Ir para conteúdo
  • Cadastre-se

Cemitério De Tipos De Creatina


AlexandreRP

Posts Recomendados

Ai vão mais dois artigos falando sobre novas pesquisas com a creatina, ainda não tive tempo de traduzir, mas como muitos aqui tem fluencia em lingua inglesa, vai sem traduzir mesmo. Assim que tiver um tempo eu traduzo, pelo menos assim não fico sem compartilhar até traduzir.

‘Creatine Ethyl Ester can’t work’

If we are to believe the research that chemists from the American Marian University are about to publish in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, then the creatine analogue creatyl – better known as creatine ethyl ester – is a waste of time as a supplement. The compound can’t work. It converts spontaneously into creatinine, a waste product of creatine.

Creatine ethyl ester [uppermost structural formula shown on this page] is a pro-nutrient. It has to be converted into creatine in the body [the middle structural formula shown]. This happens when it loses its ethyl spine, which the esterases in the body are responsible for. At least, that's what supplements manufacturers always thought.

The ethyl spine on creatine ethyl ester is there to ensure that the compound can travel faster through the body and make its way to the muscle cells, where it is converted into creatine. Creatine works like a battery for muscle cells. The creatine molecule charges itself with energy in the form of phosphate groups, and releases these during intensive training. This is what enables you to train harder and build up more muscle and strength.

Creatine is still the most researched and most effective legal supplement known in the power sports world. The supplements industry has made many attempts to manufacture new, more effective versions of creatine, and creatine ethyl ester is one of these.

That’s why many users take creatyl just before training and notice the effects immediately. It apparently helps them to manage that one extra rep. But if you believe the American chemists’ publication, you’d put this down to the placebo effect.

The Americans mixed creatine ethyl ester with water in test tubes and used NMR technology to observe what happened to the molecule, for an hour. Although there were no esterases present in their test tubes, the molecule converted spontaneously, not into creatine but into creatinine [see the bottom structural formula on this page]. Creatinine is not active in muscles. [Although Russian sports scientists came to a different conclusion in the 1980s, but that’s a different story.]

Creatine ethyl ester converts into creatine more easily at a lower pH. At a pH of 5.5 there was as much creatinine and creatyl present in the solution. The researchers only found small quantities of creatine.

Water has a pH of 7. Rainwater can have a pH as low as 5 as a result of air pollution. Tomatoes and grapes have a pH of 4.5, and tomato juice a pH of 4. The human stomach is considerably more acid, with a pH of 2. It’s easy enough to work out.

Creatine is remarkably stable in the body, the researchers observe. Creatine ethyl ester on the other hand is not. The modification means that the molecule converts into creatinine at the slightest provocation. So the compound can’t be effective – and may even be unhealthy, say the chemists. "It appears CEE supplementation would actually provide high plasma concentrations of pharmacologically inactive creatinine rather than ergogenic creatine, and these acute levels may far exceed those determined to be within normal ranges", they conclude.

Researchers at Baylor University published an earlier study which shows that ordinary creatine works better than creatine ethyl ester. In that study the amount of creatine in the muscles of the test subjects did increase. According to the chemists at Marian University this is impossible. But in the Baylor University study the test subjects did not take the creatine ethyl ester in the way it should be taken: you take it just before you start training.

We still believe that creatine ethyl ester works.

Source:

Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2009 Oct 16;388(2):252-5.

The Creatine Grave Yard

By Will Brink © 2009

Looks like another “high tech” form of creatine has got one foot planted firmly in the creatine grave yard. What is the creatine graveyard? It’s where forms of creatine - other then monohydrate - go when either science has shown them inferior to monohydrate, and or it’s life cycle of hype has come to and end.

I refer specifically to creatine ethyl ester (CEE). As with the many “high tech” forms of creatine before it, all manner of claims were/are made about how superior it is to creatine monohydrate (CM). It always starts the same. First the company will invent a long list of negatives about CM such as “poorly absorbed” or “causes bloat” or “is not stable” and then goes onto claim their form of creatine has solved all those invented negatives. The problem is, the data already shows CM does not suffer from virtually any of the negatives they invent, nor do they show their form “cures” those negatives. Sellers of CCE for example claimed CEE was better absorbed and utilized vs. CM, and that has been shown to be nonsense. There have been several in vitro (test tube) studies pointing to the fact CEE is inferior to CM, but a recent study done in humans puts a final nail in the coffin as far as I am concerned. This study is titled “The effects of creatine ethyl ester supplementation combined with heavy resistance training on body composition, muscle performance, and serum and muscle creatine levels” The full study is public access and can be read here:

CEE Study

Warning, the abstract is confusing and not well written. If you read the full paper, it’s clearer. If you don’t have the time or interest to read it, the take home is: although all subjects in this study (CEE vs. CM vs. Placebo) experienced approximately the same effects; they all had improvements in bodycomp and got stronger. Why? Because they used untrained subjects in the study. Thus, a drawback of this study was due to using untrained people, they couldn’t differentiate between PL, CEE, and CM in terms of effects on bodycomp and strength within that time period as newbies always make fast progress in the beginning. No news there.

However, the study did achieve the essential point, which is it clearly showed the claims of CEE false: CEE had much higher creatinine levels and lower muscle creatine levels compared to CM in this study, thus, yet again, the claims by sellers of CEE that it’s superior to CM and that CM is “poorly absorbed” or “causes bloat,” or my favorite “CM is not stable,” etc are false. They also looked at changes in water compartments (CEE actually had a trend toward greater extra cellular water then CM BTW, so there goes that stupid “no bloat” claim for CEE…) and other issues claimed to make CEE superior, and it failed.

CEE is less stable then CM, increases creatinine to a much greater extent then CM, and is inferior for increasing muscle creatine levels to CM. This study is not perfect by any means, but when combined with what else exists, and the counter studies sellers of CEE offer (which is to say zero), well you don’t have to be a scientist to see the writing on the wall there…

CEE will be added to the creatine graveyard with a ton of others all claiming to be superior to CM which all started with big claims and now sit in the grave yard.

Two essential points about the grave yard before we get to that:

(1) Because they are in the grave yard does not mean they are worthless. Some forms, such as magnesium creatine chelate for example looked promising, but a head to head study with CM found it no better. Remember, another form does not have to show it’s the equal of CM, it has to show it’s superior to CM per its claims. Forms such as creatine pyruvate and many others on the list may be just as effective as CM, but not superior, so it comes down to cost. Others on the list have in fact been proven inferior to CM in studies, such as serum creatine, various liquid creatine versions, and now CEE. Serum creatine was all the rage a few years ago, and studies found not only was it inferior to CM in every respect, it contained virtually no creatine! Of course, there were still those on the various forums using ‘bro logic’ with “bro, I don’t care what the studies say, it works like da bomb for me!” posts, but I digress….Finally, other forms on the list simply lack any data at all to compare to CM. The companies selling these forms will routinely make claims of superiority with nadda for hard data to support them. Therefore, it’s impossible to really separate fact from fiction (i.e., marketing hype) to recommend them.

Me, I will use what has literally hundreds of studies to support its efficacy and safety over a form with zero data to support it’s claims of superiority over CM. Thus, they get put into the grave yard. Future studies may get them out of the graveyard, but I aint holding my breath…

(2) CM is not perfect. It’s not very soluble, and in about 30% of users, does not appear to work at all. At higher doses, generally above 3g-5g or so in a single dose, can cause stomach upset for some, among other small, but significant drawbacks for some users. Therefore, I am in favor of continued research into improved delivery technologies, improved forms of creatine, and so on. I’m all for it, but as they say, don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining. In God we trust, everyone else must show data. Hard data talks, BS walks.

I could randomly take two forms from the list below, say dicreatine malate and creatine ethyl carbonate ester and make dicreatine malate creatine ethyl carbonate*, but would it be superior to CM? Unknown as there would be no data. I could just invent a bunch of unproven claims like others do and sell the stuff… Do companies just invent a form of creatine for no other reason then it sound “high tech”? Hell, one company (BSN) is currently in court over one form they sell, called CEM3 or “Creatine Ethyl Ester Malate” which according to the charges “does not exist and is impossible to manufacture”! As I said, CM is not perfect and I am all for continued research into improved (vs. just different!) forms of creatine and or improved delivery technologies, but companies should do their due diligence on these products and stop with all the hype and CM bashing to sell unproven products.

So, without further delay, here is my current list for the creatine graveyard:

The Creatine Graveyard List:

Creatine ethyl ester (CEE)

creatine pyruvate

creatine taurinate

creatine ethyl ester malate

creatine ethyl carbonate ester

creatine gluconate

creatine malate

dicreatine malate

tricreatine malate

creatine citrate

tricreatine citrate

Kre-Alkalyn

creatine phosphate

creatine alpha-ketoglutarate

creatine-6,8-thioctic Acid-ketoisocaproic Acid Calcium (CREAKIC)

creatine pyroglutamate

“conjugated creatine” (Con-Cret)

magnesium creatine chelate

creatine anhydrous

dicreatine orotate

tricreatine orotate

creatine alpha-amino butyrate

creatine HMB

“titrated creatine”

“creatine serum”

“liquid creatine”

Also:

glycocyamine (precursor)

creatinol-o-phosphate (analog)

* = for the sake of an example. I have no idea if such a form is chemically possible, nor do I care.

Link para o comentário
Compartilhar em outros sites

Publicidade

  • Respostas 22
  • Criado
  • Última resposta

Mais Ativos no Tópico

consegui traduzir algumas, coisas vou tentar traduzir mais,

mais e quanto aos relatos que as pessoas fazem apos o uso da msm? em muita gente funciono..

Pois é...comigo funcionou 100%, mta força, ganhos secos sem retençao, sem contar que dura mto mais que a mono.

Link para o comentário
Compartilhar em outros sites

Pois é...comigo funcionou 100%, mta força, ganhos secos sem retençao, sem contar que dura mto mais que a mono.

Grande parte pode ser culpa do efeito Placebo ;)

Conhece os famosos NO's ? O principal principio ativo deles não funciona exatamente como a gente pensa

É o efeito placebo que nos alucina, a mente é muito poderosa.

Eu comprovei isso na pratica e depois resolvi pesquisar sobre os NO's mais afundo a achei muita coisa que não é de muito bom grado aos amantes desses suplementos....

Link para o comentário
Compartilhar em outros sites

É o que eu sempre falo... teste a monohidratada, se funcionar, continue com ela. Pra que gastar mais com outros produtos se você tem bons resultados com a mono? Melhor custo benefício sem dúvida eu acho :).

Se não repsonder a mono, aí teste outras coisas, tipo um blend ou outras formas mesmo.

Link para o comentário
Compartilhar em outros sites

Crie uma conta ou entre para comentar

Você precisar ser um membro para fazer um comentário

Criar uma conta

Crie uma nova conta em nossa comunidade. É fácil!

Crie uma nova conta

Entrar

Já tem uma conta? Faça o login.

Entrar Agora
  • Quem Está Navegando   0 membros estão online

    • Nenhum usuário registrado visualizando esta página.

×
×
  • Criar Novo...