Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
EliteFitnessGuy
New member
Hello,
I have been using creatine for more than 9 years and I am a very good responder to it (I gained roughly 10 kg/22 lbs during the first cycle a lost only 3 kg after it). Although it doesn't work so well anymore, it always helps me with regeneration and the effect is clearly visible within several days. I have used various brands of creatine during those 9 years, and from time to time I had a feeling that they don't work the same way. However, I ascribed it to momentary fatigue, because I believed that there were no significant differences in quality. Furthermore, I have almost never used two different brands during the same cycle (usually 2 months on+1 month off), so I couldn't compare them.
Recently I used a HPLC tested creatine from a reliable company for several weeks, and subsequently I bought a suspiciously cheap double-package ("a present for free") of creatine monohydrate from another company, with whose creatine I just used to have the feelings of lower effectiveness from time to time. The difference was very marked within several days, I started to be more fatigued and my performance stagnated or even went down. After 6 weeks, I tried to increase the daily dose from 1 tea-spoon/day up to 3 full tea-spoons a day, which usually leads to acute overdose and frequent urination, but I felt nothing (not even more frequent urination).
This time I let the creatine be tested and I contacted the seller. He was very surprised and called to the producer, who was irritated, stating that his creatine is lab tested and pure. In the meantime, I stopped using this creatine and bought the HPLC tested creatine again. The difference was like night and day - my performances virtually skyrocketed within mere 3 days and I lost my last doubts about the differences in quality. However, shortly after I got the results of the lab test: 100% creatine.
Frankly, I was not surprised; I think that the difference may be in something different. When you namely compare the consistency of those two creatines, even a small kid can recognize that they are very different stuffs. While the HPLC tested creatine looks like a very fine crystalic powder, the ineffective creatine resembles lumping sugar with really very big lumps.
http://www.booboo.ic.cz/Kreatin-comparison.jpg
I think that this is a very important question. If there are no differences in the content of creatine, then there must be marked differences in its bioavailability. I really don't think that I would be an exceptional case.
I have been using creatine for more than 9 years and I am a very good responder to it (I gained roughly 10 kg/22 lbs during the first cycle a lost only 3 kg after it). Although it doesn't work so well anymore, it always helps me with regeneration and the effect is clearly visible within several days. I have used various brands of creatine during those 9 years, and from time to time I had a feeling that they don't work the same way. However, I ascribed it to momentary fatigue, because I believed that there were no significant differences in quality. Furthermore, I have almost never used two different brands during the same cycle (usually 2 months on+1 month off), so I couldn't compare them.
Recently I used a HPLC tested creatine from a reliable company for several weeks, and subsequently I bought a suspiciously cheap double-package ("a present for free") of creatine monohydrate from another company, with whose creatine I just used to have the feelings of lower effectiveness from time to time. The difference was very marked within several days, I started to be more fatigued and my performance stagnated or even went down. After 6 weeks, I tried to increase the daily dose from 1 tea-spoon/day up to 3 full tea-spoons a day, which usually leads to acute overdose and frequent urination, but I felt nothing (not even more frequent urination).
This time I let the creatine be tested and I contacted the seller. He was very surprised and called to the producer, who was irritated, stating that his creatine is lab tested and pure. In the meantime, I stopped using this creatine and bought the HPLC tested creatine again. The difference was like night and day - my performances virtually skyrocketed within mere 3 days and I lost my last doubts about the differences in quality. However, shortly after I got the results of the lab test: 100% creatine.
Frankly, I was not surprised; I think that the difference may be in something different. When you namely compare the consistency of those two creatines, even a small kid can recognize that they are very different stuffs. While the HPLC tested creatine looks like a very fine crystalic powder, the ineffective creatine resembles lumping sugar with really very big lumps.
http://www.booboo.ic.cz/Kreatin-comparison.jpg
I think that this is a very important question. If there are no differences in the content of creatine, then there must be marked differences in its bioavailability. I really don't think that I would be an exceptional case.
