|
08-23-2006, 09:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Cee All Hype!!
Copying and pasting this from another board to see everyones thoughts on it here:
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." "hmmm...Swole, for example contains some fun ingredients. The first one being an ergolytic chemical known as Guanidinopropionic Acid, "which binds the creatine transporter and plugs it up so creatine can’t be transported into various tissues (similar to the concept of tamoxifen blocking the estrogen receptor, not allowing estrogen to bind)." (Barr, 1/04) So in short because most of our tissues can’t make creatine on it's own so it has to be transported in from food and supplementation, and the blocked transporters as a result of GPA means a reduction in cellular creatine levels. So let's take 2 steps forward and 3 steps back and hand the supplement companies our money. Another fun addition to Swole's cool ingredient, GPA (an ingredient in other revolutionary creatine ****tails), is that with the induced reduction/depletion of creatine levels within 7 days of consumption we are fortunate to lose muscle strength and power output as the fast twitch fibers transform into slow twitch as a result of our willing consumption to look Swolen. So be swolen, but weaker and slower. Another ingredient in Swole is Glycocyamine (G-amine), also known as guanidinoacetate. Consuming this chemical seems to have the undesirable effect of elevating blood levels of a substance called homocysteine, which through research has a very strong risk factor for cardiovascular disease. So in using typical western fear tactics- cardiovascular disease is the number one killer in the western, and the last thing we need to do is increase our risk for it. But then again the west still drinks alcohol and smokes cigarettes despite how messed up we get from consuming any of it. But to kick ourselves in the pants more about this fun additive and creatine, taking creatine decreases homocysteine levels, raising even more therapeutic possibilities for this supplement. A conclusion formed by some studies found that if you’re supplementing with creatine, G-amine may also decrease creatine uptake by muscles. Let's take 2 steps forward and 6 feet under. Make sure your money has gone to the supplement companies. In reference to your question about Storm, a study presented at Nutrition Week in 2002 indicated that creatine combined with magnesium (as a chelate or an oxide) offers no advantage over creatine alone for endurance minded and/or high level anaerobic athletes. So does that mean it's different and better than creatine monohydrate? No. In the case of Creatine, more is not better. Let's do some basic name calling first, di-(2) and tri- (3) creatine next to mono. What makes 5 better than one? Nothing. If the magnesium creatine did anything significant they wouldn't have the need to add more flash to the pan of that product. Just more money for one more drop of sweat. None of us get paid to produce one more drop of sweat than the next guy, hence simplicity rules in the creatine world- Creatine Monohydrate. I do have a personal favorite in creatine- micronized creatine monohydrate, if ideal then it be German Micronized Creatine Monohydrate. More does not mean better. Some other added tidbits on creatine- The average creatine consuming human takes too much. You can stop there since that sums it all up. The least amount a 220lb athlete can consume to produce results needed in performance (it is a performance enhancing supplement btw) is 3g daily. One serving/scoop of creatine I take is 5g. I assume that is average for all types of creatine. I weigh more than 220lb, but my training and activity demands exceed a day of split work at the local bunny gym. I would still need at least 3g daily to get by. The average gym human under 220lb has a minimum demand of roughly under 1.5g-1.75g daily. Oh and cycling and loading isn't needed btw. So we can save money on creatine. Eat your animal proteins people. If you already do, then that's your field explanation for consuming little bit creatine supps. Average servings of food proteins already gives us at least 1g of creatine...daily. So what about loading periods? Research has shown that loading benefits a human who trains intensely for a cycle of 3-4 weeks. Then as one backs off the intensity, the user (assuming a 200+lb person) backs off the creatine and back to 3g daily. So doing a more intense cycle of training (3-4 weeks)seems to correspond a more efficient uptake of creatine. Otherwise we just piss the extra creatine out- If you load 20g a day, you're pissing out an estimated 17g...possibly on isolation work, LS cardio, and classical aerobics. But if you like, you can approach all of this as theory and take it with a grain of salt...which leads me to my next tidbit. If creatine uptake into muscles is your thing, actually it should be everybody's thing, then add a little salt to your drink. Most research on the topic related this all to high blood sodium levels and high muscular creatine levels. So besides insulin importance to creatine uptake, sodium does wonders like water retention haha. Okay okay joke joke. Most of the studies suggest about 150mg of table salt in our creatine workout drink. That's roughly about 1/3 to 1/2 tsp of salt, I think. How simple yeah? A funny one, caffeine intake messes with creatine efficiency. From a recent PubMed post. That one made me crack up. viva la Spike! lol Thanks for asking me about those products. I actually did some checking out today on that stuff to know what exactly they were besides fancy names. The most effective ingredient those products have is creatine monohydrate (aka CM). Add some less useful names/chemicals and you got more profit for supplement companies. Right now I am waiting for Costco's Kirkland brand to blow away the competition by releasing their brand of Creatine. I am guessing here because their protein is very good and actually very good in quality. But that's just my opinion. 
|
|
08-23-2006, 03:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Never tried CEE. Its too exensive around here if you are going to buy it offline. Plus mono works for me so I see no point in switching, especially when its so cheap! $20 for 600g is a steal.
__________________
Check out my journal at http://www.mightysworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1417&page=10
|
|
08-26-2006, 05:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
have addressed the stupidity of this article elsewhere
http://anabolicfitness.infopop.net/2...3&m=3871000531
|
|
08-26-2006, 06:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
"is that with the induced reduction/depletion of creatine levels within 7 days of consumption we are fortunate to lose muscle strength and power output as the fast twitch fibers transform into slow twitch as a result of our willing consumption to look Swolen. So be swolen, but weaker and slower."
As far as I am aware you cannot change your fibers. Fast twitch cannot change to slow twitch. Further is this were true... people got weaker and slow you'd think people would catch on. Since people still take it, then i guess their fibers are not changing and become weaker and slower. The reason why the post is not creditable is because he has choson several different conclusions for creatine.
|
|
08-26-2006, 09:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
i make great gains with cee and don't get weaker or slower and has no harm on my libido at all. thats absurd to say that it effects your boys its not a PH or any type of gear. i'll just say agian that cee works great and i'm gonna keep using it.
__________________
"obsessed is a word the lazy use to describe the dedicated"
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
I've put on almost 20lbs from less then a 1kg tub
Linear Mode
