Confusing ain't it?

It ought to be quite simple. Creatine, in 99.99% of cases, works. I mean, in case there is any confusion, Creatine Monohydrate. Not the piss poor dissolving stuff (120 mesh = grainy, table sugar like) but the powdery 200 mesh kind sometimes called 'micronized'. The 200 mesh kind can be seen to more or less disappear and dissolve before it's reached the bottom of a glass and at worst requires a quick swish with a spoon and it's all nice and gone. So why is there, what at first glance appears to be, more than 20 other kinds??

A glance at an ad in MMI for a US based companies product (I'm not mentioning the name for obvious reasons... namely not getting my ass sued) shows that their list of ingredients includes:

• Creatine Nitrate
• COP (Creatine-O-Phosphate)
• Creatine Leucinate

I'll look at what the hell these may be in a mo. Let's see if I can find some more. Some you'll have heard of and some you may not.

• Creatine Malate (aka 'Tri-malate)
  
• Creatine Ethyl Ester
• Creatine Citrate

Of the phosphate and citrate versions this article states that they are 1) more expensive and 2) of a 5g serving you'd get 3.2g (CP) and 2g (CC) absorbed where as the mono has a 4.2 rating (4.2g of every 5g serving absorbed). This makes a mockery of some 'better absorption claims). Why pay more, as they aren't manufactured in as large amounts as the mono, to get less bang for your buck??

Creatine Malate or Tri-creatine malate is a compound made from creatine monohydrate and malic acid. The substance is so named because the compound is made from three creatine molecules attached to one molecule of malic acid. A quick look shows claims of greater absorption but these seem to be from a repeated company product information release. I could not find, on quick inspection, a reference to a study showing the same in the three such bits of blurb I saw.

Creatine Leucinate: I can only find one product with it in. That says enough right there. If it was 'all that' the other rival companies would be all over it. Just googling the second part of the name makes it look like creatine has been bonded to an amino acid. Whatever for?? Indeed these are the exact kinds of questions you need to ask.

Creatine Ethyl Ester: My company used to sell this. We no longer do. I've even used it and recommended it previously. Again I no longer do. Why?? Because it's as unstable as they come. Once again it was all about bonding a creatine molecule to something else to enhance it. But in doing so two things came up. One was the acid MAY rot your teeth (mind you you'd need to be swilling it around) and secondly tests showed that the bog standard mono version is reasonable stable in solution (water) for an hour or so. CEE... not so much. It started to degrade quickly. Tests were carried out at pre-set intervals and the first was 20-seconds. It had already started to degrade noticeably then. Now, as per the way some studies don't make sense, I asked 'why would you at your creatine to solution and then just have it sit there?' but 20-seconds isn't that long. I add my mono to my tea and it takes that long for me to carry the cup back to my bed where I'll sip it. In the case of the acidic tasting CEE it'd have degraded before I got back to my bedroom.

Creapure: Info aimed at the newbs. Creapure Creatine IS CREATINE MONOHYDRATE. The Creapure name is a brand name. It is attached to a certain big Creatine producing German company who use what they call patented purifying process. In simple terms when Mono first hit the scene and even just a year or so back some of the cheaper Korean and Chinese versions were not quite as sterile as we'd might like our sports supplements to be. The German processors went out of their way to ensure a cleaner, purer product. Bog standard economy versions were tested and found to be 99.9% 'pure' and the Creapure version claims 99.99%. Those that favour the product argue that it's the 'what the hells the .01%' you need to worry about (toxins, heavy metals??). However, newbs seem to think that having the Creapure label means 'better results'. It does not. The makers of it do not claim that nor should anyone else. Even if it did, as I have said in the past, it's be only .01% better. That's like a 1mm improvement in size on my biceps. Un-frigging noticeable.

Doses. One of the Brink Zone articles (see below) is entitled 'more is not better'. I've previously written up some of the mistakes people make on my Whey Consortium forum Some are as silly as pouring powder into mouths then wondering why the subject gets dehydrated, headaches or stomach cramps (not enough water retard!!) to using as much as 50g a day - why??

If you don't mind the search and even with my accusing him (on MD) of being a bit of a one trick pony (he's not but he did go on about Creatine loads) then check out Will Brink's many articles and comments on Creatine. www.Brinkzone.com is the place. Use his search function.

Feedback appreciated