T Nation

Creatine or Ethyl Ester Creatine

Has anyone really noticed a difference using ethyl ester creatine? It doesn’t really seem any different to me than regular creatine. Supposedly you only need to drink water with ethyl ester but I found it better when I used it like regular creatine. It’s supposed to be more absorbant but I’m not really noticing anything different. Anyone else experience this?

I’ve only used CEE and have noticed absolutely no difference. Dave Tate did an audio interview with a nutritionist last week that still considers mono the king and it seems this is a wide held view by the guys that know their stuff.

[quote]pk1976 wrote:
Has anyone really noticed a difference using ethyl ester creatine? It doesn’t really seem any different to me than regular creatine. Supposedly you only need to drink water with ethyl ester but I found it better when I used it like regular creatine. It’s supposed to be more absorbant but I’m not really noticing anything different. Anyone else experience this?[/quote]

The difference is in the sales numbers of companies who sell this type of product.

You see if they convince enough people like you to take it then they make more money.

There’s no difference.

“Caveat Emptor.”

There are three senarios for CEE

  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.

OH! and one more thought: Another aspect to consider is how CEE would overcome a huge concentration gradient from circulation to muscle if it does not use the creatine transporter and uses simple diffusion as they promote.

Bottom Line: I say stay with good old GERMAN creatine Monohydrate. 500 human studies can’t be wrong. :slight_smile:

Dr. Stout, you need to post every single fucking day!! Good stuff!

Thank you very much Dr. I actually tried to get info on it before I bought it. Unfortunately I couldnt find enough info. After getting it besides the taste I have not really noticed much of a difference then the mono (what I normally take. Once this container is empty, I am going straight back to the good ol’ $9.99 Mono. Thanks again

[quote]ZEB wrote:
pk1976 wrote:
Has anyone really noticed a difference using ethyl ester creatine? It doesn’t really seem any different to me than regular creatine. Supposedly you only need to drink water with ethyl ester but I found it better when I used it like regular creatine. It’s supposed to be more absorbant but I’m not really noticing anything different. Anyone else experience this?

The difference is in the sales numbers of companies who sell this type of product.

You see if they convince enough people like you to take it then they make more money.

There’s no difference.

“Caveat Emptor.”[/quote]

I was hoping for some empirical evidence that shows
what you’re saying is true. Like here:
www.bodybuilding.com/store/ceereport_part1b.jpg
they show that there IS supposedly a
difference. While I haven’t noticed a difference it may be possible that I’m not using it right. But I guess you get simple answers from simple minds.

quod erat demonstrandum

[quote]Dr. Stout wrote:

There are three senarios for CEE

  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.

OH! and one more thought: Another aspect to consider is how CEE would overcome a huge concentration gradient from circulation to muscle if it does not use the creatine transporter and uses simple diffusion as they promote.

Bottom Line: I say stay with good old GERMAN creatine Monohydrate. 500 human studies can’t be wrong. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Exactly the type of answer I was looking for. Very informative!

yeah im going to sell mine to some a-hole at my gym

[quote]pk1976 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pk1976 wrote:
Has anyone really noticed a difference using ethyl ester creatine? It doesn’t really seem any different to me than regular creatine. Supposedly you only need to drink water with ethyl ester but I found it better when I used it like regular creatine. It’s supposed to be more absorbant but I’m not really noticing anything different. Anyone else experience this?

The difference is in the sales numbers of companies who sell this type of product.

You see if they convince enough people like you to take it then they make more money.

There’s no difference.

“Caveat Emptor.”

I was hoping for some empirical evidence that shows
what you’re saying is true. Like here:
www.bodybuilding.com/store/ceereport_part1b.jpg
they show that there IS supposedly a
difference. While I haven’t noticed a difference it may be possible that I’m not using it right. But I guess you get simple answers from simple minds.

quod erat demonstrandum
[/quote]

LOL…you are the imbecile that fell for the crap creatine and you say that I have a simple mind?

I understand, you got suckered into purchasing an inferior product and you’re a bit pissed off. And…for some reason you STILL want it to work for you…if you just had the proper information…right?

Well…the proper info is YOU should not have purchased it.

C a n Y o u u n d e r s t a n d t h a t?

Hey…it happens to all the teens at one time or another.

:slight_smile:

[quote]budlight1 wrote:
yeah im going to sell mine to some a-hole at my gym[/quote]

Oh come on…who would be that dumb?

the guy who was getting angry in this thread… i got mine for free. i dont even care if it works it tastes like death

[quote]budlight1 wrote:
yeah im going to sell mine to some a-hole at my gym[/quote]

I know your talking about me and I’m not buying your CEE.