Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Creatine: Ethyl Ester vs. Monohydrate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Creatine: Ethyl Ester vs. Monohydrate

    I really thought I'd look around before my next creatine purchase. Most of the comparisons between CM and CEE are pretty old on this forum. The latest information I could find on other forums are starting to make me think that CEE could have just been hype. I have read all of the theoretical advantages on CEE so I was suprised to come across this....


    Creatine ethyl ester rapidly degrades to creatinine in stomach acid


    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 (Creapure?). 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.

  • #2
    i know i say this all the time but go with Vitargo CGL. it has the delievery method, (waxy maize starch), and the creatine (pretty sure is basic Monohydrate.) best PWO creatine/shake i have ever used and thats no BS.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by THE BOUNCER View Post
      i know i say this all the time but go with Vitargo CGL. it has the delievery method, (waxy maize starch), and the creatine (pretty sure is basic Monohydrate.) best PWO creatine/shake i have ever used and thats no BS.
      I'm actually just finishing up my tub of Vitargo CGL. It is good but money is tight. I figured I would get a better value with a waxy maize starch and then mixing it with Micronized Monohydrate from AllTheWhey or something. I'm sure the change in performance from Vitargo CGL would be negligable. At least for the improved value. I did get good results from Vitargo however.

      Any more thoughts on the Ethyl Ester vs. Monohydrate discussion? It's crazy to think that it caused that much hype and got debunked....

      Comment


      • #4
        I prefer monohydrate - the cee didn't do anything for me - the monohydrate causes some bloat though but ONLY if your diet is off IMO...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The_Grinder View Post

          It's crazy to think that it caused that much hype and got debunked....
          haha, that shit happens all the time in the supplement business. can you say this company's name... MUSCLE TECH :D

          Comment


          • #6
            the study says to me, go for CE2, its expensive and not perfect absorbtion. If you go for monohydrate then you get bloat and cramps

            Comment

            Working...
            X