Cell tech question

cumminstx

White Belt
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
I just heard this strictly by rumor but does cell tech really fill your muscles with water? I thought it sounded pretty dumb but i dont know for sure. What exactly does it do also? Thanks to all for any help?
 
I used it on and off for a while. You definitley put on weight and I felt like it was mostly water weight, but I did have an increase in strength.
 
Creatine shuttles water to your muscles, yes.
 
Like King Kabuki said, creatine retains water into your muscles. Cell tech isn't cheap is it?
 
King Kabuki said:
Creatine shuttles water to your muscles, yes.

Yeah, all creatine does this. Kabuki's being gracious, as always, so I'll play the bad guy.

Cell-Tech fucking sucks.
 
Madmick said:
Yeah, all creatine does this. Kabuki's being gracious, as always, so I'll play the bad guy.

Cell-Tech fucking sucks.

Hey Madmick, I value your opinions and wonder if you could elaborate on why cell-tech sucks?

I'm currently using it and have noticed more gains with cell-tech compared to regular creatines.
 
Stay away from cell-tech. You dont need the 75 grams of sugra per sering that come with it.
 
justy take creatine and a healthy diet... same effects.

Cell tech is a flashy badge and they add a crap load of sugar to make it taste better then taking norm creatine.

Taking good quality creatine with ample water will net you the same gains as drinking cell tech at a much cheaper price.

GNC push's it so hard because it brings in truck loads of money on rookies who think because it has a cool name and a flashy sticker on the Tub that it works better.
 
This is from their web site for their new *revolutionary* product to *support* testosterone levels (kinda like a nutritional jock strap). :rolleyes:

ACETABOLAN III, a men's only formula, is the athlete's ultimate choice for supporting testosterone levels. Scientifically-backed research shows that ZMA
 
Because it's a more basic form of creatine, we now have newer creatines like Creatine Ethyl Ester (Ce-2 and such) and Kre-Alkalyn. The older more basic creatines such as creatine monohydrate require a loading phase and such. Not all of the creatine gets into your muscles and creatine draws water to where it is, all of it is intended to go into the muscle cell but sometimes the creatine sits outside of the muscle thus drawing water to the outside of the muscle cell so that you now have tons of water bloating and retention in the wrong place.

With Creatine Ethyl Ester, it's basically a creatine with an ester attached to it. It's better because it can transport itself. It goes straight into the blood stream thus straight into the muscle cell where you want it to be cause it will then draw water into the muscle cell.

With more water in the muscle cell it expands the muscles and protein comes in and reinforces and builds it. Creatine is also what the krebs cycle utilizes to make ATP (Adenosine Tri Phosphate) aka energy for the muscles.
 
my big toe said:
$50 for 20 servings of ZMA, that's why they SUCK balls...it's called marketing hype.

Who's talking about ZMA?
 
I was just talking about Muscletech in general, IMO they overhype and overprice their products, like adding ALA to creatine and calling it Lipoic-Tech because it "sensitizes the muscles to insulin, which makes the muscles more effective at absorbing creatine." But hey if it works for you and you can afford it, great.
 
BangWhosNxt said:
Are you fuckin stupid??? WHY DOES IT SUCK???
Cell-Tech sucks, and I'm not stupid

All we are saying is that it's best you don't put 75 grams of sugar in your body at one time, or in one day.
Follow the directions and load...do the math...75 x 5 = 375 grams of sugar in one day.

Think about it.
 
Chad Hamilton said:
Cell-Tech sucks, and I'm not stupid

All we are saying is that it's best you don't put 75 grams of sugar in your body at one time, or in one day.
Follow the directions and load...do the math...75 x 5 = 375 grams of sugar in one day.

Think about it.

What do you mean ALL we are saying... everybody else just said "cell tech sucks". Yes we know it has lots of SIMPLE sugar. This sugar is the main source of energy in the body.

All I have to say is I'm going to continue using it because it has me cut as hell.

Hey Chad, name a creatine that can simulate that kind of insulin spike that comes from cell tech.
 
Uhh, insulin spiking is NOT a good idea. Any Medical professional will tell you it's a one-way ticket to diabetes.

And there are much better creatines with much of the same result. The only reason Cell Tech has 75 grams of sugar is NOT for energy, make no mistake about that. It's because simple sugar delivers creatine to cells better. However, Cell Tech also has twice the normal amount of creatine than normal supplements. Now, take into consideration that monohydrate creatine is filtered through the liver (Esther Creatine was made to bypass the liver) and the simple sugars are converted to glucose by the liver, that's a whole lot of work for the liver to do. Such it is that there are cases where some of the Muscletech Sponsored Bodybuilders have had liver complications from long-term use of Cell Tech. Especially those who followed that loading phase nonsense.
 
King Kabuki said:
Uhh, insulin spiking is NOT a good idea. Any Medical professional will tell you it's a one-way ticket to diabetes.

And there are much better creatines with much of the same result. The only reason Cell Tech has 75 grams of sugar is NOT for energy, make no mistake about that. It's because simple sugar delivers creatine to cells better. However, Cell Tech also has twice the normal amount of creatine than normal supplements. Now, take into consideration that monohydrate creatine is filtered through the liver (Esther Creatine was made to bypass the liver) and the simple sugars are converted to glucose by the liver, that's a whole lot of work for the liver to do. Such it is that there are cases where some of the Muscletech Sponsored Bodybuilders have had liver complications from long-term use of Cell Tech. Especially those who followed that loading phase nonsense.

Pwnd.

This thread is done.
 
Bang, several points have been made as to why Cell-Tech sucks. Like Kabuki said, insulin spiking, in general, is not a good idea. It is recommended to intake anywhere from a 3:1 to 1:1 ratio of high glycemic carbohydrates to protein (personally, I believe protein is too commonly overdosed, but 1:1 has worked for me, too) within 30 minutes of your workout, then again (in a meal) approximately 2 hours after your workoutl; however, as Kabuki pointed out, there are 75 grams of sugar in each serving, and studies haven't revealed any increase in absorption beyond 30 grams of added dextrose to your 5g of creatine. Why would you spike your insulin that much more heavily for no proven increase in gains? This is a formula for Type II Diabetes. So make sure you don't spike any more than is necessary, and eat low-glycemic carbohydrates the rest of the day- especially preworkout.

Then, as Gsoares pointed out, the price on this creatine is ridiculous, and although this wouldn't be an issue if there was no alternative, virtually every 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation creatine on the market is an alternative- a superior one- and for much cheaper. Also, I don't know if you like the taste (since that only matters to you), but we tend to generalize in here because many guys are asking before buying, and despite all the sugar, many in here have agreed that Cell-Tech tastes like shit.

You've seen more gains than with "regular" creatines? You need to be more specific. If you're comparing to regular creatine monohydrate, yeah, you probably have. But buy your Creapure from Optimum and your dextrose from NOW, and voila, you have a superior mixture for probably around 1/5-1/6 the price.
 
StevieSparkZ said:
Because it's a more basic form of creatine, we now have newer creatines like Creatine Ethyl Ester (Ce-2 and such) and Kre-Alkalyn. The older more basic creatines such as creatine monohydrate require a loading phase and such. Not all of the creatine gets into your muscles and creatine draws water to where it is, all of it is intended to go into the muscle cell but sometimes the creatine sits outside of the muscle thus drawing water to the outside of the muscle cell so that you now have tons of water bloating and retention in the wrong place.

With Creatine Ethyl Ester, it's basically a creatine with an ester attached to it. It's better because it can transport itself. It goes straight into the blood stream thus straight into the muscle cell where you want it to be cause it will then draw water into the muscle cell.

With more water in the muscle cell it expands the muscles and protein comes in and reinforces and builds it. Creatine is also what the krebs cycle utilizes to make ATP (Adenosine Tri Phosphate) aka energy for the muscles.

You have eloquently synthesized and regurgitated the labels of multiple creatine blends, but at this point, this is just theory. I'm not trolling you here, I'm just pointing out a fact: creatine esters haven't been proven to have the same effects as monohydrate yet.

If you're cutting, great, then give the esters a shot, since in theory they allow the same effectiveness of absorption minus the dextrose and water retention.

But if you're bulking, stick to the monohydrate. It's cheaper and it's proven.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,233,010
Messages
55,184,723
Members
174,661
Latest member
WinnieGrim
Back
Top