Enteric coated creatine

[GeneGnome]

Originally Posted by Millennium 1

GG, I'll give you a chance here to state that perhaps your conclusion is premature and slightly irresponsible at the moment.

Once again, here is my argument:
-Enteric coating creatine is an unnecessary expense because monohydrate along with various other salts are absorbed well already.
-Your product is dosed at 2 grams total creatine salts, which makes the total creatine well below that, making the dose ineffective.

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.

Where exists this plethora of counter data? It would be a shame that the authors of the papers I browsed through completely missed a huge part of creatine research.

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.

Which the 2008 study supported with HPLC. Showing no significant creatinine conversion with a 2 gram monohydrate dose.

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.

I claim it can't work because the dose is too low. Ragnarok uses the same salts I believe with a 4.5 gram dose. That I have no problem with.

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.

Hm I don't know where you are pulling that number from, and I certainly can't take your word for it.

Regardless, you have to show that creatine salts are rendered less effective in the stomach acid.

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.

Fair enough i'll let this one go.

[Gixxer82]

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

mmhmmm and I use testE, eq, and dbol

[GeneGnome]

Originally Posted by Millennium 1

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.

What do you propose it is being converted to, then?

As the paper says, creatine spends most of its time in the intestine anyway and a small conversion to creatinine could occur there. Your product would not solve that.

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.

Ok but that doesn't tell me anything, how many testers, how you controlled certain variables, etc. You must understand my position, would you trust me with blind faith if I made subjective claims on efficacy?

[Right Hook]

Originally Posted by B-natural

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....

B-nat this is a pretty good starter (summarizes a few studies) regarding absorption rates:

Bodybuilding.com - Mark Tallon - The Truth About Creatine Stability!

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.

It almost seems as if the enteric coating would be better suited to KA and CEE since they do in fact degrade? For example:

Kre-alkalyn® supplementation has no beneficial effect on creatine-to-creatinine conversion rates

Tallon MJ1 and Child R2. Kre-alkalyn® supplementation has no beneficial effect on creatine-to-creatinine conversion rates. 1University of Northumbria, Sport Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.2Department of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom.

All American Pharmaceutical and Natural Foods Corp. (Billings, MT, USA) claim that Kre-alkalyn® (KA) is a "Buffered" creatine, is 100% stable in stomach acid and does not convert to creatinine. In contrast, they also claim that creatine monohydrate (CM) is highly pH labile with more than 90% of the creatine converting to the degradation product creatinine in stomach acids. To date, no independent or university laboratory has evaluated the stability of KA in stomach acids, assessed its possible conversion to creatinine, or made direct comparisons of acid stability with CM. This study examined whether KA supplementation reduced the rate of creatine conversion to creatinine, relative to commercially available CM (Creapure®). Creatine products were analyzed by an independent commercial laboratory using testing guidelines recommended by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP). Each product was incubated in 900ml of pH 1 HCL at 37± 1°C and samples where drawn at 5, 30 and 120 minutes and immediately analyzed by HPLC (UV) for creatine and creatinine. In contrast to the claims of All American Pharmaceutical and Natural Foods Corp., the rate of creatinine formation from CM was found to be less than 1% of the initial dose, demonstrating that CM is extremely stable under acidic conditions that replicate those of the stomach. This study also showed that KA supplementation actually resulted in 35% greater conversion of creatine to creatinine than CM. In conclusion the conversion of creatine to creatinine is not a limitation in the delivery of creatine from CM and KA is less stable than CM in the acid conditions of the stomach.

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).

Innovative or not something has to make sense on paper to first sell me on a product. I will admit its hard as hell to be innovative in this industry.

I was gonna say give er a go to gene, but would likely offer a different dosing scheme, but we'll see what pans out over there I guess. I'd rather work out something rather than just sayin here ya go, I mean the product can speak for itself but if you are skeptical of the product from the beginning you may only have a slight change of opinion in the end (I am referring to products in general and not just CRE-02 here).

Out of curiosity what would be your dosing scheme alteration?

[B-natural]

Well, simply up the dose, I'd have to justify it with different weight of the person, which would categorize things, I will be testing this soon and will be reporting my findings. For the dosing, it's like most other items, generally >160 would require minimal dose, 160-180 seems to be max or near recommended max dose, 180-200 would be full dose, and 200+ is usually 1.25x standard dose....
This is NOT what I am recommending for the CRE-02, I am just sayin in general this seems to be where ppl fall. Me being 180-185 in the usual, I usually do well with whatever the max recommended dose is, whereas my lifting partner (rare occasion lifting partner) is around 200 and does well with 1.25x the standard dose, or slightly less, i.e. if max dose is 4caps, he does well with 5....

[Cooker]

Interesting thread.

Thanks for all the info, especially the research on KA. I had not seen that before.

[B-natural]

Originally Posted by Travis

1.B-nat this is a pretty good starter (summarizes a few studies) regarding absorption rates:Bodybuilding.com - Mark Tallon - The Truth About Creatine Stability!
2.It almost seems as if the enteric coating would be better suited to KA and CEE since they do in fact degrade?
3.Innovative or not something has to make sense on paper to first sell me on a product. I will admit its hard as hell to be innovative in this industry.
4.Out of curiosity what would be your dosing scheme alteration?

1. Seems like a good read, it seems as most studies on absorption were done on KA, CEE and CM.
2. There are forms of creatine that the product works with and forms that it didn't, as was said, CM was tried and didn't work.
3. It'll make sense soon, its just a lot can't be released or pre-released, especially with ingredients, gotta limit copycats and the like
4. Dosing scheme will be recommended after I try out the product.

[GeneGnome]

Originally Posted by GeneGnome

What do you propose it is being converted to, then?

Bump

Originally Posted by B-natural

1. Seems like a good read, it seems as most studies on absorption were done on KA, CEE and CM.

There is at least one study on several other forms, but they had to increase the total dose because they yield less creatine versus monohydrate. Just like this product would.

2. There are forms of creatine that the product works with and forms that it didn't, as was said, CM was tried and didn't work.

Didn't work for who? How many subjects? Length of test period? How was efficacy measured?