Supplements

Hanley

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.cr-technologies.net/cee.html

"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."

I also found a newer one:

"New research shows that creatine ethyl-ester - a new but unproven version of the popular sports supplement creatine – does not work as well as regular creatine."

Source: http://www.cr-technologies.net/cee_pr.html

Reckon they have a reason to be knocking any type of creatine that isn't there own.....??

Here's a list of their latest releases;

August 14 2007
CR-Technologies release CREASAFE®
http://www.cr-technologies.net/creasafe.html

June 19 2007
Creatine Ethyl-Ester Unstable, Say Researchers

June 19 2007
Kre-alkalyn® supplementation has no beneficial effect on creatine-to-
creatinine conversion rates

Lol at you using a company that manufactures a rival product as a way of backing up your arguments.

HEY EVERYONE, Pepsi doesn't taste nice.*















*Published in the Coca-Cola research quarterly.

Keep on laughing at me Hanley, I'm bringing something to the discussion. You're not. You're just blasting it and not backing it up.

It's as close to any evidence I have found online that says otherwise. Unless you count hundreds of threads on bodybuilding.com or numerous other forums worldwide where people are saying "CEE is amazing, it's even better than steroids, and it's making girls want to kiss me, I put on 200lbs of solid muscle in 36 hours"

So do you think Ethyl Ester is better than Monohydrate? Do you have any facts to bring to this argument? Why wouldn't a company research something, find out what is better and then sell it?

This research was presented at the 4th Annual International Society of Sports Nutrition Conference (Las Vegas, USA)

"To date, no published study has shown that creatine ethyl-ester works any better than regular creatine," adds study co-author Dr. Robert Child. "In fact, our work shows that it’s less stable. Anyone should think twice about spending their money on this type of product."

Source
Child, R. & Tallon, M.J. (2007). Creatine ethyl ester rapidly degrades to creatinine in stomach acid. International Society of Sports Nutrition 4th Annual Meeting

Wikipedia also use the same reference (and Wikipedia is far more regulated now then when it first came out and is monitored 24/7 to ensure false crap is not written)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine_ethyl_ester

I don't know Hanley, I'm trying to bring something to this discussion. Are you?

g'em

Chillax, both of you!

TheEntrepreneur Hanley makes a good point - 'research' carried out by supplement companies is overwhelmingly biased to say the least and pretty unreliable. We would tend to look towards peer-reviewed, independent studies from International journals for solid objective information.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's as close to any evidence I have found online that says otherwise. Unless you count hundreds of threads on bodybuilding.com or numerous other forums worldwide where people are saying "CEE is amazing, it's even better than steroids, and it's making girls want to kiss me, I put on 200lbs of solid muscle in 36 hours"

Well this is just it - there really isn't any quantifiable evidence either way yet afaik; CEE is still too new a product to have been tested rigorously. Hell, Mono has only been tested for the last 10 years (albeit in 200+ studies!).

You're right, you are bringing something to the discussion, but just be careful how solid and reliable the information you're bringing is

Hanley

Keep on laughing at me Hanley, I'm bringing something to the discussion. You're not. You're just blasting it and not backing it up.

Riiiiiight….. How does one back up an observation based on logical conclusions, other than by citing where it was observed and why their opinion was arrived at??

It's as close to any evidence I have found online that says otherwise. Unless you count hundreds of threads on bodybuilding.com or numerous other forums worldwide where people are saying "CEE is amazing, it's even better than steroids, and it's making girls want to kiss me, I put on 200lbs of solid muscle in 36 hours"

Lol

So do you think Ethyl Ester is better than Monohydrate?

Lol. Do you think it actually matters to me which is better? Both will have such little bearing on the success of any training program that even a large difference between them will mean FA.

Do you have any facts to bring to this argument?

Facts….?? Empirical evidence isn’t good enough I assume?

Here’s one; 99.9% of people on the internet who are interested in fitness like to read loads and engage in arguments about optimal training, and optimal nutrition without actually practicing what they preach. Well, they do train. But they only go thru the motions and get no where.

Actually, that’s mean. 90%.

Why wouldn't a company research something, find out what is better and then sell it?

You don’t seriously expect me to try and argue against that do you??

Indulge me and let me ask you a question, assuming scientific studies are relatively easy to manipulate, and aren’t normally done under the same conditions, is it “right” that a company engages in a study which can be manipulated to suit their own raison d’etre, only for them to hold this study up as being scientific “proof” that the thing they’re selling is best?

This research was presented at the 4th Annual International Society of Sports Nutrition Conference (Las Vegas, USA)

"To date, no published study has shown that creatine ethyl-ester works any better than regular creatine," adds study co-author Dr. Robert Child. "In fact, our work shows that it’s less stable. Anyone should think twice about spending their money on this type of product."

Source
Child, R. & Tallon, M.J. (2007). Creatine ethyl ester rapidly degrades to creatinine in stomach acid. International Society of Sports Nutrition 4th Annual Meeting

“Less Stable”

“Doesn’t work any better”

Doesn’t say it’s WORSE tho does it??

What sort of dosage are we talking anyway? If you’re superdosing any creatine it’s going to turn to creatinine eventually. Maybe CEE is just more susceptible to this?

Wikipedia also use the same reference (and Wikipedia is far more regulated now then when it first came out and is monitored 24/7 to ensure false crap is not written)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine_ethyl_ester

A wikipedia, the bastion of truth. No further comment necessary.

I don't know Hanley, I'm trying to bring something to this discussion. Are you?

I’m bringing you the other side of the discussion, it’d be awfully boring if you just stated your opinions and had everyone agree with you?? That wouldn’t be a discussion at all would it? More of a, well... I won't say it.

"To date, no published study has shown that creatine ethyl-ester works any better than regular creatine,"

Fine, that doesn't exactly say it's not worse but it won't convince me to go out and buy CEE. Monohydrate has the track record (10 years +), CEE is new.

The guy enquiring is a newbie. What is my point? My point is he will benefit just fine from Monohydrate.

The bottom line is there is a guy who wants to know about creatine. I'll change my original statement slightly.

You'll be interested to know that CEE is not actually PROVEN to be more effective than Monohydrate.

If it's not proven, why bother paying the extra and trying it out? Would you buy if it was not proven to work better than existing products that do the same thing? I wouldn't.

Hanley

Deleted User wrote: »

Fine, that doesn't exactly say it's not worse but it won't convince me to go out and buy CEE. Monohydrate has the track record (10 years +), CEE is new.

Who was trying to convince you to buy CEE?

The guy enquiring is a newbie. What is my point? My point is he will benefit just fine from Monohydrate.

Yeah... or training.... Or more food....

The choice between CEE and mono isn't what makes or breaks it for a newb. In fact I'd say there's NO difference when it comes to newbies.

If it's not proven, why bother paying the extra and trying it out? Would you buy if it was not proven to work better than existing products that do the same thing? I wouldn't.

Nor would I. Besides, CEE tastes like crap!

quirkster

theres a lot more than 2 types of creo on the market. they all ESSENTIALLY do the same thing give or take.some people react differently to others or have problems breaking down one type etc.

hanley you cannot be possibly suggesting that you can taste the different types of creatine?

Hanley

quirkster wrote: »

hanley you cannot be possibly suggesting that you can taste the different types of creatine?

Not a suggestion, a statement.

quirkster

i admire your tasting ability. i for one find it hard to even pick up the supposed ' chocolate/vanilla/mint' that is meant to be that particular products flavor, let alone the type of creatine it contains

Hanley

quirkster wrote: »

i admire your tasting ability. i for one find it hard to even pick up the supposed ' chocolate/vanilla/mint' that is meant to be that particular products flavor, let alone the type of creatine it contains

Pure CEE is notoriously bitter.

Mono just tastes chalky...

Cravez

Hanley wrote: »

Pure CEE is notoriously bitter.

Sure is, have a kilo of the stuff at home!

I first tried it with just water (big mistake), it tasted like like pure alcohol & endless wretching ensued . Only way to down it is with high acidic juice like OJ. Regardless of what the studies etc say, iv have tried both CEE and Mono and CEE works better for me. That doesn't mean that it will work for everyone, iv had people say to me that they find Mono effective than CEE and others have said vice versa. What i recommend usually to anyone is try one Creatine first, then try the other after you finish that. Whatever one you feel is better of the two then stick with it.

jimmay

Im glad my question has raised some debate however I am none the wiser. I understand there is no clear answer as to what type is better and each person has to see what suits them. But is there like a recommended beginners creatine ar a more user friendly product that someone can reccomend that I don't need to load up on?

If you want a creatine that you don't need to load on, use CEE. It's not PROVEN to be better but it is more expensive and can't be much worse (assuming) so if you want that, then go for it.

Otherwise you can just take monohydrate. Do you need creatine? Have you been working out long and is your diet and exercise plan in order? These are the questions you need to ask yourself and decide.

Hanley

Deleted User wrote: »

If you want a creatine that you don't need to load on, use CEE. It's not PROVEN to be better but it is more expensive and can't be much worse (assuming) so if you want that, then go for it.

Otherwise you can just take monohydrate. Do you need creatine? Have you been working out long and is your diet and exercise plan in order? These are the questions you need to ask yourself and decide.

That's a good post!

Come on man, stop patronizing me.

Hanley

Deleted User wrote: »

Come on man, stop patronizing me.

*complimenting

yomchi

Started using Olimp Massacra this week. I'm a big fan of the brand tbh.

However, on the instructions it says use 6 flat tablespoons or 90 measuring units of the Olimp scoop. Now this is clearly wrong, as the measuring scoop is about 30g worth.
I stuck to the tablespoons, has anyone else encountered this or is it just my batch?

On that note, has anyone else tried this stuff? It's a pre trainer NO booster, man the kick off it is awesome, and tastes not too bad either!

Hanley

Jon wrote: »

Started using Olimp Massacra this week. I'm a big fan of the brand tbh.

However, on the instructions it says use 6 flat tablespoons or 90 measuring units of the Olimp scoop. Now this is clearly wrong, as the measuring scoop is about 30g worth.
I stuck to the tablespoons, has anyone else encountered this or is it just my batch?

On that note, has anyone else tried this stuff? It's a pre trainer NO booster, man the kick off it is awesome, and tastes not too bad either!

It's it something along the lines of Xplode, NO-xplode and NRG Blast?? I might give it a try. I'm looking for something new because using the others too frequently tends to leave me desensitised to their effects, so I'm hoping by rotating them they'll keep working!

yomchi

Yeh it's super stuff. Mixes green though! I take citruline malate in the morning then have a massacra before training, did arms today and the swole up like quads!

Having said that arms arms are probably my best feature, apart from my rugged good looks

djtechnics1210

Is maximuscle promax any good????
which is better promax or or promax extreme????
Having difficulty deciding between the maximuscle range and supplement factory whey protein.
All help greatly appreciated

quirkster

believe me when i say - stay.away.from.maximuscle.

their protein supps are TERRIBLE. i think promax only has 13grams per scoop, while all the other better brand would have 20+ grams at least.

Esse85

quirkster wrote: »

believe me when i say - stay.away.from.maximuscle.

their protein supps are TERRIBLE. i think promax only has 13grams per scoop, while all the other better brand would have 20+ grams at least.

Can you back up where you make this claim??

There is nothing at all wrong with the quality of products maximuscle produce, the reason they get shot down is because you get so little for your money.

To answer the question, if money is no issue, then id be confident that maximuscle are slightly better quality, however if your like 98% of the country and your counting your pennies, then id suggest the supplement factory. The protein might be slightly inferior but i really doubt if it'll make any difference to your goals.

Let us know what you decide on...

Malteaser!

Esse85 wrote: »

Can you back up where you make this claim??

There is nothing at all wrong with the quality of products maximuscle produce, the reason they get shot down is because you get so little for your money.

To answer the question, if money is no issue, then id be confident that maximuscle are slightly better quality, however if your like 98% of the country and your counting your pennies, then id suggest the supplement factory. The protein might be slightly inferior but i really doubt if it'll make any difference to your goals.

Let us know what you decide on...

What makes you say that The Supplement Factory protein is inferior?!?

FunkZ

Malteaser! wrote: »

What makes you say that The Supplement Factory protein is inferior?!?

Personally, it doesn't sit well in my stomach. And I've seen other people post the same thing.

But it does taste excellent and mixes great.

nice_guy80

I have been using RAM for the past few months - find it helps with recovery.

I want to start taking some protein or muscle gainer to help me add muscle. I'm doing good bit of lifting for strength 2-3 times a week. Have a good diet with plenty of healthy food.

money isn't an issue

Two questions:

Best product?
Where to order it?

cheers

eclectichoney

Malteaser! wrote: »

What makes you say that The Supplement Factory protein is inferior?!?

I use the Supplement Factory stuff and have got to say I find it great! One thing i did notice though is that when you add up the Macros, they exceed the total for the calories listed by a little??? It amazes me how they can get the carbs down to such an ickle amount, but I'm not gonna complain

yomchi

eclectichoney wrote: »

I use the Supplement Factory stuff and have got to say I find it great! One thing i did notice though is that when you add up the Macros, they exceed the total for the calories listed by a little??? It amazes me how they can get the carbs down to such an ickle amount, but I'm not gonna complain

How does that work out?

Anyone here tried Syntrax Nectar? My Jebus it's amazing in flavour.

eclectichoney

Jon wrote: »

How does that work out?

Anyone here tried Syntrax Nectar? My Jebus it's amazing in flavour.

Per 100g, it's 339 kcals - 5.1g of fat (46 kcals), 78g of protein (312) and 1.8g of carbs (7 kcals) = 365 kcals - only a small difference I know but it annoyed the statistician in me

That syntrax nectar stuff looks fab - bit it's very expensive

Esse85

Malteaser! wrote: »

What makes you say that The Supplement Factory protein is inferior?!?

Because if you compare both labels, you'll see that Maximuscle is slightly superior to The Supplement Factory per serving.

yomchi

eclectichoney wrote: »

Per 100g, it's 339 kcals - 5.1g of fat (46 kcals), 78g of protein (312) and 1.8g of carbs (7 kcals) = 365 kcals - only a small difference I know but it annoyed the statistician in me

That syntrax nectar stuff looks fab - bit it's very expensive

40 quid in Caple street I believe. I tried Road side Lemon today, man it's the nicest thing i've ever tasted, no joke!