i got this from BBing.com (i just liek to see what kinds of sale they have everynow and then) and i came across this what do some of you vets think about this and how true s this staement?!?!?
"The following information is a quick overview of the research studies published, or lack of research studies published using other forms of creatine. You may be wondering why companies would go through the trouble and expense to reinvent something that already works so well; creatine monohydrate.
One school of thought is that by connecting a different molecule to creatine, it may get in the body at a faster rate, and increase total creatine and phosphocreatine levels greater than creatine monohydrate.
The big question we all want to know the answer too, putting all of the marketing hype aside, is has anyone actually invented a better form of creatine? Answer: NO!
At the time of writing this article there was no scientific evidence supporting that other forms of creatine work better than creatine monohydrate. This includes the popular creatine ethyl ester HCl (CEE).
As it turns out, there is a lack of published research conducted with humans using CEE. Based on data submitted to the FDA by a CEE raw material manufacturer, the FDA noted that according to the rat study, the CEE dissociated in to creatine and ethanol in the gut before being bioavailable to the tissues. The FDA also noted that the rat study data did not show an increase in creatine blood levels in the rats that ingested the CEE.
The FDA stated that the study failed to provide data showing that creatine levels were increasing as CEE dissociates and diffuses from the gut into the blood. This study did not clearly demonstrate the relative concentration of CEE, creatine, and ethanol between the gut and blood especially during the first three hours after intake. It is unclear to FDA how creatine/creatinine levels in the urine could be detected yet there were no recorded measurements for creatine in the blood during the first 190 minutes of the experiment.
In all fairness to the CEE company, perhaps CEE is not as bioavailable in rats as it might be in humans. However, in this regard it is interesting to note that in the CEE patent, the illustration identifies CEE as "biologically inactive", then shows some illustrations of what happens to CEE as it moves through the digestive system, where in the intestines the CEE has to be broken down by intestinal enzymes (esterase), and freed in to creatine monohydrate before it can be taken up in to the blood stream and delivered to the muscles.
So, putting all of the CEE marketing hype aside, there is currently no scientific evidence that CEE works better than creatine monohydrate. In fact the CEE molecule has to be digested in the intestines to free up creatine monohydrate to be absorbed in to the body. Based on data submitted to the FDA, it appears that this digestion of CEE in the intestines may be incomplete, and in the end not be very bioavailable.
Perhaps in the future there will be some humans studies conducted using CEE compared directly to creatine monohydrate to determine if it is safe and effective in humans, and if effective, how it actually compares to the beneficial effects of research proven creatine monohydrate, which I look forward to reporting about in future editions of this article.
If you are going to try CEE products, it would probably make sense to do this in the off season, as the expectation of CEE producing benefits is questionable."
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by GridIronDevil
