The Creatine Grave Yard

By William D. Brink
www.BrinkZone.com

Looks like another “high tech” form of creatine has got one foot
planted firmly in the creatine grave yard. What is the creatine
graveyard? It’s where forms of creatine – other then monohydrate
– go when either science has shown them inferior to monohydrate,
and or it’s life cycle of hype has come to and end.

I refer specifically to creatine ethyl ester (CEE). As with the many

“high tech” forms of creatine before it, all manner of claims
were/are made about how superior it is to creatine monohydrate
(CM). It always starts the same. First the company will invent a
long list of negatives about CM such as “poorly absorbed” or
“causes bloat” or “is not stable” and then goes onto claim their
form of creatine has solved all those invented negatives. The
problem is, the data already shows CM does not suffer from
virtually any of the negatives they invent, nor do they show their
form “cures” those negatives. Sellers of CCE for example claimed
CEE was better absorbed and utilized vs. CM, and that has been
shown to be nonsense.

There have been several in vitro (test tube) studies pointing to the
fact CEE is inferior to CM, but a recent study done in humans puts
a final nail in the coffin as far as I am concerned. This study is
titled “The effects of creatine ethyl ester supplementation
combined with heavy resistance training on body composition,
muscle performance, and serum and muscle creatine levels” The
full study is public access and can be read here:

CEE Study
Warning, the abstract is confusing and not well written. If you read
the full paper, it’s clearer. If you don’t have the time or interest to
read it, the take home is: although all subjects in this study (CEE
vs. CM vs. Placebo) experienced approximately the same effects;
they all had improvements in bodycomp and got stronger. Why?
Because they used untrained subjects in the study. Thus, a
drawback of this study was due to using untrained people, they
couldn’t differentiate between PL, CEE, and CM in terms of
effects on bodycomp and strength within that time period as
newbies always make fast progress in the beginning. No news
there.

However, the study did achieve the essential point, which is it

clearly showed the claims of CEE false: CEE had much higher
creatinine levels and lower muscle creatine levels compared to CM
in this study, thus, yet again, the claims by sellers of CEE that it’s
superior to CM and that CM is “poorly absorbed” or “causes
bloat,” or my favorite “CM is not stable,” etc are false. They also
looked at changes in water compartments (CEE actually had a
trend toward greater extra cellular water then CM BTW, so there
goes that stupid “no bloat” claim for CEE…) and other issues
claimed to make CEE superior, and it failed.

CEE is less stable then CM, increases creatinine to a much greater

extent then CM, and is inferior for increasing muscle creatine
levels to CM. This study is not perfect by any means, but when
combined with what else exists, and the counter studies sellers of
CEE offer (which is to say zero), well you don’t have to be a
scientist to see the writing on the wall there…

CEE will be added to the creatine graveyard with a ton of others all
claiming to be superior to CM which all started with big claims
and now sit in the grave yard.

Two essential points about the grave yard before we get to

that:
(1) Because they are in the grave yard does not mean they are
worthless. Some forms, such as magnesium creatine chelate for
example looked promising, but a head to head study with CM
found it no better. Remember, another form does not have to show
it’s the equal of CM, it has to show it’s superior to CM per its
claims. Forms such as creatine pyruvate and many others on the
list may be just as effective as CM, but not superior, so it comes
down to cost. Others on the list have in fact been proven inferior to
CM in studies, such as serum creatine, various liquid creatine
versions, and now CEE. Serum creatine was all the rage a few
years ago, and studies found not only was it inferior to CM in
every respect, it contained virtually no creatine! Of course, there
were still those on the various forums using ‘bro logic’ with “bro, I
don’t care what the studies say, it works like da bomb for me!”
posts, but I digress….Finally, other forms on the list simply lack
any data at all to compare to CM. The companies selling these
forms will routinely make claims of superiority with nadda for
hard data to support them. Therefore, it’s impossible to really
separate fact from fiction (i.e., marketing hype) to recommend
them.

Me, I will use what has literally hundreds of studies to support its
efficacy and safety over a form with zero data to support it’s
claims of superiority over CM. Thus, they get put into the grave
yard. Future studies may get them out of the graveyard, but I aint
holding my breath…

(2) CM is not perfect. It’s not very soluble, and in about 30% of
users, does not appear to work at all. At higher doses, generally
above 3g-5g or so in a single dose, can cause stomach upset for
some, among other small, but significant drawbacks for some
users. Therefore, I am in favor of continued research into improved
delivery technologies, improved forms of creatine, and so on. I’m
all for it, but as they say, don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining.
In God we trust, everyone else must show data. Hard data talks, BS
walks.

I could randomly take two forms from the list below, say dicreatine
malate and creatine ethyl carbonate ester and make dicreatine
malate creatine ethyl carbonate*, but would it be superior to CM?
Unknown as there would be no data. I could just invent a bunch of
unproven claims like others do and sell the stuff… Do companies
just invent a form of creatine for no other reason then it sound
“high tech”? Hell, one company (BSN) is currently in court over
one form they sell, called CEM3 or “Creatine Ethyl Ester Malate”
which according to the charges “does not exist and is impossible to
manufacture”! As I said, CM is not perfect and I am all for
continued research into improved (vs. just different!) forms of
creatine and or improved delivery technologies, but companies
should do their due diligence on these products and stop with all
the hype and CM bashing to sell unproven products.

So, without further delay, here is my current list for the creatine
graveyard:

The Creatine Graveyard List:

Creatine ethyl ester (CEE)

creatine pyruvate
creatine taurinate
creatine ethyl ester malate
creatine ethyl carbonate ester
creatine gluconate
creatine malate
dicreatine malate
tricreatine malate
creatine citrate
tricreatine citrate
Kre-Alkalyn
creatine phosphate
creatine alpha-ketoglutarate
creatine-6,8-thioctic Acid-ketoisocaproic Acid Calcium
(CREAKIC)
creatine pyroglutamate
“conjugated creatine” (Con-Cret)
magnesium creatine chelate
creatine anhydrous
dicreatine orotate
tricreatine orotate
creatine alpha-amino butyrate
creatine HMB
“titrated creatine”
“creatine serum”
“liquid creatine”

Also:

glycocyamine (precursor)
creatinol-o-phosphate (analog)

* = for the sake of an example. I have no idea if such a form is

chemically possible, nor do I care.

To leave your comments or read more, click below:

 The Creatine Grave Yard

See You In The Gym!

About Will Brink

Will Brink is a published author, magazine columnist and elite

personal trainer.

Will works with tactical law enforcement (SWAT) designing

programs that optimize their performance for the tough job they
do.

You can read free articles, watch videos and get involved with Will
at his hugely popular health and fitness website :

www.BrinkZone.com