They must think we're morons!

So I'm reading an 'article' (in fact more of an ad really) in a well known glossy BB magazine. It's supposed to be a Q&A/Report. This months was on their 'hardcore' version of a very well-known and best selling Creatine loading product.

Now they quote 4 references to give it the air of a well researched and sourced statement. The article, written and published in late '09, quotes from published research dated 1996, 2000, 2001 2004 . So far so ok.

Now it has to be said, so you know where I am coming from, that the 'hardcore' version of their standard product contains 10g of Creatine, per serving, sourced from Mono (great), Creatine Pyrovate (?) and Creatine Phosphate. There's a bunch of other stuff, mostly well known, much of which is said to drive or help load Creatine well. It includes 77g (per serving) of Glucose.

My issue, such as it is, is that they quote from the references as follows:

1. One study (1996) they refer to used 5g (standard dose for most) and 93g of simple carbs. They say they used this as there starting point. It's arguable that this was the same as it was before they went and called the new product 'hardcore'. The mention the glucose tolerance test (for diabetics) uses 75g. Neither 93 not 75 are 77... I'm confused. Is the 77g used so they can claim, as many do (so they aren't the only ones making such claims) that theirs is a 'unique formula'. In other words not identical to another one.

2. They themselves say that they chose 10g as 'it's double what others use'. Not that it's better, just that it's more. They confusingly further add that it's 'a mega dose of the most validated form of Creatine'. Err no. The most validated is mono. You're using 3 different forms and only one is mono and the combined total is 10g. The mentioned purity etc I take no issue with at all. That's all good.

3. In another study (2000) which used mono and mono plus carbs etc it was as claimed) 26 times more potent. Err ok... but that it was the core formula of their product which did the trick. Let me see if I get this: it was mono and glucose/dextrose which was the super duper stuff and the mono was, unless I'm mistaken, at the 5g etc level. So no other form of Creatine and that which was used was at half the dose in the product as it is now. So why add two other types and why double the dose regardless of form?

Maybe it's just me but I can't see what makes the new version better than the old one, other than the name. Nor can I see why anyone would wish to quote from 4 references none of which offer a direct comparison to what's actually being sold. That they, as they do with other products in their line (esp protein and their fat burning products) use the words 'core formula' means that what was researched and found to work has been altered or added to but is by no means better. Doubling of the dose of Creatine, using three forms, altering (if just a tad) the carb ratio and then throwing in all the bells and whistles... why? The articles don't actually back up the need.

So tell me then, how is it hardcore?

The one thing this company HAS done previously and COULD DO again to back up their formula is to sponsor independent research into whether or not it's worthwhile doing what they did. Perhaps this has happened and it showed that what was done was no better than before?

The one thing which stands out for me is this idea that having said references somehow backs up what you're saying. That's the way they are used - either to prove or disprove a theory. But here and in the article they don't help at all. Bizarre. That's what prompted the title's question. Perhaps we weren't meant to ask?