Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum

Ok, obviously you didnt read all the links that were attached to my earlier response. You claimed that one of my sources, Albion International, is promoting their product and Im sure they are...along with every other site and study. The part I dont think you read was the research done on creatine monohydrate and the lack of the stomachs ability to absorb it due to the acidic condition. Quote--"Although creatine [as monohydrate] has been shown to be a very effective substance, it is important to note that creatine, with the amino group [NH] gamma to the carboxylic acid, makes it prey to acid hydrolysis. Whatever the rationale, it has been CLEARLY shown that creatine has a propensity to form 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 transformed irreversibly into creatinine, when exposed to the stomachs acidic conditions. Once creatinine is formed, it is no longer of any physiological benefit". [Albion Research Notes Volume 8, No.2]. This non absorbed, up to 66% of the product, bile is what causes the bloating, gastrointestinal distress, required loading period, having to stop taking mono for periods of time and the need for large doses of product and liquids. What has been discovered is by using a chelate formula, the absorbtion, using the small intestines, avoiding the acidic conditions of the stomach now making it almost 100% absorbed without ANY side effects.-[Studies done in powder form]. Gells and pills are ingested throught the stomach no matter what form of creatine is being used.

I hope this new information is what you were looking for. I used Albion International Research [ to end any speculation] as a referrence since they are known and respected worldwide along with their study findings being highly regarded.

Albion Research [Dec 1999 Vol 8, No.3]

CreXtreme.com

Creatinemonohydrate.net

"What you dont know about creatine can hurt you"
www.trulyhuge.com

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.

__________________

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

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.