Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Punked on Creatine Ethyl Ester!
- Thread starter future
- Start date
“Child R1 and Tallon MJ2
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, [email protected]
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 (CreapureÒ). 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± 1oC 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 120minutes 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.
Supported by Cr-Technologies, LLP, London, England”
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, [email protected]
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 (CreapureÒ). 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± 1oC 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 120minutes 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.
Supported by Cr-Technologies, LLP, London, England”
Creatine Ethyl Ester…Reviewing the Literature
Creatine ethyl ester is not a stable molecule in a nuetral pH environment like water. This is why those who originally applied for patenting rights were denied because there was no evidence to disprove it’s high conversion rate into creatinine.
Creatine Ethyl Ether James D. Mold, Robert C. Gore, Joseph M. Lynch, E. J. Schantz. J. Am. Chem. Soc.; 1955; 77(1); 178-180.
Hype sells to the masses and it’s a shame it cast one of the most studied and proven ergogenic aides in a negative spotlight, creatine monohydrate. Here is what initially tipped me off to the CEE hype parade:
Originally Posted by deserusan
<strong />
Analysis
Over the past few years I have payed a lot of attention to supplement trends as my level of interest in competitave natural bodybuilding has grown. Competing naturally requires a lot of research into what supplements are legal and what is not by whatever federation you choose to compete in. One of the best supplements out there is creatine monohydrate and their are numerous studies supporting it’s efficacy. However, one recent trend I have witnessed is companies and young aspiring bodybuilders touting the superiority of creatine ethyl ester over creatine monohydrate.
Creatine ethyl ester is merely creatine monohydrate with an added ester attached to make the creatine molecule more lipopholic. In theory, this would make the absorption more efficient and possibly would require less CEE to serve as an ergogenic aid.
Personally, I have used both CEE and monohydrate with great success. However, the recomended doses of CEE (2.5 grams) never seemed to have the same effect as the recommended dose of monohydrate (5.0 grams). To me this seemed a little odd considering the claims of most CEE products. When I started to experiment with higher doses of CEE (5 grams) I noticed similiar effects to that of monohydrate at the equivalent dose. Something wasn’t adding up here.
Upon further reading on monohydrate, because no ethyl ester studies exist, I came across one that studied the physiological differences between monohydrate responders and non responders. This intrigued me because it actually shows that monohydrate isn’t inefficient given a certain set of physiological values with regards to pre-existing creatine and phosphocreatine levels in muscles, muscle fiber cross-sectional areas (CSA), the prevalanace of type II muscle fibers, and the amount of fat free mass.
Type II muscle fibers are also called fast twitch muscle fibers. Olympic sprinters may have up to 80% fast twitch fibers while a marathon runner may have up to 80% type I fibers (slow twitch). Both fiber types produce the same force but type II can fire more rapidly, hence the name fast twitch. Based on the the study I was referring to it appears those with a high type II fiber % respond well to creatine monohyrate and much more efficiently to those with a type I fiber %.
Also, it appears that those with larger muscle fiber (CSA) and fat free mass percentages are also better monohydrate responders. This means that if you have a high bodyfat percentage you might not respond well to monohydrate or if you have low muscle mass. Also, if you have smaller muscles in general you might not respond well.
For someone like myself, I do have a high percentage of fat free mass and therefore I respond well to creatine monohydrate. Also, I require the same amount of CEE to have the same ergogenic effects as monohydrate. I feel some companies have been pushing CEE a little too hard and have been addressing some of it’s shortfalls for those who might not respond well, like me, by telling the consumer to take another dose.
It is my recommendation that any consumer out there interested in creatine supplementation try using the more basic form of creatine first, which is monohydrate. It is the only form of creatine that has been studied extensively and proven. CEE is a good choice for those who don’t fit the physiological criteria stated above, however for general purposes, it is not “better” than monohydrate as many companies would lead you to believe.
Syrotuik DG, Bell GJ.Acute creatine monohydrate supplementation: a descriptive physiological profile of responders vs. nonresponders. Journal of Strength Conditioning Research. 2004 Aug;18(3):610-7.
Bizzarini E, De Angelis L. Is the use of oral creatine supplementation safe? J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2004 Dec;44(4):411-6.
Creatine ethyl ester is not a stable molecule in a nuetral pH environment like water. This is why those who originally applied for patenting rights were denied because there was no evidence to disprove it’s high conversion rate into creatinine.
Creatine Ethyl Ether James D. Mold, Robert C. Gore, Joseph M. Lynch, E. J. Schantz. J. Am. Chem. Soc.; 1955; 77(1); 178-180.
Hype sells to the masses and it’s a shame it cast one of the most studied and proven ergogenic aides in a negative spotlight, creatine monohydrate. Here is what initially tipped me off to the CEE hype parade:
Originally Posted by deserusan
<strong />
Analysis
Over the past few years I have payed a lot of attention to supplement trends as my level of interest in competitave natural bodybuilding has grown. Competing naturally requires a lot of research into what supplements are legal and what is not by whatever federation you choose to compete in. One of the best supplements out there is creatine monohydrate and their are numerous studies supporting it’s efficacy. However, one recent trend I have witnessed is companies and young aspiring bodybuilders touting the superiority of creatine ethyl ester over creatine monohydrate.
Creatine ethyl ester is merely creatine monohydrate with an added ester attached to make the creatine molecule more lipopholic. In theory, this would make the absorption more efficient and possibly would require less CEE to serve as an ergogenic aid.
Personally, I have used both CEE and monohydrate with great success. However, the recomended doses of CEE (2.5 grams) never seemed to have the same effect as the recommended dose of monohydrate (5.0 grams). To me this seemed a little odd considering the claims of most CEE products. When I started to experiment with higher doses of CEE (5 grams) I noticed similiar effects to that of monohydrate at the equivalent dose. Something wasn’t adding up here.
Upon further reading on monohydrate, because no ethyl ester studies exist, I came across one that studied the physiological differences between monohydrate responders and non responders. This intrigued me because it actually shows that monohydrate isn’t inefficient given a certain set of physiological values with regards to pre-existing creatine and phosphocreatine levels in muscles, muscle fiber cross-sectional areas (CSA), the prevalanace of type II muscle fibers, and the amount of fat free mass.
Type II muscle fibers are also called fast twitch muscle fibers. Olympic sprinters may have up to 80% fast twitch fibers while a marathon runner may have up to 80% type I fibers (slow twitch). Both fiber types produce the same force but type II can fire more rapidly, hence the name fast twitch. Based on the the study I was referring to it appears those with a high type II fiber % respond well to creatine monohyrate and much more efficiently to those with a type I fiber %.
Also, it appears that those with larger muscle fiber (CSA) and fat free mass percentages are also better monohydrate responders. This means that if you have a high bodyfat percentage you might not respond well to monohydrate or if you have low muscle mass. Also, if you have smaller muscles in general you might not respond well.
For someone like myself, I do have a high percentage of fat free mass and therefore I respond well to creatine monohydrate. Also, I require the same amount of CEE to have the same ergogenic effects as monohydrate. I feel some companies have been pushing CEE a little too hard and have been addressing some of it’s shortfalls for those who might not respond well, like me, by telling the consumer to take another dose.
It is my recommendation that any consumer out there interested in creatine supplementation try using the more basic form of creatine first, which is monohydrate. It is the only form of creatine that has been studied extensively and proven. CEE is a good choice for those who don’t fit the physiological criteria stated above, however for general purposes, it is not “better” than monohydrate as many companies would lead you to believe.
Syrotuik DG, Bell GJ.Acute creatine monohydrate supplementation: a descriptive physiological profile of responders vs. nonresponders. Journal of Strength Conditioning Research. 2004 Aug;18(3):610-7.
Bizzarini E, De Angelis L. Is the use of oral creatine supplementation safe? J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2004 Dec;44(4):411-6.
CajunSaint
New member
how is creatine phosphate malate??? thats in my new creatine
sonicwaste
New member
what was the conclusion on kre alkalyn?
Gawd
Moderator
There some write ups about it posted above. Basically, same outcome as CEE.
sonicwaste
New member
Thanks, I missed that first... Looks like a good combo of mono nnd magnesium creatine chelate shall do. Looks like Green Magnitude could be a cool creatine combo for really cheap
Similar threads
