Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum

Boondock · #1 05-30-2007, 06:27 PM

Can anybody explain the advantages CEE has over Creatine mono?
Iv'e read that it keeps you from retaining the water that is experienced with regular creatine.
Anything else?
Is it worth the added cost?

Scorcher2005 · #2 05-31-2007, 02:01 PM

Why is water retention a big deal to you? Are you going up for a contest? If not, its not going to make you look fat. If anything, it will make you look a bit bigger. But the main advantage of CEE is that it requires no loading and that the body asorbs it much better than mono, which leads to better results. Being that you take lower doses of the CEE (2g on workout days, 1 g on off days compared to 5-10g mono) there really is no cost difference.

hrdgain81 · #3 06-01-2007, 06:01 AM

^^ true, but the main difference is CEE is not suppose to need a glucose carrier to get it into the blood stream. Meaning, mono needs to be taken with a significant amount of sugars (malto/dext) in order for it to even work, else your just pissing it out.

CEE in theory doesnt need the carrier, but all the studies about creatine's effectiveness were done on mono (that i've seen atleast).

Mono has also been reported to give some people GI problems, bloating in the stomach, ect. I havent heard that complaint about CEE yet, but it does taste like ass, so have a mixer ready.

Scorcher2005 · #4 06-01-2007, 01:52 PM

Oh yeah, i forgot about the glucose carrier. I was getting there with the asorbtion, but probably got sidetracked or some shit. What i do is put some juice, soda, protein shake, etc... in my mouth, tilt head back, dump in CEE, and swallow. Barely any taste, and if you do it perfectly you wont taste any of it.

MsclemilkkiD · #5 07-28-2007, 11:12 PM

I used to take muscle tech creatine mono. I hate the loading part and it gives me DIARRHEA!!! anybody else has that experienced??

Darkhorse · #6 07-28-2007, 11:59 PM

There's a few studies out there currently that refutes CEE.. I've seen this shit in a few forums getting passed around.

Quote:

Creatine ethyl ester rapidly degrades to creatinine in stomach acid

Child R1 and Tallon MJ2

1Department of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom. 2University of Northumbria, Sport Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, DrChild@CR-Technologies.net

Creatine ethyl ester (CEE) is a commercially available synthetic creatine that is now widely used in dietary supplements. It comprises of creatine with an ethyl group attached and this molecular configuration is reported to provide several advantages over creatine monohydrate (CM). The Medical Research Institute (CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (CE2) provides greater solubility in lipids, leading to improved absorption. Similarly San (San Corporation, CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (San CM2 Alpha) avoids the breakdown of creatine to creatinine in stomach acids. Ultimately it is claimed that CEE products provide greater absorption and efficacy than CM. To date, none of these claims have been evaluated by an independent, or university laboratory and no comparative data are available on CEE and CM.

This study assessed the availability of creatine from three commercial creatine products during degradation in acidic conditions similar to those that occur in the stomach. They comprised of two products containing CEE (San CM2 Alpha and CE2) and commercially available CM (CreapureÒ). An independent laboratory, using testing guidelines recommended by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), performed the analysis. Each product was incubated in 900ml of pH 1 HCL at 37± 1oC and samples where drawn at 5, 30 and 120 minutes. Creatine availability was assessed by immediately assaying for free creatine, CEE and the creatine breakdown product creatinine, using HPLC (UV)

After 30 minutes incubation only 73% of the initial CEE present was available from CE2, while the amount of CEE available from San CM2 Alpha was even lower at only 62%. In contrast, more than 99% of the creatine remained available from the CM product. These reductions in CEE availability were accompanied by substantial creatinine formation, without the appearance of free creatine. After 120minutes incubation 72% of the CEE was available from CE2 with only 11% available from San CM2 Alpha, while more than 99% of the creatine remained available from CM.

CEE is claimed to provide several advantages over CM because of increased solubility and stability. In practice, the addition of the ethyl group to creatine actually reduces acid stability and accelerates its breakdown to creatinine. This substantially reduces creatine availability in its esterified form and as a consequence creatines such as San CM2 and CE2 are inferior to CM as a source of free creatine.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Kre-alkalyn® supplementation has no beneficial effect on creatine-to-creatinine conversion rates.

Tallon MJ1 and Child R2

1University of Northumbria, Sport Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 2Department of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom. DrTallon@CR-Technologies.net

All American Pharmaceutical and Natural Foods Corp. (Billings, MT, USA) claim that Kre-alkalyn® (KA) a “Buffered” creatine, is 100% stable in stomach acid and does not convert to creatinine. In contrast, they also claim that creatine monohydrate (CM) is highly pH labile with more than 90% of the creatine converting to the degradation product creatinine in stomach acids. To date, no independent or university laboratory has evaluated the stability of KA in stomach acids, assessed its possible conversion to creatinine, or made direct comparisons of acid stability with CM.

This study examined whether KA supplementation reduced the rate of creatine conversion to creatinine, relative to commercially available CM (CreapureÒ). Creatine products were analyzed by an independent commercial laboratory using testing guidelines recommended by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP). Each product was incubated in 900ml of pH 1 HCL at 37± 1oC and samples where drawn at 5, 30 and 120 minutes and immediately analyzed by HPLC (UV) for creatine and creatinine.

In contrast to the claims of All American Pharmaceutical and Natural Foods Corp., the rate of creatinine formation from CM was found to be less than 1% of the initial dose, demonstrating that CM is extremely stable under acidic conditions that replicate those of the stomach. This study also showed that KA supplementation actually resulted in 35% greater conversion of creatine to creatinine than CM. In conclusion the conversion of creatine to creatinine is not a limitation in the delivery of creatine from CM and KA is less stable than CM in the acid conditions of the stomach.

UmmmPain · #7 07-29-2007, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MsclemilkkiD

I used to take muscle tech creatine mono. I hate the loading part and it gives me DIARRHEA!!! anybody else has that experienced??

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

EricT · #8 07-29-2007, 09:43 AM

What protein shake? Just any?

On the business of "retaining" water, in order for creatine to get into the muslce it's going to have to take some water along with it. That's part of it. While it increases fluid retention there is no scientific evidence that it changes fluid DISTRIBUTION. CEE even though it supposedly works without a transporter is still gonna take water along with it.

I think at first the hype with CEE was the idea it would actually FORCE more creatine into an already saturated muscle. Meaning barging it's way in against a concentration gradient. This obviously doesn't happen and can't happen. So if any advantage exists it's that CEE dissolves in water and thus doesn't have as much potential for pulling water out of the gut and into the stomach causing bloating that SOME people complain of on CM.

The study is interesting but I don't really think the behaviour of it "sitting" in an acid solution is really the point. I'm not aware that the makers ever claimed it was more stable in acid. The point is how fast it gets out of the stomach to be absorbed by the gut. I've heard there are more relevant studies on rate of apperance in blood and such but I've never seen them.

But as far as bloating in general with CM I've never had a problem with it EXCEPT when loading it way back when I first tried it. Obviously dumping such huge doses of it in the stomach could cause a whole lot of water to be pulled in where the CM just sits there and you cramp like crazy. If you don't have a problem with bloating via regular doses of CM then CM will probalby work just as good for you and the only advantage of CEE in that case is one of pure convienience.

The "loading part" can be pretty harsh with CM though. Good news is there is absolutely no real need to load it. Raise your hand if you don't load CM.....

Kane · #9 07-29-2007, 10:31 AM

*Raises Hand*

ENORRIS · #10 07-29-2007, 11:07 AM

I just started ethyl ester! Used mono off and on for a long time, I'll try and throw in some personal insights when I've been on the cee a little longer. Again I'm not sure if the water retention with mono is myth or fact. But going on 2 weeks into the switch I've noticed a big difference in bathroom trips. Seems like I'm getting rid of a lot more water. And the weight dropped several pounds without any diet change.

Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum

Creatine Mono VS. CEE