Quote:
Originally Posted by Gixxer82
I think he was saying, why use creatine with an enteric coating when monohydrate already has a good absorption rating.
|
CM is tried and true and everyone knows that, MST isn't a bulk seller, so there's no need to slap a sticker on 500g's of CM for us. Cutting edge ingredients and absorption aids has been the focus at MST.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RisingAgainst
cuz CM sucks balls 
|
CEE does, CM is still tried and true, way to throw logs on the fire...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneGnome
There is barely a gram of creatine per serving in here because you use different salts, with will have little difference in bioavailability anyway (since CM is already almost 100%).
Whoever wrote the writeup doesn't seem to understand CM's high absorption or that there is little conversion to creatinine in the stomach.
Thus, creatine does not need to be enteric coated, and you can't be sure the coat breaks down in the appropriate place and all is absorbed anyway.
It is unnecessary expense. CM is used in research and is effective and safe. Side effects are usually because of unnecessary high doses (only 3-4 grams for most people is sufficient).
|
CM's absorption is very well known, especially after the ISSN conference. The person that wrote the writeup understands this clearly, BUT CM wasn't used in this and CM idn't exactly the hot item, but it is the old standard for those that trry new creatines and end up turning back to good ole CM because it works. Trying new formulas, with absorption aids, and different coatings because certain forms of creatine DO degrade rapidly. I don't know why you assume the word creatine directly relates to creatine monohydrate. When someone says he's hittin up some test do you directly assume he's using cyp? No, everyone has their own different form, each with it's own different benefit.
Stop throwin logs on the fire RA, thats how things get sky high when they don't need to, lol.
