weekend than the right arm, than it will grow more right? But then this experiment has way too many extra factors that may or may not change the outcome. Factors like diet, sleep, mental prepareness, intensity, focus, other things like that. It is truly difficult to show supplements do work. You will see" Increased muscle protein content by 48%, bench press by 32 pounds in two months? But then you have to know what was the rate of progress without supplementation. And then even this is pointless because it is common knowledge that it becomes harder and harder to grow as the body adapts to stress over time.

__________________
Either 100 percent serious or none at all
"How the hell can you be sure if its a guy or girl?"
"Shoot em and hear them scream. Trust me, you'll know." cleaningotis answering SniperXL50

WOW. That's very not true IMO. It is for this reason that most studies use a control group. If the sample size (number of participants) is large enough, then you can definitely get a good idea. Also, if enough studies have been done, then you can start to get an idea. Granted, there will always be a sampling error. But you can definitely say with a large amount of confidence that supplements such as creatine may aid in building muscle.

The problem is that companies (and sometimes the people conducting the studies) take good studies and misinterpret the results. Most of the studies that supplement companies reference were done with two groups of less than 10 people. That is NOT a large enough sample to have a significant outcome.

Supplementing creatine has been proven to work to aid in building muscle IMO. There are over 100 studies that show this. High protein diets, and supplemental protein have been proven to help.

So overall, some claims are efficacious while others are likely, but not necessarily, false. It is definitely possible to show that supplements do work. Most companies don't take the time to do so because they don't have to. Or they manipulate the studies or the interpretations. I understand where you're coming from because I'm pretty cynical too.

I am deeply involved in research (not supplement, but psychology) and I can actually give an educated reply for once!

In response to OTIS, there is no way to experimentally determine a causal relationship between supplements and muscle gains. This is entirely due to the impossibility of isolating supplements as the only independent variable, there are simply too many confounding variables to control (i.e., life stressors, motivational fluctuations, effort, etc.).

However, studies can come to a statistically significant correlational relationship, showing that when supplements are used, whichever they may be researching, a positive correlational relationship occurs (when supplement intake increases, so does muscle mass, or when supplement intake decreases, muscle mass decreases). THIS DOES NOT MEAN SUPPLEMENTS CAUSE, in ANY way, MUSCLE MASS INCREASE.

I would be very interested in a meta-analysis of supplement studies, if anyone has found one.

It doesn't mean they don't either.

EDIT: Do you mean alone or when in conjunction with exercise? Or did you not specify on purpose?