Enteric coated creatine

[RisingAgainst]

Originally Posted by GeneGnome

Again, my main point is, why attempt to enhance the absorption of something that is nearly 100% absorbed? It adds cost.

thats like asking why people buy ferraris and rolls royces... to compensate for little dicks dude.... LOL jk seriously though, think about it... its how our economy works, there always has to be something bigger better and badder, this is next in line for creatine, just like bugatti is whats hot in the car world... and midgets are the "IN" thing for porn...

why have creatine monohydrate when you can have <insert 20 prefixes>creatine<insert 20 suffixes>?? It's not always the fact that its not the BEST thing since sliced bread, moreover that its something new to try that may work better for the person using it. I personally loathe the fuck out of CM... and I don't care for CEE... so what do I use? fuckin testosterone cyp... LOL

[LLLLern]

Originally Posted by B-natural

I am llllerning, so lets not fuel things too much, I have some research, but don't have access to the big dawgs of pubmed and the like for full backing... just google and abstracts

lol

[GeneGnome]

Originally Posted by RisingAgainst

why have creatine monohydrate when you can have <insert 20 prefixes>creatine<insert 20 suffixes>?? It's not always the fact that its not the BEST thing since sliced bread, moreover that its something new to try that may work better for the person using it. I personally loathe the fuck out of CM... and I don't care for CEE... so what do I use? fuckin testosterone cyp... LOL

I wouldn't even care then if they would admit that. But read the writeup claims and what the other rep is saying in response to me here: Millennium Sport Technologies CRE-O2 Write-up and FAQ - Page 3 - Bodybuilding.com Forums

They are claiming (not B-nat) that you only need a low dose of enteric coated creatine salts because this is effectively absorbed while monohydrate is not. Along with a host of other absurdities.

[RisingAgainst]

Originally Posted by GeneGnome

I wouldn't even care then if they would admit that. But read the writeup claims and what the other rep is saying in response to me here: Millennium Sport Technologies CRE-O2 Write-up and FAQ - Page 3 - Bodybuilding.com Forums

They are claiming (not B-nat) that you only need a low dose of enteric coated creatine salts because this is effectively absorbed while monohydrate is not. Along with a host of other absurdities.

lol thats cuz someone is lost?? I dunno bro, I didnt read it, but my guess is that he's a lost sheep trying to stave off the wolves by sounding like he knows his shit and is in too deep and has to stuck with his bullshit... LOL but thats just my perspective on the situation... I think we got it covered on whats REALLY going on, and how badass I am.. hahahah jk

[Right Hook]

Lol at least you were offered a tester spot.

[Millennium 1]

Originally Posted by GeneGnome

A recent product came out with this claiming a large amount of creatine is destroyed in the stomach and enteric coating will allow for the utilization of more creatine and thus the dose requirement decreases.

However, creatine monohydrate absorption is nearly 100%

Deldicque L, D?combaz J, Zbinden Foncea H, Vuichoud J, Poortmans JR, Francaux M. Kinetics of creatine ingested as a food ingredient. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008;102:133?143. doi: 10.1007/s00421-007-0558-9.

They claim the conversion to creatinine in the stomach is significant. From the same article:



Creatine monohydrate is effective, safe, inexpensive, and extensively studied.

This product use only 2g total of creatine, which of monohydrate itself may not be sufficient for some people, but they also attach other molecules which would increase the dose requirement because of molecular weight. Thus this will not be enough creatine to significantly increase muscle creatine.

And, we don't know if the enteric coating will break down in the appropriate place.

Do not be fooled!

GG, I'll give you a chance here to state that perhaps your conclusion is premature and slightly irresponsible at the moment. You did post some info that had merit over at bb.com but as with all clincal data it can be flawed and or countered by the plethera of clincal data showing the exact opposite. We can argue creatinine numbers for the next week and still not agree. The first thing you posted here was flawed as this was taken from a "hypothetical hypothesis" of stability of creatine and was obviously done on paper in 1926 & 1928 when the Jaffe Reaction method for calculating creatinine certainly had its analytical limitations and GC wasn't invented until the 1950's and HPLC wasn't invented until the 1960's (I believe). It isn't gospel by any means nor is the majority of creatine data out there, otherwise it would all jive and as you know it doesn't.

That's not the important thing here. You claim this product "can't work" due to sheer molecular creatine weight numbers. If only it were that easy. I disagree and since the data isn't complete yet I would be irresponsible to post it.

Fact: Up to 99% of many non-mineral supplemental herbs and compounds are destroyed or rendered less effective by stomach acid making them less potent and beneficial to performance. The claim to fame with CRE-02 is the fact that the whole formula remains intact and undestroyed until it is rapidly diffused and absorbed in the small intestine. That is without any argument of creatinine conversion, creatine stability or absorption.

I am willing to discuss any amount of proprietary information or data up to this point you would like. Just pick up the phone and call or shoot me an email where I can call you.

Believe me, we aren't trying to fool anyone!

The enteric coating will and does breakdown in the appropriate place. There are USP and FDA standards requiring just that and CRE-02 conforms 100% to those standards, so let's not go there. That is an assumption not worth making because those numbers are concrete and not subject to debate.

[Millennium 1]

Originally Posted by RisingAgainst

and how badass I am.. hahahah jk

You are badass as usual Wayne!

[Millennium 1]

Originally Posted by GeneGnome

Again, my main point is, why attempt to enhance the absorption of something that is nearly 100% absorbed? It adds cost.

GG, I won't argue that the evidence suggests that creatine monohydrate is absorbed at nearly 100% on paper. They are measuring fecal and urine levels of creatine and creatinine and the creatine and byproduct are minimal. However this doesn't mean that it was completely absorbed intact or undestroyed, it just means that it was absorbed.

Like I mentioned in the bb.com thread. We tried using mono in this formula and it didn't work nearly as well for one reason or another.

[B-natural]

Originally Posted by GeneGnome

1.How are you going to beat a near 100% absorption by creatine monohydrate?
2.I never assumed that... your product has little creatine because you have to consider molar mass of the stuff you attach to it. Adding an H2O doesn't make up much of the total weight of creatine monohydrate but the gluconic acid in creatine gluconate sure does.
3. Which forms of creatine degrade rapidly, besides CEE?
4.Again, my main point is, why attempt to enhance the absorption of something that is nearly 100% absorbed? It adds cost.

I numbered these to answer accordingly without sounding like a ramble. so when I say 1,2,3 etc. it's not to be a jerk.

1. You may not beat a 100% absorption rate, I haven't seen the studies showing this, but I do support what is said by our company based on trust. Probably not the best statement here, but work with me, when I see the studies I'll share my thoughts then, like I said, I have ltd. access to what I can research....
2. Correct.... again, I await the research and will answer further when it arrives...
3. Kre-Alkalyn and CEE, both were supposed to be big hitters and as the studies furthered they seemed to crap out in a sense. KA, CM, and CEE were the big creatine derivatives in the study at the conference, as you know, and KA and CEE were the ones that degraded.
4. To stay cutting-edge, innovation, why not try something new, I mean if EVERY company tosses CM in their product (that works well with it or works in synergy with it) and doesn't try new things with absorption aids or new forms of creatine ppl may shy away from the very ingredient that is the most extensively studied in the industry. Here's where I'll sway and hopefully arrive back later, anyways, please follow.... Ok, how many ppl have walked up to you or how many conversations have you walked by and heard someone talkin about CEE or KA and how its helped them get amazing gains and/or amazing strength and you'd like to say do you know how rapidly that degrades and forms into creatinine in your body. Which they likely wouldn't understand and would either listen because you sound like you know a few things or they'd walk away because their "bro" who's a bb-er takes it and swears by it. Some ppl LITERALLY FEAR (sorry for caps, but it helps) the bloating from creatine, so if we can find new forms of creatine that are just as effective then why not include them, and keep everyone using the good ole powder that is creatine. Back to the topic, its a way to keep customers buying a product or ingredient that works, not trying to go for marketing ploys and seeing what we can get out of ppl while it lasts (like how CEE was sooooo awesome until the recent study that was revealed publically at the ISSN conference).

Originally Posted by GeneGnome

I wouldn't even care then if they would admit that. But read the writeup claims and what the other rep is saying in response to me here: