CEE vs. Monohydrate

Warfist

Black Belt
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
7,269
Reaction score
49
I've talked to many different people and all have their own opinions about what type of creatine is the best.

They say CEE is basically monohydrate but with added ester so there's not a big difference.

Some say monohydrate is the better of the two, where others say CEE is the best.

I'm going to be switching to a creatine supp in about a week...so I wanted to know what you brilliant Sherdoggers think on which one is the best. Yes, I did a search. But nothing came up on the debate of CEE vs. Monohydrate. Like to hear your responses. Thanks in advance.
 
Esterfied creatine is bonded creatine that allows for it to completely bypass the liver (basically). The suppsed advantages of CEE versus Monohydrate are:

1) No water-bloating.

2) No loading necessary (not that it's necessary with monohydrate either).

3) No cycling necessary.

If you want a medium between basic monohydrate (which can and often does cause uncomfortable water bloating) and expensive CEE, you might want to look into AAKG Creatine. It's present in NO-Xplode, and GNC sells a liquid version that is getting very good reviews. I don't know what other companies make it isolated that are reputable but I'm sure they're out there.

As far as the higher-end creatine compounds, Cellmass and Fast Twitch seem to be doing the best.
 
Monohydrate tend to cost very little, so you can get a lot for a little. The downside is, it doesnt tend to uptake as well as the newer versions.

CEE will be expensive, but they claim near 100% uptake.
 
Thanks Kabuk and tshay.

I'm taking NO-Xplode right now and it seems to be working good so I'll most likely stick with BSN and get their cellmass since everybody seems to praise it so much. I know cellmass is CEE and I've only taken Monohydrate in the past. It did give me a little bloating, of course I was drinking beer all the time too so it's a bit hard to tell, lol.

I know Cellmass is a bit expensive, but I have no time to dick around with below average products.

The AAKG Creatine sounds interesting...maybe I'll do a little research on that before I make my final decision. GNC is right across the street...too bad I don't have my fucking gold card anymore....it's almost a new month.
 
personally have tried both cee worked best for "me",, no bloating, only take it on work out days (2),, when on cee i worked out 3x a week and took 5g (supposedly about a spoon full)..

try this place out, if you order about 300g it should last about 2-3 months, depending on how many times you work out of course.. good luck

http://66.63.171.49/store/comersus_viewItem.asp?idProduct=2369
 
CEE has been golden for me. And at bulknutrition.com it is cheap.
 
I found that Creatine Monohydrate only worked well once for me. Maybe CEE, due to bypassing the liver, may be a better path to take.
 
Go with mono. Here is a good read:


Creatine ethyl ester rapidly degrades to creatinine in stomach acid

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, DrChild@CR-Technologies.net

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 in***endent, 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 in***endent 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Kre-alkalyn? supplementation has no beneficial effect on creatine-to-creatinine conversion rates.

Tallon MJ1 and Child R2

1University of Northumbria, Sport Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 2***artment of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom. DrTallon@CR-Technologies.net

All American Pharmaceutical and Natural Foods Corp. (Billings, MT, USA) claim that Kre-alkalyn? (KA) a ?Buffered? creatine, is 100% stable in stomach acid and does not convert to creatinine. In contrast, they also claim that creatine monohydrate (CM) is highly pH labile with more than 90% of the creatine converting to the degradation product creatinine in stomach acids. To date, no in***endent or university laboratory has evaluated the stability of KA in stomach acids, assessed its possible conversion to creatinine, or made direct comparisons of acid stability with CM.

This study examined whether KA supplementation reduced the rate of creatine conversion to creatinine, relative to commercially available CM (Creapure?). Creatine products were analyzed by an in***endent commercial laboratory using testing guidelines recommended by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP). Each product was incubated in 900ml of pH 1 HCL at 37? 1oC and samples where drawn at 5, 30 and 120 minutes and immediately analyzed by HPLC (UV) for creatine and creatinine.

In contrast to the claims of All American Pharmaceutical and Natural Foods Corp., the rate of creatinine formation from CM was found to be less than 1% of the initial dose, demonstrating that CM is extremely stable under acidic conditions that replicate those of the stomach. This study also showed that KA supplementation actually resulted in 35% greater conversion of creatine to creatinine than CM. In conclusion the conversion of creatine to creatinine is not a limitation in the delivery of creatine from CM and KA is less stable than CM in the acid conditions of the stomach.
 
from what i understand monohydrate was the older version creatine, but cee is the newer stuff and people tend to like the cee a lot better

ive tried cell mass and i really didnt like it

im using size-on right now and so far its the best stuff ive ever used

i will try the fast twitch though, cytosport is quality, and cytogainer is a constant on my shelf
 
Anybody know of any studies done on CEE? If not why pay more for it when the other is proven and costs as little as $20 for 200 servings? It doesn't uptake as good as mono? In what study? And do you need better uptake, I mean you're supplementing 5g extra a day in addition to any your getting from eating meat and the 2g or so your body produces a day. So lets say it does work, your still pissing out any additional creatine. I dunno, is there any pro's here on this stuff that could explain it a little better for me?
 
Does anyone have any thoughts on Kre-alkalyn creatine?

I know some may say it's bogus but it's just like Mono or CEE but just a different 'transportation'..
 
I used cell mass for quite some time....Great stuff! but expensive. Just switched to Mono a little over a week ago and have noticed no bloating. I post later and let you know about gains I just havent used it enough to tell.
 
Most people say CEE and Mono are the same, except Mono is cheaper and CEE has no bloating
 
Does anyone have any thoughts on Kre-alkalyn creatine?

I know some may say it's bogus but it's just like Mono or CEE but just a different 'transportation'..

I tried Kre-alkalyn (Purple K) and got very little if any benefit from it. Creatine Monohydrate on the other hand worked great for me.
 
Back
Top