Science behind creatine Monohydrate (pretty specific)

[Erosado17]

Alright as Ive looked online ive never really found a site that gave the true science of creatine so Im just gonna share a bit of knowlege i have. I know that everyone here knows about ATP so im not gonna talk to you like you are all dumbasses im just gonna be a little specific.

ATP (Adenosinetriphospate) can be looked at as 1 adenosine molecule with 3 phosphates attached. Because of the 3 phosphates it has a very high energy content. When ATP is used however, one of those phosphates break of and ATP becomes ADP (Adenosinediphosphate) one adensine two phosphates. When ADP is used another phosphate breaks of and ADP becomes AMP (Adenosinemonophosphate) one adensine molecule and one phosphate. Finally when this last phosphate gets broken off it is left with nothing but an adenosine molocule with has no energy. Eacher level of energy gets weaker.

What creatine does is it will quickly reatach phosphates to the adensine molocule in an attempt to keep up the levels of ATP. Personally i think that creatine is best used pre and post workout. I dont think that either is most efficent. Preworkout to keep ATP up during workout and Post to help with recovery.

I hope this bit if info has helped anyone out.

[PinZ]

excellent post! thankyou.

[loern]

Very basic, yet clarifying. :)

[BigTruckGuy3500]

But how does the creatine attach the phosphate bonds quicker? Do you happen to know the chemical makeup of creatine? I think that might have something to do with it. We're going to be studying the Krebbs cycle pretty soon in Biology, but I don't think my teacher will go over Creatine.

[Cylus]

Phosphocreatine itself doesn't attach the phosphate group to ADP; rather, it acts as a phosphate-donor/substrate for Creatine Kinase, which transfers the phosphate group from phosphocreatine to ADP.

[Dr Leucine]

creatine is made of 3 amino acids: glycine, arginine and methionine.

there is no reason to ingest creatine in the pre-exercise phase, as it takes a while for creatine to apear in the blood (± one hour)

[Big Cat]

Actually this is a rather simplistic representation of all that creatine is.

The structure of creatine, for reference is C4H9N3O2 or more specifically NH2-C(NH)-N(CH3)-CH2-COOH.

Creatine is indeed a phosphate donor that can, for an extremely limited timespan, regenerate ATP from ADP. ATP does not have a high energy content 'because it has three phosphates' but rather the process of creating ATP creates high energy bonds between adenosine and its phosphates, most energy being stored in the last bond. When the bonds are broken this energy is released.

But creatine is a much more versatile compound than that. It plays a key role in the proliferation of sattelite cells, which serve as nucleus donors for damaged muscle cells in the hypertrophy process. Some evidence suggests this effect is related through an effect on IGF and MGF. Creatine seems to also play a role in cognitive processes, likely via its phosphate-donor role.

The use of creatine post-workout also has an additional role, namely cell volumization. Increased intracellular creatine levels also increase intracellular water volume, cause cell swelling. Cell swelling has an effect on transcription processes that lead to hypertrophy, and an increased cell volume also indicates increased presence of substrates needed for maximal recovery.

And all that is just in a nutshell.

[Truth Speaker]

Give it up. creatine monohydrate is DEAD. Creatine ethyl ester HCL is the only way to go.

http://www.thermolife.com/Products-CrE2.html

You can find it for a good price right here on BB.com

http://bodybuilding.com/store/thermo/cre2.html

ThermoLife offers a money back guarantee, what more could you ask for?

[Big Cat]

Give it up. creatine monohydrate is DEAD. Creatine ethyl ester HCL is the only way to go.

http://www.thermolife.com/Products-CrE2.html

You can find it for a good price right here on BB.com

http://bodybuilding.com/store/thermo/cre2.html

ThermoLife offers a money back guarantee, what more could you ask for?

It's called scientific proof. That's usually what I ask for. Hence why this forum is called the supp SCIENCE forum and not the supp HYPE forum. First of all, accept that creatine is creatine. The effective product delivered is always creatine, which increases cellular creatine and phosphocreatine stores. Regardless. So any additions or changes or what have you not are purely for the benefit of better absorption, either from the digestive tract, or across the cell membrane. So to do that one needs accurate data comparing two types of creatine in equipotent doses and their effect on cellular cre and P-cre stores. Then one needs to factor in the price of the better product and calculate if using a higher amount of the lesser worth the same price or less doesn't yield better results.

So far such data has always favoured creatine monohydrate. As far this ethyl ester, its ALL hype. Not a single research document has surfaced showing any added benefit. Until such time, any claims concerning it are hot air and nothing more.

[flexster]

It's called scientific proof. That's usually what I ask for. Hence why this forum is called the supp SCIENCE forum and not the supp HYPE forum. First of all, accept that creatine is creatine. The effective product delivered is always creatine, which increases cellular creatine and phosphocreatine stores. Regardless. So any additions or changes or what have you not are purely for the benefit of better absorption, either from the digestive tract, or across the cell membrane. So to do that one needs accurate data comparing two types of creatine in equipotent doses and their effect on cellular cre and P-cre stores. Then one needs to factor in the price of the better product and calculate if using a higher amount of the lesser worth the same price or less doesn't yield better results.

So far such data has always favoured creatine monohydrate. As far this ethyl ester, its ALL hype. Not a single research document has surfaced showing any added benefit. Until such time, any claims concerning it are hot air and nothing more.

I bought into the CrE2 hype and Im not pleased with the results at all. I am a non-responder and I can say that creatine is creatine just as bigCat put it. Doesnt matter how you package it. So I will not be spending anymore money on any creatine product.

[DaddyR]

Good post BC! I've been away a while and all of this talk about the fancy-schmancy creatine esters had me wondering.

I've always responded very well to plain old creatine monohydrate, so I had been doubting that any of the more expensive new stuff would really be worth trying.

[BigTruckGuy3500]

I just want to point something out. The "high energy" bonds of the phosphates, are actually very weak bonds. It is because they are weak that they can be broken without the use of much energy, and when they break they release a net gain of energy. If they were very strong bonds held together with a lot of energy, it would also take a lot of energy to break them appart, yielding less energy available for work.

[Brinn]

What creatine does is it will quickly reatach phosphates to the adensine molocule in an attempt to keep up the levels of ATP. Personally i think that creatine is best used pre and post workout. I dont think that either is most efficent. Preworkout to keep ATP up during workout and Post to help with recovery.
Preworkout creatine likely won't help keep ATP up during your workout. There are a couple of issues. The creatine won't reach the muscles in time and it will arrive without a phosphate bond. Taking creatine in conjunction with a workout is so that uptake into cells is increased. It then has to be phosphorylated via the glycolytic and lipolytic pathways before it can have an effect on the ATP-ADP cycle.

[R_N_S]

i've taken 2 long cycles of creatine and have always taken it before hand, bout an hour before hand

because of it i was able to go in, do 3 sets of whatever kind of barbell bench, 3 sets of another variation of bench, and still get 2-3 good sets of dumbell bench in, taking it beforehand worked amazing for me, the volume i was able to do was very high, but it was mroe the fact that even though i had already done, 4, 5, 6, 7 sets of a bench press type exercise, i was still able to press weight like i was fresh, if i had a day of 5 sets of flat barbell bench, i was pressing that 5th set like i was fresh, and when i was on creatine i did all my bench press sets til failure, if i hadnt been on it 4 sets of bench until failure would tire my ass out like crazy, but on it i was upping weight 10-20 lbs a set and pressing it like i had just started......

so, i dont think it's useless to take it before hand, i've always thought about it as an energy related thing, it relates to ATP, you want more ATP when you work out, might as well have it in you while you lift

once this football season ends im going to try EAS's phosphagen HP before hand, and Prolab mono afterwards, i tried V12 and wasn't really impressed with it, im going to give this EAS stuff a shot as well as trying taking creatine before and after and see how it works out

[Dr Leucine]

It's called scientific proof. That's usually what I ask for. Hence why this forum is called the supp SCIENCE forum and not the supp HYPE forum. First of all, accept that creatine is creatine. The effective product delivered is always creatine, which increases cellular creatine and phosphocreatine stores. Regardless. So any additions or changes or what have you not are purely for the benefit of better absorption, either from the digestive tract, or across the cell membrane. So to do that one needs accurate data comparing two types of creatine in equipotent doses and their effect on cellular cre and P-cre stores. Then one needs to factor in the price of the better product and calculate if using a higher amount of the lesser worth the same price or less doesn't yield better results.

So far such data has always favoured creatine monohydrate. As far this ethyl ester, its ALL hype. Not a single research document has surfaced showing any added benefit. Until such time, any claims concerning it are hot air and nothing more.


Big Cat, it's time that you provide these people with an comprehensive overview of the available scientific papers. It's clear that some of the people who are visiting these forums do not have a clue of what they are talking about. If you need any help in obtaining the latest scientific articles, just let me know, because I have online access to most scientific journals...

good luck with the article

[DaddyR]

You gotta love the idea that placebo effect beats basic physiology! Anecdote over science... oh yeah! :rolleyes:

[Truth Speaker]

It's called scientific proof. That's usually what I ask for. Hence why this forum is called the supp SCIENCE forum and not the supp HYPE forum. First of all, accept that creatine is creatine. The effective product delivered is always creatine, which increases cellular creatine and phosphocreatine stores. Regardless. So any additions or changes or what have you not are purely for the benefit of better absorption, either from the digestive tract, or across the cell membrane. So to do that one needs accurate data comparing two types of creatine in equipotent doses and their effect on cellular cre and P-cre stores. Then one needs to factor in the price of the better product and calculate if using a higher amount of the lesser worth the same price or less doesn't yield better results.

So far such data has always favoured creatine monohydrate. As far this ethyl ester, its ALL hype. Not a single research document has surfaced showing any added benefit. Until such time, any claims concerning it are hot air and nothing more.

How's this buddy?

[Big Cat]

How's this buddy?

It's very pretty. Now if you could find a reference to show this to be actually true, with quantifiable data from a double-blind, controlled study, we'd be in business ...

Not that I don't appreciate you wanting to be in my face, I feel we have a little misunderstanding here as to what constitutes proof that can be traced back to a severe difference in our level of education.

[Big Cat]

Big Cat, it's time that you provide these people with an comprehensive overview of the available scientific papers. It's clear that some of the people who are visiting these forums do not have a clue of what they are talking about. If you need any help in obtaining the latest scientific articles, just let me know, because I have online access to most scientific journals...

good luck with the article

Well there was one study I couldn't get the full text of, if you could PM me your email addy i'll send you the reference, perhaps you can access it.

[Brinn]

How's this buddy?
It doesn't show why the cell membrane is impermeable to creatine and not to the ester. And the phosphocreatine molecule is missing a phosphorus atom.

[BigDubDeisel]

Im 5'8 and weight 187 will creatine help me burn fat? Can creatine define mucle?

[rizay]

Preworkout creatine likely won't help keep ATP up during your workout. There are a couple of issues. The creatine won't reach the muscles in time and it will arrive without a phosphate bond. Taking creatine in conjunction with a workout is so that uptake into cells is increased. It then has to be phosphorylated via the glycolytic and lipolytic pathways before it can have an effect on the ATP-ADP cycle.
Exactly...timing wise, post training for monohydrate is best, as Creatine phoshphate is reserved so you are helping to maintain what has been used up on a daily basis or during workout especially. Most people feel the rush of sugars when taking products such as cell tech or other dextrose based products, which gives them the idea that the creatine is helping...

But alas, I've had many arguments with Biochemistry professors in college about it's effectiveness during weight training and short burst activities.

[Wellcallmeroo]

if y'all want ATP then take jack3d..

[Skigazzi]

if y'all want ATP then take jack3d..

Really...you bumped a 7 year old thread to tell us that?

[Bakun]

if y'all want ATP then take jack3d..

Why would you do such a thing?!? Poor form billy

[sdlothrop]

Exactly...timing wise, post training for monohydrate is best, as Creatine phoshphate is reserved so you are helping to maintain what has been used up on a daily basis or during workout especially. Most people feel the rush of sugars when taking products such as cell tech or other dextrose based products, which gives them the idea that the creatine is helping...

But alas, I've had many arguments with Biochemistry professors in college about it's effectiveness during weight training and short burst activities.


I've had the same arguments. Creatine phosphate is known to limit short burst activity... a good example is to think of running a 200 m dash. You typically have enough CP to last 10-15 seconds. Your first 100 m will be faster than your second because of the creatine phosphate stored in your muscles. By the time you reach the second 100 m, your CP stores have been depleted. I dont know if supplementing with creatine would make it so you could store enough for 20+ seconds or have a more significant effect.

[Laura2robertson]

HOw can protein can build muscle?

[whitesox23]

The use of creatine post-workout also has an additional role, namely cell volumization. Increased intracellular creatine levels also increase intracellular water volume, cause cell swelling. Cell swelling has an effect on transcription processes that lead to hypertrophy, and an increased cell volume also indicates increased presence of substrates needed for maximal recovery.

And all that is just in a nutshell.
If cell volumization=hypertrophy, what about things like GMS? I believe neoron in another thread said that GMS did cause volumization and therefore microtrauma with the swelling, but not the kind that would lead to hypertrophy... What is different about monohydrate?

Give it up. creatine monohydrate is DEAD. Creatine ethyl ester HCL is the only way to go.

http://www.thermolife.com/Products-CrE2.html

You can find it for a good price right here on BB.com

http://bodybuilding.com/store/thermo/cre2.html

ThermoLife offers a money back guarantee, what more could you ask for?

Lol. Oh how times have changed...

[neuron]

If cell volumization=hypertrophy, what about things like GMS? I believe neoron in another thread said that GMS did cause volumization and therefore microtrauma with the swelling, but not the kind that would lead to hypertrophy... What is different about monohydrate?


GMS does not enter the cell in appreciable amounts (mostly through LPL via fatty transport). Creatine, on the other hand, has transporters and accumulates within the cell as creatine phosphate. GMS will cause fiber compression, whereas creatine will cause volumization. GMS only increases volume in the plasma compartment.

[whitesox23]

GMS does not enter the cell in appreciable amounts (mostly through LPL via fatty transport). Creatine, on the other hand, has transporters and accumulates within the cell as creatine phosphate. GMS will cause fiber compression, whereas creatine will cause volumization. GMS only increases volume in the plasma compartment.

Thanks for clarifying. So GMS doesn't actually enter muscle cells, but rather just sits outside them retaining fluid and compressing tissue with the increased pressure?

[neuron]

Thanks for clarifying. So GMS doesn't actually enter muscle cells, but rather just sits outside them retaining fluid and compressing tissue with the increased pressure?

Exactly. Here is a summary:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=578005611&postcount=31

[whitesox23]

Exactly. Here is a summary:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=578005611&postcount=31

Thanks. This was the thread I was referring to in my first post. I was looking for it but I couldn't find it to copy that pic.