creatine?????????????

[WillBrink]

Originally posted by deftone
LMFAO.....You are Consulting Sports Nutrition Editor for Let Live....
That GNC'S Magazine...

I started Physical for them and do a column for them. If you have problem with that, feel free not to read my stuff. I am probably the most unbiased person in the industry.

Will

[WillBrink]

Originally posted by Hounddog
I stick to just plain ole creatine dude. I have no faith in any of these "better creatines".

Define better creatine.

[megadeth]

Welcome Will!

I am really surprised that so many of the guys on the board haven't heard of you. (Funny too, because just a few posts ago, I was called a newbie because I haven't posted here much)

This guys has been writing for the mags forever, formulated supplements and consulted the pros. I remember starting to hear about him in the early 90's fom MM2k. I bought "Priming the anabolic environment" later and was very impressed. He is very knowledgable and from all that I've read about and from him a, stand up guy.

Not kissing his ass, just telling the truth.

[Butter]

Originally posted by WillBrink
Define better creatine.

You obviously have done your fair share of research, I would assume. What would the advantages be of the following creatines:

1. creatine monohydrate
2. creatine anhydrous
3. creatine pyruvate
4. creatine citrate
5. tricreatine malate
6. tricreatine citrate

In terms of effects, assuming all are of the highest quality and purity, and not price, what would be the BETTER CREATINE in your unbiased opinion, because obviously there is a difference between these compounds listed.

[WillBrink]

Originally posted by Butter
You obviously have done your fair share of research, I would assume. What would the advantages be of the following creatines:

1. creatine monohydrate
2. creatine anhydrous
3. creatine pyruvate
4. creatine citrate
5. tricreatine malate
6. tricreatine citrate

In terms of effects, assuming all are of the highest quality and purity, and not price, what would be the BETTER CREATINE in your unbiased opinion, because obviously there is a difference between these compounds listed.

Being the monohydrate form is highly absorbable (contrary to what some companies claim) and virtually all the studies to date showing benefits with creatine used, the monohydrate form, and potential advantages of the other forms are strictly theory. my vote would be for the monohydrate. By default, I see no reason to use anything but the monohydrate form at this time until there is any real data on the other forms. You could theorize why attaching creatine to a pyruvate or a citrate might have some benefits, but there are no comparative studies to show it. Creatine monohydrate is cheap, safe, effective, and very well researched. I don’t know why people keep trying to search for something they think is superior.

Will

[str8flexed]

I feel the same way about creatine...it's not like it has poor oral absorbtion or anything...it's hard to better something that's pretty damn good to begin with.
Peace

[happyday]

I'm on creatine anhydrous right now guys and feel it is superior. Don't know why. Will, do you have any theories about this? I've always done ok on creatine mono but I am getting fantastic pumps on this stuff.

[jweave23]

Unfortunately I think we all know that reinventing the wheel in the creatine business is profit motivated. Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Obviously innovation and improvement is what we as humans do, but sometimes we just get it right! I think everybody who wonders about this needs to do their own personal cost-benefit ratio analysis. Cost is money and time to research, basically any hassle that goes with taking a form of creatine not monohydrate. Everyone's money situation is different, so some are willing to pay for a slight edge, that should also be taken into account obviously.

Benefit being the noticeable difference between monohydrate and another form (those listed above). This would be taken from anecdotal experiences from others, personal trials, and raw data from testing.

I know I'm captain obvious here, but when I've done this I've never come out to anything other than monohydrate. Maybe this tricreatine from V12 could be a winner, but we need to experiment with tricreatine on it's own (too many variables in V12). Maybe someone has, I haven't heard though. Until then, monohydrate is good enough for me.

[WillBrink]

Originally posted by happyday
I'm on creatine anhydrous right now guys and feel it is superior. Don't know why. Will, do you have any theories about this? I've always done ok on creatine mono but I am getting fantastic pumps on this stuff.

I can't think of why to would make any difference. Didnt know anyone even sold anhydrous.

Will

[dio]

Originally posted by WillBrink
I can't think of why to would make any difference. Didnt know anyone even sold anhydrous.

Will

Derek just started selling it.

[str8flexed]

the attatchment of a water molecule to creatine in no way should make it better or worse than anhydrous creatine. Creatine is a phosphate donor and the addition of a hydrate should neither impare nor enhance this effect. The only way to improve creatine in my mind would be to find a way to improve transport into the cell or to find a way to MAKE the cell store more, this would be difficult however as you would be dealing with concentration gradients. The people that sell anhydrous creatine don't make any claims that it is superior which I commend them for. They merely state that there is more creatine per gram which is true...but i'm willing to bet that it end up that anhydrous is no cheaper than monohydrate.
Peace