I just found this. It's a few months old but still good - originally posted on UK-Muscle:
Today I had the long-awaited call with Paul Greenhaff. He was very relaxed about the call, not at all concerned about the readership and happy to answer any questions. Please appreciate the answers are based on Paul's research, that of his peers, the knowledge he has gained through his work and his own opinions. You may not agree with the answers, but hey that's life.
I won't write one word answers to the questions, as it wouldn't give the general feeling for the conversation, I'll try to summarize as best I can....
Types
On the subject of the various different types, this is all hype/gimics (bull**** to use Paul's real term). Most of these products boast an improved absorption rate into the cells, when actually all of them are broken down to basic creatine phosphate in the gut and so its the same compound by the time it reaches the cell wall, irrespective of its nature when its started the journey (if you get what I mean). The limiting factor for creatine uptake is at the cell wall, as creatine phosphate, and not as CEE, Kre- etc etc. Absorption in the gut is rapid, and is not a problem at all. 30 mins after ingestion, the blood plasma levels rise to about 20x resting levels, which is far more than sufficient for the rate it can enter the cell at. ie you don't particularly need high blood plasma levels.
Loading / Entry to Cell
Most efficient and effective method remains 20g per day for 5 days, split into 4x5g, each one with 80-100g of simple sugars (thats about 500ml of Lucozade). The one thing that can significantly improve the movement across the cell wall, is the ingestion of the simple carbs, this stimulates the sodium potassium pumps and improves the uptake across the cell wall. Adding an esther, or buffering the creatine has no effect at all. As he put it, its the quickest way to link your bank balance with the sea!
Cycling/Toxicity
No evidence whatsoever that cycling is necessary either from a point of continued effectiveness of the supplement, or for renal health. Despite the sheer volume of creatine sold worldwide, there remains no evidence of renal damage unless a pre-existing renal condition was present. And there is no evidence that the effectiveness reduces over time, ie no resistance builds up. So no need to cycle.
Dependence
Not really studied. Any supplement can illicit training adaptations that if beneficial, will probably stop when the supplement is withdrawn. Doesn't necessarily indicate any dependence.
Water Retention
This is real, but is not extra-cellular in Pauls view. In exercising people, creatine facilitates glycogen storage and this directly causes water retention within the muscle cells. So the water retention that occurs is positive in his opinion.
Combining with other Products
There is no evidence as far as he knows that other products improve the effects of creatine, just the benefits of taking with simple carbs.
Asked him about Nitric Oxide pre-cursors or L-Arginine and he said that product in itself really is unproven, the only evidence proving L-Arginine's effects was done on dogs and in huge concentrations (I told him I think it works!)
Breakdown
Talked about creatinine and he says its not a good marker for the breakdown of supplemental creatine, but could indicate that some of the creatine itself has degraded to creatinine prior to ingestion, or as an indicator of renal damage per se. ie creatinine is a marker for creatinine presence, not for creatine breakdown.
Muscletech
No relationship with them, they funded some research into insulin and muscle protein metabolism in the past, its normal for manufacturers to do this. Paul doesn't endorse any product, and when questioned on difference between brands, answered he hasn't come across any brand that is better than others (simple pure creatine monohydrate varies little).
Other
There is some new research into L-Carnitine and ingestion with sugars to give an insulin response. I'll try and locate Paul's study and post it. Its supposed to be interesting. And then current research in general is focused on understanding less about the effects of products, and more about what is happening at a molecular level and then working back from there.
In general, not an awful lot has changed with creatine in 10 years and the research done in the '90s pretty much established the facts. His advice for using creatine for bodybuilding, go back to basics, stop ****ing your money into the sea and use creatine monohydrate in the way that has been proven countless times. Also, for us as individuals, be as critical as possible about the products you are using and don't get sucked in by any hype.
Showing posts with label Creatine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Creatine. Show all posts
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
Sunday, 21 March 2010
the worst website for advice I've ever seen
And to make it double - they're serious: http://www.creatine-monohydrate.org has so much mis-information it makes your eyes water.
Among side effects, according to them, is penis shrinkage... why and how is not explained. Another is that creatine 'takes water from the muscle cell' when in fact its action is to pull water in. Another comment was that the body uses amino acids for energy... remind me what carbs and fats are for then!!
They also contradict themselves left, right and centre.
Avoid like the plague.
Among side effects, according to them, is penis shrinkage... why and how is not explained. Another is that creatine 'takes water from the muscle cell' when in fact its action is to pull water in. Another comment was that the body uses amino acids for energy... remind me what carbs and fats are for then!!
They also contradict themselves left, right and centre.
Avoid like the plague.
Monday, 11 January 2010
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?
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?
Sunday, 22 November 2009
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:
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
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
- 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
Monday, 2 November 2009
Offering up old news as new
And this weeks favourite is a combination of 'BSN under fire' and 'news' about CEE (Creatine Ethyl Ester).
The BSN part relates to a story from February where someone filed a paper accusing BSN of making false claims about a form of Creatine they said was in one of their products. The result of which was they couldn't prove it even existed as they described it. So only 10 months old... do keep up people.
The CEE part relates to it degrading into a waste product, Creatinine, in solution VERY quickly. Far, far more quickly than mono. So even those products with bells and whistles added will do the same. You'll get more from the additives than from the CEE. This news is from... 2007!!
Both snippets came from the Brink Zone.
The BSN part relates to a story from February where someone filed a paper accusing BSN of making false claims about a form of Creatine they said was in one of their products. The result of which was they couldn't prove it even existed as they described it. So only 10 months old... do keep up people.
The CEE part relates to it degrading into a waste product, Creatinine, in solution VERY quickly. Far, far more quickly than mono. So even those products with bells and whistles added will do the same. You'll get more from the additives than from the CEE. This news is from... 2007!!
Both snippets came from the Brink Zone.
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
Updated... an article on Creatine 'wot' I wrote
Some time back and frustrated by daft questions on the odd forum I wrote this article I updated it today to cover 'bloat'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
