Creatine Ethyl Ester - Bang or Bust

As you know I’m a big proponent of creatine for it’s ability to increase the anaerobic alactic energy system’s (phosphagen system) time to depletion. In the body, Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) is the the ultimate energy compound that all cells of the body use.

In producing energy, ATP is reduced to Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP). ADP can then be reconverted into ATP when it receives a P molecule from Creatine Phosphate (CP). So a greater pool of CP in the body allows this reaction to continue for a longer period before glycolysis is started.

Supplementing with Creatine Monohydrate (CM) supplies the body with additional Creatine which joins up with P molecules which have been released in the reaction where ATP converts into ADP.


Creatine Monohydrate has been studied exhaustively for more than 20 years. It’s safety and effectiveness has been well documented.

Companies looking to cash in on the effectiveness of Creatine as a nutritional supplement are always looking for a new compound that can bind to Creatine and be sold as safe and effective. Unfortunately most of these new products reach the market long before they undergo sufficient testing to be proven to be safe and effective.

Creatine Ethyl Ester

A relatively new entrance to the Creatine market is Creatine Ethyl Ester (CEE). CEE has been marketed and sold under many names including:

BSN CellMass
Xyience NOX-CG3
Higher Power Creatine Ethyl Ester
Controlled Labs Green Bulge
Universal Animal Pump


If the names of the products above weren’t enough to scare you off, check this out… at www.criticalbench.com, a supposedly well respected website on strength training, they have an article entitlted “Creatine Ethyl Ester Review & Information”.

You can check out the article for yourself here: http://www.criticalbench.com/Creatine-Ethyl-Ester-Review.htm

In this review they start off with a subtitle “Creatine Ethyl Ester Guide: Absorbed Better Than Regular Creatine Monohydrate!” This sounds like a fact to the uneducated reader. The article then goes on to discuss the well-known benefits of Creatine Monohydrate (CM). The article then suggests that a limiting factor in the effectiveness of (CM) is it’s absorption.

To clear up any confusion as to whether other more expensive and potentially dangerous forms of creatine are more readily absorbed than CM, a study comparing new forms of creatine in raising plasma creatine levels was published in the Journal of International Sports Nutrition on November 12, 2007; Volume 4, Page 17.

In this study which compared CM, Tri-Creatine Citrate, and Creatine Pyruvate, it was stated “Differences in bioavailability are thought to be unlikely since absorption of CrM is already close to 100%”, and in this study, CrM is the acronym for Creatine Monohydrate.

In essence, they’re making it clear that CM has a nearly 100% bioavailability, which basically means that www.criticalbench.com is full of MALARKY!

If you don’t know what “malarkey” means…

click here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malarky

Anyway…

The article goes on into some absolutely unrelated pseudo-whacky-mumbojumbo part-this, part-that science that tries to make the reader feel like the info is beyond their comprehension, so “obviously”, it’s important scientific stuff.

At this point they quickly come back to earth, speak in English, and tell the reader that whatever they were just speaking about means that “the dosage requirements will be lower and the esterified creatine will be absorbed better (that’s the MALARKY again), and that the infamous “creatine bloat” will be eliminated.

The article continues with some other garbage, but then the real unbelieveable part… you’re not going to believe this… they list a slew of scientific references to “support” their article on Creatine Ethyl Ester.


GUESS WHAT?

Not even a single reference of the nine listed references are about Creatine Ethyl Ester!!!!

Yes, you read that correctly!

Every single reference is about the effectiveness of Creatine Monohydrate!

So they’re trying to pass off the “Hypey” pseudo marketing science as real science to sell Creatine Ethyl Ester, and then when they actually list the “real” scientific references to supposedly support their position, they’re actually listing science that only supports Creatine Monohydrate.

What does this tell you? It shows that most people don’t read the references, but believe that if the company has listed some, then they “must” be telling the truth!


Rest assured, references that I list in support of THIS article actually support my position.


The latest information about Creatine Ethyl Ester to make you re-consider whether you would buy it or not was published just a few days ago and clearly demonstrates that Creatine Ethyl Ester is a pronutrient exclusively for CREATININE, not Creatine.

The study suggests, “that there are no physiological conditions that would result in the production of creatine from Creatine Ethyl Ester.”

For this reason, once again, I will reiterate the value of Creatine Monohydrate over all other forms of Creatine available on the market.

The following is a list of chemical-ish sounding names that are found in various products marketed and sold to be better than CM. This list is by no means exhaustive, but it will at least give you a few to watch out for:

Creatine Ethyl Ester
Tri-Creatine Malate
Tri-Creatine Citrate
Creatine Malate
Creatine Pyruvate
Creatine Ethyl Ester Malate
Creatinol-O-Phosphate-Malic Acid
Creatine Alpha-Amino-N-Butyrate
Creatine Gluconate
Creatine Ethyl Carbonate Ester
Tri-Creatine Orotate
Magnesium Creatine Chelate
Creatine Pyroglutamate
Creatine HMB


Of this list, not all are completely useless, but most are just significantly more expensive ways to get slightly less than you get from Creatine Monohydrate. The exception is Creatine Ethyl Ester, which as I’ve mentioned above turns into Creatinine not Creatine in the body.

Creatinine is a naturally occurring compound in the human body and is in fact a marker of kidney function. Eleveated levels can indicate kidney damage, however it is uncertain as to whether ingestion of substances that elevate Creatinine levels is safe or not.


Now that I’ve bashed all these other creatine products I will admit that CM is not perfect. In doses over 5g some people experience stomach upset, it doesn’t mix well in liquids, and roughly 30% of those who use it don’t find much benefit from it at all.

Personally, I’ve used it off and on for over 15 years in doses of 5g at a time, with sometimes as much as 20g in total per day without any stomach upset, and with great results. When I haven’t used creatine for a while 6-8 weeks, I can start up and usually get an additional lean mass gain of about 5-10 lbs depending on my calorie intake. I give CM a full 5 stars for effectiveness and bang for your buck. The prices are rock bottom these days. Just make sure you look for “Creapure” on the label. That’s the company that supplies the best powder to the supplement companies.


If you decide you want to try it, you should notice that you get an extra rep or two out on many of your sets. Over time this increases the training effect and you can experience significantly greater increases in strength and muscle growth.

The brands I trust for Creatine Monohydrate powder are Ultimate Nutrition, AllMax, ProLab, and Optimum Nutrition. They all use the Creapure product, and they all offer a micronized powder. Micronization reduces the size of the particles making it much easier to mix in liquids compared to the non-micronized powder which when added to water will just sit at the bottom.

In the end, if you choose to continue to dump your hard earned money into the hands of the people who manufacture these other forms of Creatine, be my guest… it’s your money, not mine!



References:


1. Spillane M, Schoch R, Cooke M, Harvey T, Greenwood M, Kreider R, Willoughby DS “The effects of creatine ethyl ester supplementation combined with heavy resistance training on body composition, muscle performance, and serum and muscle creatine levels.”, J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2009 Feb 19; 6:6

2. Jäger R, Harris RC, Purpura M, Francaux M. “Comparison of new forms of creatine in raising plasma creatine levels.” J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2007 Nov 12;4:17

3. Giese MW, Lecher CS. “Non-enzymatic cyclization of creatine ethyl ester to
creatinine.” Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2009 Oct 16;388(2):252-5


4. Giese MW, Lecher CS. “Qualitative in vitro NMR analysis of
creatine ethyl ester pronutrient in human plasma.” Int J Sports Med. 2009
Oct;30(10):766-70