New CM vs CEE Study

Steakeater**

Banned
Banned
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
11,321
Reaction score
0
J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2009 Feb 19;6(1):6. [Epub ahead of print]Click here to read Links

The effects of creatine ethyl ester supplementation combined with heavy resistance training on body composition, muscle performance, and serum and muscle creatine levels.

Spillane M, Schoch R, Cooke M, Harvey T, Greenwood M, Kreider R, Willoughby DS.

ABSTRACT: Numerous creatine formulations have been developed primarily to maximize creatine absorption. Creatine ethyl ester is alleged to increase creatine bio-availability. This study examined how a seven-week supplementation regimen combined with resistance training affected body composition, muscle mass, muscle strength and power, serum and muscle creatine levels, and serum creatinine levels in 30 non-resistance-trained males. In a double-blind manner, participants were randomly assigned to a maltodextrose placebo (PLA), creatine monohydrate (CRT), or creatine ethyl ester (CEE) group. The supplements were orally ingested at a dose of 0.30 g/kg fat-free body mass (approximately 20 g/day) for five days followed by ingestion at 0.075 g/kg fat free mass (approximately 5 g/day) for 42 days. Results showed significantly higher serum creatine concentrations in PLA (p = 0.007) and CRT (p = 0.005) compared to CEE. Serum creatinine was greater in CEE compared to the PLA (p = 0.001) and CRT (p = 0.001) and increased at days 6, 27, and 48. Total muscle creatine content was significantly higher in CRT (p = 0.026) and CEE (p = 0.041) compared to PLA, with no differences between CRT and CEE. Significant changes over time were observed for body composition, body water, muscle strength and power variables, but no significant differences were observed between groups. In conclusion, when compared to creatine monohydrate, creatine ethyl ester was not as effective at increasing serum and muscle creatine levels or in improving body composition, muscle mass, strength, and power. Therefore, the improvements in these variables can most likely be attributed to the training protocol itself, rather than the supplementation regimen.

Took this from Lyle Mcdonald
Monohydrate was slightly more effective and is cheaper
 
I saw this as well, nice post.

CM is just so damn cheap.... it really amazes me how many people buy all those expensive ass creatine products just to get shittier results. Supplement marketing always trumps research in the masses :icon_sad:
 
Good study, thanks. This could be a decent addition to the FAQ, may save more, 'what creatine should I take?' type threads. Then again, the current creatine info in the FAQ is sufficient if noobs actually read it.
 
What's up with posting a study and not formatting the conclusion as red/bold? This equates to extra work for me and I expect better of you in the future.
 
Supplement marketing always trumps research in the masses :icon_sad:

Doesn't only stand for supplements, for most people having to spend more makes it better
 
Obviously, more money=better results
 
Good study, thanks. This could be a decent addition to the FAQ, may save more, 'what creatine should I take?' type threads. Then again, the current creatine info in the FAQ is sufficient if noobs actually read it.

Added. Thanks for posting, Steakeater.
 
Results showed significantly higher serum creatine concentrations in PLA (p = 0.007) and CRT (p = 0.005) compared to CEE.

Serum creatinine was greater in CEE compared to the PLA (p = 0.001) and CRT (p = 0.001) and increased at days 6, 27, and 48.

Total muscle creatine content was significantly higher in CRT (p = 0.026) and CEE (p = 0.041) compared to PLA, with no differences between CRT and CEE.

Maybe I don't understand this, but don't all three of these consecutive sentences kind of contradict each other?
 
Thanks Steak! I hope that scientists can finally move on from the CEE. It's a failed idea. Time to try another one.
 
You're confusing creatine and creatinine, I think.

Yes, I didn't notice that. But going by the first and third quotes I had, it tells us that blood CEE levels were lower than Mono, but muscle CEE levels were the same as Mono. Yet they conclude mono was better. Perhaps I need to find the entire report, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions the way other in the thread seemed to have already.
 
as some1 who has tried many different creatine products....id have to say the report is true that monohydrate works much better and is much cheaper....however, theres a new product called creadex its a pill.....its cee and works dam good.
 
as some1 who has tried many different creatine products....id have to say the report is true that monohydrate works much better and is much cheaper....however, theres a new product called creadex its a pill.....its cee and works dam good.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. You admit that monohydrate works better, the science says it works better, the science says CEE is potentially harmful, then you try and pitch CEE in a pill form to well-read, educated posters in D&S?

 
Thanks Steak! I hope that scientists can finally move on from the CEE. It's a failed idea. Time to try another one.

creatine is a failed idea...time to move back to protein.

just kidding fuckers
 
You've got to be fucking kidding me. You admit that monohydrate works better, the science says it works better, the science says CEE is potentially harmful, then you try and pitch CEE in a pill form to well-read, educated posters in D&S?


Calm down Mike, he's probably 13 years old.
 
Calm down Mike, he's probably 13 years old.

And you're point being?

If he's old enough to make a statement, he's old enough to be called a fucking idiot for counteracting it then very next sentance.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,263,101
Messages
57,206,468
Members
175,585
Latest member
Absy
Back
Top