CEE help

[Flex-Appeal]

I need some options on the best CEE on the market. No monohydrate!
Thanks

[BrokenBricks]

CEE is useless and does not work. Monohydrate or nothing.

[Flex-Appeal]

wow where did that evidence come from? Your ass??

[BrokenBricks]

wow where did that evidence come from? Your ass??

No. It comes from looking at the research behind supplements.

Creatine ethyl ester rapidly degrades to creatinine in stomach acid

Child R1 and Tallon MJ2. Creatine ethyl ester rapidly degrades to creatinine in stomach acid. 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.

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 (Creapure®). 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± 1°C 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 120 minutes 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.

[Andro9]

^yeah ive read a few other articles about that too. whats wrong with monohydrate? BTW i tried creatine gulconate from nutraplanet and was pleased

[Swifto]

wow where did that evidence come from? Your ass??

I've been reading your posts and it seems you have a chip on your shoulder.

Monohydrate is the best form of creatine and has the most to back it up.

[goose]

I've been reading your posts and it seems you have a chip on your shoulder.

Monohydrate is the best form of creatine and has the most to back it up.

this guy would suit the revenge club,in your hood.

[Flex-Appeal]

No chip on my shoulder, but to say it is useless is merely ignorant. But, to say it does not work to the same degree is a different argument. I started this thread to find help me creatine.
Apologies for coming across as a dick, no pun intended.

[BrokenBricks]

No chip on my shoulder, but to say it is useless is merely ignorant. But, to say it does not work to the same degree is a different argument. I started this thread to find help me creatine.
Apologies for coming across as a dick, no pun intended.

Ignorant is adopting beliefs merely via word of mouth and without respect to the available evidence.

I can post other studies showing men who supplement with CEE showed gains no better than placebo. You want to split hairs over whether it has zero effect vs only distinctly inferior effects? In my mind the result is the same "Useless". If i have CM i have no use for CEE.

[Flex-Appeal]

Point taken, i have decided upon some research that i will use mono. But now the real question is what brand should i go with and should i be taking more than 10g ed? (5g pre-w/o & 5g post w/o)

[IM708]

Take 5g preworkout with whey protein and/or dextrose. Take 5g postworkout with whey protein shake and/or dextrose.


I found this on the net a while ago:

Here's a mail I recently received from some friends (PhDs) in the Ex Sci/Nut Biochem community. It discusses the potential dangers and (flawed marketing picture) associated with the use of Creatine Ethly Ester:


1) CEE is a true covalently bonded ester and is absorbed into blood and
tissues as the intact molecule. This is the picture that the
manufacturers would have us believe and is the basis for why they claim
CEE is superior to creatine monohydrate. However, inside cells CEE
will be unreactive with creatine kinase and may be a potential
competitive or non-competitive inhibitor to the enzyme. This would
make it toxic to brain, heart, testes, muscle and all other CK
containing tissues. People by now should be dying, but clearly are not
and this means 2) and 3) are the more likely. Nonethess, CEE should be
treated as a potentially toxic phrarmaceutical and in the US should be
treated as a drug, which requires multi species studies
to estimate LD50's and potential sites of tissue damage etc. However, recently I have been told that CEE did get new dietary ingredient status (scary).

2) CEE is hydrolysed to creatine on absorption from the gut. In this
case CEE offers no advantage over creatine monohydrate which has a
bioavilability of 100%. Indeed if hydrolysis of CEE is less than 100%
then it will be inferior to the monohydate. But in the case of
hydrolysis there are no circumstances in which it could be better than
the monohydrate in increasing tissue creatine levels. Obviously CEE
manufacturers would prefer 1) except that they then shoot themselves in
the foot over the issue of potential toxicity.

3) CEE is not a true covalently bonded ester. The whole of this is a scam
with the compound ionising in solution to free creatine, as does the
monohydrate and all salts of creatine. In this case CEE would again
represent no advantage over creatine monohydrate, except to the seller
who can double the price.

The failure of the US sports nutrition community (industry and the
universities) to call for closer examination of CEE seriously questions its
credibility in the eyes of many scientist in this country and the world. A simple water solvation test would answer 3), i.e. whether or not it was a covalent or ionisable derivative of creatine. The work time would be about one hour. Investigation of whether CEE is a competitive or non-competitive inhibitor of creatine kinase would take 2-3 hours. If either of these occured then clearly CEE must be investigated in at least two species to investigate lethality and potential organ damage. If on the other hand CEE is ionisable then I see no reason why a bioavailability study should not be undertaken comparing this, on a molar/molar basis, with
creatine monohydrate. My guess is that plasma AUC would be identical.
Again a very simple study.

None of this is rocket science but could spare a few lives, if the
manufacturers claims on the absorption of CEE are to believed.

[Swifto]

Point taken, i have decided upon some research that i will use mono. But now the real question is what brand should i go with and should i be taking more than 10g ed? (5g pre-w/o & 5g post w/o)

It depends on bodyweight. What are your stats?

I use around 5-10g/ED and dont really cycle it either. Just stay "on".

Dont use anything apart from CreaPure IMHO. Its the best most refined form of Monohydrate.

If you get stomach discomfort, lower your dose.

Take it pre and post workout at 5g (or more if needed) with BCAA's, Whey Iso, Lecicuine, Glutamine + Dextrose.

Thats what I do.

[Swifto]

this guy would suit the revenge club,in your hood.

Ha Ha. Yeah, probably enjoy it.

[BrokenBricks]

While you are at it throw the BCAA, glutamine and leucine in the trash.

[Swifto]

While you are at it throw the BCAA, glutamine and leucine in the trash.

Please tell me why? And seriously, not a bullshit study.

There are thousands, if not millions of bodybuilders that use combo's similar to this pre/post workout. And it works!

So hit me.

[BrokenBricks]

Please tell me why? And seriously, not a bullshit study.

There are thousands, if not millions of bodybuilders that use combo's similar to this pre/post workout. And it works!

So hit me.

Studies are bullshit?

[Flex-Appeal]

It depends on bodyweight. What are your stats?

I use around 5-10g/ED and dont really cycle it either. Just stay "on".

Dont use anything apart from CreaPure IMHO. Its the best most refined form of Monohydrate.

If you get stomach discomfort, lower your dose.

Take it pre and post workout at 5g (or more if needed) with BCAA's, Whey Iso, Lecicuine, Glutamine + Dextrose.

Thats what I do.

Ok, im 6 foot 214

[Flex-Appeal]

this guy would suit the revenge club,in your hood.

Is that comment meant to insult me?

[Flex-Appeal]

Glutamine is very important i must say, what else is better anti-catabolic?

[BrokenBricks]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...gdbfrom=pubmed

Interrelationship between physical activity and branched-chain amino acids.
Gleeson M.

School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, England, UK. [email protected]

Some athletes can have quite high intakes of branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) because of their high energy and protein intakes and also because they consume protein supplements, solutions of protein hydrolysates, and free amino acids. The requirement for protein may actually be higher in endurance athletes than in sedentary individuals because some amino acids, including the BCAAs, are oxidized in increased amounts during exercise compared with rest, and they must therefore be replenished by the diet. In the late 1970s, BCAAs were suggested to be the third fuel for skeletal muscle after carbohydrate and fat. However, the majority of later studies, using various exercise and treatment designs and several forms of administration of BCAAs (infusion, oral, and with and without carbohydrates), have failed to find a performance-enhancing effect. No valid scientific evidence supports the commercial claims that orally ingested BCAAs have an anticatabolic effect during and after exercise in humans or that BCAA supplements may accelerate the repair of muscle damage after exercise. The recommended protein intakes for athletes (1.2 to 1.8 g . kg body mass(-1) . d(-1)) do not seem to be harmful. Acute intakes of BCAA supplements of about 10-30 g/d seem to be without ill effect. However, the suggested reasons for taking such supplements have not received much support from well-controlled scientific studies.

1: Clin Sports Med. 1999 Jul;18(3):633-49.

Facts and fallacies of purported ergogenic amino acid supplements.
Williams MH.

Department of Exercise Science, Physical Education, and Recreation, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA. [email protected]

Although current research suggests that individuals involved in either high-intensity resistance or endurance exercise may have an increased need for dietary protein, the available research is either equivocal or negative relative to the ergogenic effects of supplementation with individual amino acids. Although some research suggests that the induction of hyperaminoacidemia via intravenous infusion of a balanced amino acid mixture may induce an increased muscle protein synthesis after exercise, no data support the finding that oral supplementation with amino acids, in contrast to dietary protein, as the source of amino acids is more effective. Some well-controlled studies suggest that aspartate salt supplementation may enhance endurance performance, but other studies do not, meriting additional research. Current data, including results for several well-controlled studies, indicated that supplementation with arginine, ornithine, or lysine, either separately or in combination, does not enhance the effect of exercise stimulation on either hGH or various measures of muscular strength or power in experienced weightlifters. Plasma levels of BCAA and tryptophan may play important roles in the cause of central fatigue during exercise, but the effects of BCAA or tryptophan supplementation do not seem to be effective ergogenics for endurance exercise performance, particularly when compared with carbohydrate supplementation, a more natural choice. Although glutamine supplementation may increase plasma glutamine levels, its effect on enhancement of the immune system and prevention of adverse effects of the overtraining syndrome are equivocal. Glycine, a precursor for creatine, does not seem to possess the ergogenic potential of creatine supplementation.



The research that showed anti-catabolic effects was done in very sick patients in surgical intensive care units. It it a population of patient that could not be more different than weightlifters. I know you *feel* like you should be admitted to an ICU after your lag day, however.


I would be interested if someone could post published journal articles showing evidence of improved athletic performance and muscle hypertrophy/reduced catabolism. I am not an expert in this and have just done my best to look into the actual research behind the claims. I don't take on faith the claims of the manufacturers.

As far as proven anti-catabolic effect. Anabolic Steroids , Growth hormone , and Beta-2 agonists like clenbuterol and ephedrine have been shown to be distinctly anti-catabolic/muscle sparring.

[BrokenBricks]

Just a quick FYI, Glatamine is *the most common* amino acid in the protein that we all *already* eat my more times what most people eat already.

[Flex-Appeal]

it's also the most abundant amino acid in the skeletal muscle 60% (I think lol)

[Flex-Appeal]

I really do question clen on being anti catabolic. I do hear of it being used in pct but have not used it myself. At what dose?
In theory, if the clen eats all the fat off your body then it's aparent that muscle wasting will accur

[Swifto]

Studies dont mean everything, I used to get caught up in that a lot.

One of your studies is also fairly outdated at nearly 10 years old.

Bodybuilders suggest supplementing (and IFBB's) BCAA's, Whey, Gulatmine and Creatine. I dont mean supplement ad's, they advise them anyhow.

Pinnacle or RR also suggest using these supp's. They work and have been proven to countless times in the real world.

My recovery is better when supplementing glutamine, BCAA's and Whey, to when not and just taking on solid foods.

Read this:Pre/During/Post Workout Nutrition

[Swifto]

I also really dont know where you have been finding your studies. This was done in Sep 2008 (2 months ago) and supports what I have just said:

: J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2008 Sep;48(3):347-51.Links
Branched-chain amino acid supplementation does not enhance athletic performance but affects muscle recovery and the immune system.

Negro M, Giardina S, Marzani B, Marzatico F.
Pharmacobiochemistry Laboratory, Section of Pharmacology and Pharmacological Biotechnology, Department of Cellular and Molecular, Physiological and Pharmacological Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Since the 1980's there has been high interest in branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) by sports nutrition scientists. The metabolism of BCAA is involved in some specific biochemical muscle processes and many studies have been carried out to understand whether sports performance can be enhanced by a BCAA supplementation. However, many of these researches have failed to confirm this hypothesis. Thus, in recent years investigators have changed their research target and focused on the effects of BCAA on the muscle protein matrix and the immune system. Data show that BCAA supplementation before and after exercise has beneficial effects for decreasing exercise-induced muscle damage and promoting muscle-protein synthesis. Muscle damage develops delayed onset muscle soreness: a syndrome that occurs 24-48 h after intensive physical activity that can inhibit athletic performance. Other recent works indicate that BCAA supplementation recovers peripheral blood mononuclear cell proliferation in response to mitogens after a long distance intense exercise, as well as plasma glutamine concentration. The BCAA also modifies the pattern of exercise-related cytokine production, leading to a diversion of the lymphocyte immune response towards a Th1 type. According to these findings, it is possible to consider the BCAA as a useful supplement for muscle recovery and immune regulation for sports events.

PMID: 18974721 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Swifto]

1: J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2005 Jun 11;2:50-67. Links
Nutrient administration and resistance training.

Kerksick CM, Leutholtz B.
Exercise and Sport Nutrition Laboratory, Center for Exercise, Nutrition and Preventive Health Research, Department of Health, Human Performance and Recreation, Baylor University. [email protected].
ABSTRACT : Skeletal muscle tissue is tightly regulated throughout our bodies by balancing its synthesis and breakdown. Many factors are known to exist that cause profound changes on the overall status of skeletal muscle, some of which include exercise, nutrition, hormonal influences and disease. Muscle hypertrophy results when protein synthesis is greater than protein breakdown. Resistance training is a popular form of exercise that has been shown to increase muscular strength and muscular hypertrophy. In general, resistance training causes a stimulation of protein synthesis as well as an increase in protein breakdown, resulting in a negative balance of protein. Providing nutrients, specifically amino acids, helps to stimulate protein synthesis and improve the overall net balance of protein. Strategies to increase the concentration and availability of amino acids after resistance exercise are of great interest and have been shown to effectively increase overall protein synthesis. 123 After exercise, providing carbohydrate has been shown to mildly stimulate protein synthesis while addition of free amino acids prior to and after exercise, specifically essential amino acids, causes a rapid pronounced increase in protein synthesis as well as protein balance.13 Evidence exists for a dose-response relationship of infused amino acids while no specific regimen exists for optimal dosing upon ingestion. Ingestion of whole or intact protein sources (e.g., protein powders, meal-replacements) has been shown to cause similar improvements in protein balance after resistance exercise when compared to free amino acid supplements. Future research should seek to determine optimal dosing of ingested intact amino acids in addition to identifying the cellular mechanistic machinery (e.g. transcriptional and translational mechanisms) for causing the increase in protein synthesis.

PMID: 18500951 [PubMed - in process]



C'mon...It help doesnt it?! Its pretty obvious to me mate...

[Swifto]

Ok, im 6 foot 214

5g pre and 5g post IMHO.

[BrokenBricks]

I understand the confusion. But the first study does not compare whole protein supplementation to BCAA supplementation. The second does and clearly states that while BCAA is beneficial, it has no benefit ABOVE whole protein supplementation.

So the question is not "Do BCAA help near the time of workout?", the question is "Are BCAA superior to whole protien near the time of a workout?" or "Does adding BCAA to whole protein have a synergistic effect?"

Whey is converted to free aminos extremely quickly. It is possible, but not at all obvious or even expected, that the 30 minutes it takes to absorb the aminos from whole protein in the form of whey is suboptimal and that there is a benefit from *slightly* quicker absorption.

Per the study you quote.

"Ingestion of whole or intact protein sources (e.g., protein powders, meal-replacements) has been shown to cause similar improvements in protein balance after resistance exercise when compared to free amino acid supplements."


You lose a lot of credibility if you take the anecdotes of body builders who are simultaneously changing a dozen or more workout and diet variables, who are highly prone to placebo effects, over clinical trials. Review articles become outdated, clinical trials do not.

I'll read that link a bit later.

[Swifto]

I understand the confusion. But the first study does not compare whole protein supplementation to BCAA supplementation. The second does and clearly states that while BCAA is beneficial, it has no benefit ABOVE whole protein supplementation.

So the question is not "Do BCAA help near the time of workout?", the question is "Are BCAA superior to whole protien near the time of a workout?" or "Does adding BCAA to whole protein have a synergistic effect?"

Whey is converted to free aminos extremely quickly. It is possible, but not at all obvious or even expected, that the 30 minutes it takes to absorb the aminos from whole protein in the form of whey is suboptimal and that there is a benefit from *slightly* quicker absorption.

Per the study you quote.

"Ingestion of whole or intact protein sources (e.g., protein powders, meal-replacements) has been shown to cause similar improvements in protein balance after resistance exercise when compared to free amino acid supplements."


You lose a lot of credibility if you take the anecdotes of body builders who are simultaneously changing a dozen or more workout and diet variables, who are highly prone to placebo effects, over clinical trials. Review articles become outdated, clinical trials do not.

I'll read that link a bit later.

I lose credibility? Really?

The first study is confirming BCAA SUPPLEMENTATION aids in protein synthesis and recovery. So what if it doesnt compare it to whole food BCAA intake. WTF?

Seriously, stop getting caught up in bullshit studies done on few individuals in clinical trials/studies. Sometimes there not right.

I'll take real world results over clinical studies anyday. I used to think studies were the be all and end all, there not fortunately.

I'm beginning to think you either dont know what your talking about, or your splitting hairs for arguments sake. Probably both.

BCAA's, Dex, Creatine and Gutamine pre and post workout, then a solid meal 15-30mins after training.

Your disagreeing with something tried and tested for decades and your beginning to make yourself look even more foolish than you did with your first post, telling the poster to throw the supps in the trash.

I will not even waste my time any further with such stupid statements.

You've probably never even tried it.

[Narkissos]

You want to split hairs over whether it has zero effect vs only distinctly inferior effects? In my mind the result is the same "Useless".

Agreed.

[Swifto]

BodyBuilders like Pinnacle have been in this game for 20years+ and he still advises, BCAAs, Creatine, Glutamine and Lecuine...He competes at a high national level...and...is...Massive.

I'll take that over any clinical study any day of the week/month/year. Peroid.

[BrokenBricks]

The first study is confirming BCAA SUPPLEMENTATION aids in protein synthesis and recovery. So what if it doesnt compare it to whole food BCAA intake. WTF?

First, it a review article. It doesn't "show" anything. Clinical trials "show". Review articles are the opinion of the writer, assumed to be a well informed. Technical point.

To answer the question, it seems pretty straight forward that paying more for a supplement that has no benefit over a far cheaper supplement is irrational. If you deny it has no benefit over whole protein, as the writer claims, that is one thing. But if you accept that hypothesis for the sake of argument, as you do in the quote..well it seems entirely obvious why it matters that BCAA has no benefit over, for instance, a whey shake.

Seriously, stop getting caught up in bullshit studies done on few individuals in clinical trials/studies. Sometimes there not right.

Studies can be wrong, no question. But the concept of doing clinical trials which are well designed, use real measurable criterion for gauging effect, and which are done with a sample size large enough to remove any reasonable chance of the results are due to chance....that concept is the foundation of modern scientific progress. The most important lesson for any researcher is that YOU CAN BE FOOLED. The placebo effect and many biases inherent to human thinking must be consciously and carefully eliminated. If not the result is not reliable.

Anecdotal evidence is quite nearly the WORST and least reliable form of evidence there is. Do you know how many millions people spend on homeopathic remedies each year? All of these people are taking placebos and many many of the people will claim that they work. You are not immune, I am not immune.

The reason you don't feel that you can rely on journal articles *may* be because you don't know how to critically evaluate them. That doesn't mean you are not very bright, you very well may be. But it is a skill that is not natural and must be taught and practiced. Some studies are totally worthless because of methodological errors and unconscious biases in the collection and interpretation of data. But saying "well I felt like it worked" just doesn't cut it.

[BrokenBricks]

BodyBuilders like Pinnacle have been in this game for 20years+ and he still advises, BCAAs, Creatine, Glutamine and Lecuine...He competes at a high national level...and...is...Massive.

I'll take that over any clinical study any day of the week/month/year. Peroid.

I am sorry but this is just a display of extremely poor critical thinking. It just doesn't prove anything. Our public schools are failing our children.

[Swifto]

First, it a review article. It doesn't "show" anything. Clinical trials "show". Review articles are the opinion of the writer, assumed to be a well informed. Technical point.

To answer the question, it seems pretty straight forward that paying more for a supplement that has no benefit over a far cheaper supplement is irrational. If you deny it has no benefit over whole protein, as the writer claims, that is one thing. But if you accept that hypothesis for the sake of argument, as you do in the quote..well it seems entirely obvious why it matters that BCAA has no benefit over, for instance, a whey shake.




Studies can be wrong, no question. But the concept of doing clinical trials which are well designed, use real measurable criterion for gauging effect, and which are done with a sample size large enough to remove any reasonable chance of the results are due to chance....that concept is the foundation of modern scientific progress. The most important lesson for any researcher is that YOU CAN BE FOOLED. The placebo effect and many biases inherent to human thinking must be consciously and carefully eliminated. If not the result is not reliable.

Anecdotal evidence is quite nearly the WORST and least reliable form of evidence there is. Do you know how many millions people spend on homeopathic remedies each year? All of these people are taking placebos and many many of the people will claim that they work. You are not immune, I am not immune.

The reason you don't feel that you can rely on journal articles *may* be because you don't know how to critically evaluate them. That doesn't mean you are not very bright, you very well may be. But it is a skill that is not natural and must be taught and practiced. Some studies are totally worthless because of methodological errors and unconscious biases in the collection and interpretation of data. But saying "well I felt like it worked" just doesn't cut it.

I'm not getting into a bullshit debate over whether BCAA's work for supplementation of not. I have better uses for my time, you obviously do not.

My recovery is better when I take BCAA's, glutamine and creatine. Now, dont go off stating my diet was not identical and my training was not the same, as I've tried supplementing BCAA etc...And then I havent for around 3-4 weeks with the same training program and very similar diet.

Like I said; I'll take a bodybuilders 20+ years of experience that trains other bodybuilders at national level AND competes at national level himself over a few clinical studies and a trainee doctor.

Sorry, no offence here, but were going to have to agree to disagree on this topic doc.

Just out of intrest, what supplements do you take pre/post workout and what works (IYO) and what doesnt?

Tribulas, Lj100? Fadogia Agrestis? For boosting endogenous T?

[Swifto]

I am sorry but this is just a display of extremely poor critical thinking. It just doesn't prove anything. Our public schools are failing our children.

Its 20+ years of trial and error. He's also been training athletes/bodybuilders for years. No 'poor critical thinking' here.

Why dont you medical students or trainee doctors take into account years of experience? To many variables I'm guessing...?

[BrokenBricks]

Its 20+ years of trial and error. He's also been training athletes/bodybuilders for years. No 'poor critical thinking' here.

Why dont you medical students or trainee doctors take into account years of experience? To many variables I'm guessing...?

It is not that it is not taken into account. It is that it is not the preferred source of information. If I can show you *one* pro who *doesn't* use a given supplement (Glutamine for instance) who is as big as your pet pro you would be in quite a jam. That is the problem with expert opinion. There are many so called experts. Many people all claiming they know the answer. If the *only* information you have is that type...personal testimony..well, you don't ignore it. It is all you have to go on. But you retain in your mind an awareness of where the information came from.

I have a sort of kooky, new age neighbor who puts crystals in her pots to make the plants grow better. She says it gives them energy. I asked if she had ever tested it. She was sort of annoyed and said that last year her plants did not do as well as they had this year since she added the crystals. I told her that was interesting and asked if she had changed anything else. "Well yes, this year I moved them closer to the window". How she failed to consider the better growth was likely due to the *known* effects of sunlight rather than the *unknown* effect of adding quartz crystal was odd. I asked, had she ever tried to put a crystal in the soil of *half* the plants and not the other half. She looked at me like I had three heads.

Do you understand the placebo effect?

[BrokenBricks]

As far as which supplements I take. ECA stack, whey and creatine. Strong randomized controlled trials support all three. There is no good data showing any benefit to a multi-vitamin in normal health meat eating non athletes to my knowledge. I take one because they are cheap, I like neon urine and I have not had the time to do more reading about studies of a multivitamin in athletes.

I have not looked into many other products which may well work. If I heard rave reviews and no studies had been done I would likely give it a shot depending on the price. I think it is likely there are substances out there which would benefit me, but I am not going to shotgun the question and just take everything someone with a magazine is willing to print a testimonial for.

[Swifto]

It is not that it is not taken into account. It is that it is not the preferred source of information. If I can show you *one* pro who *doesn't* use a given supplement (Glutamine for instance) who is as big as your pet pro you would be in quite a jam. That is the problem with expert opinion. There are many so called experts. Many people all claiming they know the answer. If the *only* information you have is that type...personal testimony..well, you don't ignore it. It is all you have to go on. But you retain in your mind an awareness of where the information came from.

I have a sort of kooky, new age neighbor who puts crystals in her pots to make the plants grow better. She says it gives them energy. I asked if she had ever tested it. She was sort of annoyed and said that last year her plants did not do as well as they had this year since she added the crystals. I told her that was interesting and asked if she had changed anything else. "Well yes, this year I moved them closer to the window". How she failed to consider the better growth was likely due to the *known* effects of sunlight rather than the *unknown* effect of adding quartz crystal was odd. I asked, had she ever tried to put a crystal in the soil of *half* the plants and not the other half. She looked at me like I had three heads.

Do you understand the placebo effect?

I understand it, of course.

But he's also trained many other athlete/bodybuilders...

Dont get me wrong BB, I see exactly what your saying, but it seems to works for me (gains in strength, mass, recovery) vs.
not doing it. And...I havent changed a whole lot either.

But I see your point doc.

When do you take your Whey and Creatine? Pre/post.

[BrokenBricks]

I am conscious of the research showing creatine with a high GI carb right after the work out is best. But usually I take when I can and accept the imperfect gains. I try and eat a solid form of protein before the work out and whey immediately after, with carbs.