I don't know that much about creatine supplementation, but how much more effective is this ester stuff? Can't this guy get regular creatine, 500mg or 1 gram pills and just take a lot for not a lot of money? I think that is a lot better than doing nothing. And, just guessing, but can the ester even give 100% better results? Even if thats the case 50% of the results would be fine, and moreso if the ester increases the gains even less.
I mean, if its just about saturating the muslce with creatine how bad can it be to take 20 grams of monohydrate (possibly more than you need of ester) just to get the job done rather than 3-5 grams of superesterglycocreatine?
I dunno, but this is like a previous post of mine. Creatine, from the older studies I have read, only give mediocre results. Is it worth timing everything, eating certain things and buying creatine from guatamala to get a 3% gain, when possibly older creatine gives 2%? Especially if you are not an olympic athlete who drinks on weekends and gets pizza hut once a week? Although there are some here, but I bet most of the posters here looking for advice don't have every other aspect together, and missing a weightliting session to read up on creatine supplementation is ridiculous. It would be better to get a good cookbook or spend money on produce than get the lastest anabolic review and spend money on glycosylmachoisticcreatineesterhydrolxyl.