That explains why CEE did bugger all for me.
That explains why CEE did bugger all for me.
mono is the only form of creatine i have found gives me a slight boost on stamina and strength
mo mate plenty of fluid with it does the trick tho my mate has trouble in the morning taking it
dougie black from Extreme has been saying this for years
Cardiff Sports Nutrition
If you want to know about Peptides what they are and how to use them check my basic guide out
Dummies Guide to Peptides
Calories are not the be all and end all, think about what your body needs and when it needs it, what you have done today and will do today, not some number that fills the tank
to be honest I found both forms to be pretty inefective...the claims that are made for creatine are ridiculous, maybe it works better on some people than others, I shan't bother with it again
problem with all studys like this is that they are biased.
all the following could be bollox but im bored this afters so here goes....
assuming they put in equal amounts of the both the mono and thet CEE and used the creatine mono as the baseline for the study then i would expect there to be approx 75% of creatine measured from the CEE as it has a higher molecular weight than the mono (~196 for CEE versus ~150 for the mono)/
IMO a fixed mass of the two will always have less creatine in the CEE than the mono due to it being a heavier molecule.
what would be interesting and more (convincing for me) would be if they were to plot a graph of the amound of Creatine against time and compare it to a plot of absorption of the creatine against time.
just goes to show how simplicity works well, why complicate an already very useful product to the point that its ineffective. same goes with anything i.e diet, steroid cycles and training
CEE is a load of **** but not because of anything that study says. That data comes from a study done by a company that sells creatine mono products and it was put out to trash the rivals.Each product product was placed in 900 ml of Hydrochloric Acid and samples where drawn at 5, 30 and 120 minutes.
Test Results After 30 Minutes
* Only 73% of the initial CEE present was available from CE2.
* While the amount of CEE available from SAN’s CM2 Alpha was even lower at only 62%.
* In contrast, more than 99% of the Creatine remained available from the regular Creatine Monohydrate product.
Test Results After 120 Minutes
* 72% of the initial CEE was available from CE2.
* Only 11% available from San CM2 Alpha.
* In contrast, more than 99% of the creatine remained available from CM.
Taking readings of creatine stability is stomach like acidic conditions after 30 and 90 mins is totally irrelevant... as creatine in either form leaves the stomach completely within 20 mins! They did take readings at 1mins and 5mins (more relevant times) but didn't publish them.
They also didn't factor in the fact that between the CEE products they tested there were different amounts of CEE degradation in each... suggesting that it was other ingredients in the products that influenced the effect. They didn't mention or investigate this as all they wanted to do was trash CEE.
Gotta be real careful with studies done by one supplement company on another supplment comapnies products!
Far better conducted studies showing CEE isn't as good as mono here -
Qualitative in vitro NMR analysis of creatine ethyl ester pronutrient in human plasma.
Giese MW, Lecher CS.
Marian College, Chemistry, 3200 Cold Spring Rd , Indianapolis 46222, United States. firstname.lastname@example.org
There are a number of forms of creatine available that attempt to improve the solubility and permeability, with the anticipation this will result in an improved pharmacokinetic profile and ultimately an enhanced ergogenic response. Previous research has shown that the different salt forms can improve solubility resulting in slightly altered pharmacokinetic profiles, however specific data exploring the conversion of esterified derivatives to creatine is lacking. The purpose of this study was to examine the assertion that creatine ethyl ester undergoes enzymatic conversion to creatine in human tissues. The IN VITRO response of creatine ethyl ester to incubation in human plasma was examined by H-NMR analysis. Lyophilized human plasma was reconstituted in D2O and phosphate-buffered saline and 1.5 mg of the analyte was added. Following incubation at 37 degrees C for 4 h and subsequent protein precipitation, the supernatant was analyzed by NMR, utilizing the diagnostic chemical shift of the methylene signal to determine the species present in solution, I.E. creatine ethyl ester, creatine, or creatinine. Both creatine and creatinine were run in parallel as control experiments and each assay was run in triplicate. As expected both creatine and creatinine remained unchanged. However, conversion of creatine ethyl ester to creatine by the esterases in human plasma was not observed to any detectable extent and the only species detected after the incubation period was creatinine. While not a definitive characterization of the IN VIVO behavior, these results strongly warrant a complete IN VIVO pharmacokinetic analysis of creatine ethyl ester since it appears these "pronutrients" may actually provide large exogenous sources of pharmacologically inactive creatinine rather than ergogenic creatine.The effects of creatine ethyl ester supplementation combined with heavy resistance training on body composition, muscle performance, and serum and muscle creatine levels
Numerous creatine formulations have been developed primarily to maximize creatine absorption. Creatine ethyl ester is alleged to increase creatine bio-availability. This study examined how a seven-week supplementation regimen combined with resistance training affected body composition, muscle mass, muscle strength and power, serum and muscle creatine levels, and serum creatinine levels in 30 non-resistance-trained males. In a double-blind manner, participants were randomly assigned to a maltodextrose placebo (PLA), creatine monohydrate (CRT), or creatine ethyl ester (CEE) group. The supplements were orally ingested at a dose of 0.30 g/kg fat-free body mass (approximately 20 g/day) for five days followed by ingestion at 0.075 g/kg fat free mass (approximately 5 g/day) for 42 days. Results showed significantly higher serum creatine concentrations in PLA (p = 0.007) and CRT (p = 0.005) compared to CEE. Serum creatinine was greater in CEE compared to the PLA (p = 0.001) and CRT (p = 0.001) and increased at days 6, 27, and 48. Total muscle creatine content was significantly higher in CRT (p = 0.026) and CEE (p = 0.041) compared to PLA, with no differences between CRT and CEE. Significant changes over time were observed for body composition, body water, muscle strength and power variables, but no significant differences were observed between groups. In conclusion, when compared to creatine monohydrate, creatine ethyl ester was not as effective at increasing serum and muscle creatine levels or in improving body composition, muscle mass, strength, and power. Therefore, the improvements in these variables can most likely be attributed to the training protocol itself, rather than the supplementation regimen.
In agrement with Dtlv74, the limiting factor on creatine absorption and effectiveness DOES NOT happen in the stomach, it happens at the cell wall. Whatever form you put in your mouth, it is still converted to the same stuff by the time it is in the blood and travelling to the muscle. The esther does not survive as far as the cell wall, so is no use. And as shown several times, attaching an esther does not improve intestinal transfer.
ive used both mono and cee. and cee works for me, im much stronger when i use cee. and i know many who are the same.