To Load or Not to load? -- My calculations

[long_play_id]

Here's what I found out.

I was calculating if really loading costs much more, so I did calculations about the use of creatine. So here it is.

While Loading:
1st week - 20 grs * 6 = 120 grs
2-5 weeks - 10grams*4days+5grams*3days = 55 * 4 = 220 grams
Total = 340 grams if you load


Now if you don't load you'll have to do at least 30% more time to get the same results. Because as theory says, you get the same result, 30% faster.

Time:
5weels * 30% = 1.5 extra weeks with no loading
5weeks +1.5 weeks = 6.5 total of necessary weeks

Most people would do the whole 7 weeks, so we'll use 7.
1-7 weeks - 10grams*4days+5grams*3days = 55 * 7 = 385 grams, so it takes more grams to get the same results.

If you use loading cycles for 35 weeks and resting 2 weeks, you should've done 5
cycles.
35 weeks/7weeks = 5 cycles
5 weeks * 340 grams of creatine = 1700 grams of creatine


Now if it took 35 weeks with loading, then 35weeks*30%+35weeks= 45.5 weeks is how much it would take while not loading, 45.5weeks/9weeks=5.05 cycles

So 5 cycles*385 grams/cycle=1925 grams.

So to get the same results you use 225 more grams, though what makes it seem as if you spend more money is that if you load in 45.5 weeks you do 6.5 cycles which is 2210 grams. Therefore spending more money, BUT you get more gains.

IN reality, it costs less to get your goals but almost no one measures costs per goals, but per time. So if you are low on money, you won't load, and get the same results in a longer time but not spend as much (in relation to time, in relation to gains it'll cost you more).

If you load you get more lbs of muscle per grams of creatine. But you use more creating per week of use. When money is a limit, then don't load (and not gain as much), but when it isn't load and gain faster. And more cost effectively.

And yes, loading is NOT necessary to get the same results. But it'll cost you more to get your goals if you DON'T load, although you'll spend less in relation to TIME.

So if you load and therefore use shorter cycles, you should be OK.

If you care more about gains than money, then load. But if you care more about money than gains, don't.

P.S. Suppose you buy your 1kg creatine at 35 bucks, each 45.5 weeks you would spend 2210/1000 = 2.21
2.21*35 = 77.35 dollars
If you don't load
1925/1000 = 1.925
1.925*35 = 67.35 dollars
$77.35-$67.36 = $10

10$/45.5weeks = 22 cents a week.

So for that much a week, you'll get the same results 30% faster.

So you'll save 22 cents a week if you don't load. :| I think I'll keep on loading, Won't you?

[Rocki033]

sounds logical if you can assume what the facts about creatine effectiveness with both loading styles, which i assume are some what accurate.

[Fundamentals]

why are u going from 20 to 10 to 5? is this needed for optimum results? or cant u just go from 20g a week to 5g every day after that?

[shpongled]

Originally posted by long_play_id
Now if you don't load you'll have to do at least 30% more time to get the same results. Because as theory says, you get the same result, 30% faster.

Not theory. Hypothesis. Something is only a theory if it has experimental support. There is no experimental support for loading creatine. If you have some I'd like to see it. No study has shown increased benefit over 50 mg/kg.

I don't think creatine is expensive enough for this to be an issue. I wouldn't load because it makes no positive difference and could increase CreaT downregulation.

David

[long_play_id]

About the 20g, 10g and 5g.

20 g is each day in the loading phase.

10 g and 5 g is during maintainance, 10 g on workout days and 5 g on rest days. IN that calculation I was supposing a 4 day workout routine. Though maybe you'd use a 3 - 6 day slit routine, the proportions would be similar.

If you had read Big Cat's article about creatine, you'd see that it is something approved by the Cientific Comunity.

"You could potentially up the gains by 30 percent and will start seeing results much sooner. By over-saturating the area surrounding the muscle the body's need for homeostasis will try to equalize the normal ratio of things and increase the amount within the muscle. So loading is beneficial. " - Big Cat - http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/catcrea.htm

Also, I loaded in my cycle and went from 182 lbs to 200 lbs in 3.5 weeks, and didn't gain much fat, less than 15% fat, that's about 13-15 lbs of muscle at least.

[superspider]

and water.

[shpongled]

Originally posted by long_play_id
"You could potentially up the gains by 30 percent and will start seeing results much sooner. By over-saturating the area surrounding the muscle the body's need for homeostasis will try to equalize the normal ratio of things and increase the amount within the muscle. So loading is beneficial. " - Big Cat - http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/catcrea.htm

Really. You read it at bodybuilding.com so it must be truth. I've already said this twice in the past day, there is no scientific evidence for loading.

J Strength Cond Res 2001 Feb;15(1):59-62

The effect of 7 days of creatine supplementation on 24-hour urinary creatine excretion.

Burke DG, Smith-Palmer T, Holt LE, Head B, Chilibeck PD.

Department of Human Kinetics, St Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Since the discovery that oral ingestion of creatine leads to an increase in intramuscular creatine, its supplementation has become widespread. However, the dosage necessary to maximize retention and create significant increases in intramuscular creatine is poorly understood. In this study, 24-hour urinary creatine and creatinine levels of 20 university men's football players and 20 university men's hockey players involved in a resistance-exercise program and supplementing with creatine were collected and analyzed. In a double-blind, randomized design, 10 football players and 10 hockey players were randomly assigned to either the supplement or placebo group. Subjects provided a 24-hour urine sample twice during the study: once prior to supplementation (baseline) and the second 7 days after daily supplementation and resistance exercise. Creatine dosage was 0.1 g x kg(-1) lean body mass. The quantity of creatine ingested was compared with the amount excreted in the urine of those subjects supplementing with creatine and with placebo. Creatinine levels were compared between the first and second urine collection and between groups. Creatine and creatinine concentrations were determined using high-performance liquid chromatography. In 24-hours, 46% of the ingested creatine was excreted. There was no change in creatine levels for placebo subjects. Creatinine levels remained the same within groups at the first and second collection times (p < 0.05). Our findings indicate that when supplementing with dosages of 0.1 g x kg(-1) lean body mass or between 6 and 8 g at a time, approximately half of the ingested creatine gets excreted. Because there was no change in urinary creatinine, it can be assumed that enhanced degradation of creatine did not occur.

[Fundamentals]

Ok. I understand about the loading,maintenance and non workout days. But, to my knowledge this has the best and most econimical results: 20g a day for loading. Maintenance 5g a day.
You save more creatine and get the best results. i mean... forget about saving more creatine but is 10g better for workout days or just a waste? and if so... on non workoutdays is it better to take the whole 10 or just 5

[HankC]

Two comments on that study:

1. Okay, half the creatine you ingest is pissed away. My first question is is the amount of creatine pissed away always the same or is it always half? In other words, they should have did the same experiment with 0.05g, 0.10g, and 0.15g and seen if the same amount (not percentage) is wasted. If it's always around half, then loading might make sense because you would still be retaining the other half - which would be more if you were loading.

2. That was a MuscleTech funded research project. I don't know what that means but since MT is known for making big money on fairly absurd products research they fund is suspect IMO. It should be obvious to all that schools and other testing labs can produce whatever results they want based on who's paying for the work (look at Microsoft paid for benchmarks for a great example).

If you have a link to the actual study I'd like to see it - I can't find it.

[Paul Vitti]

one of the dumbest threads ive seen in my life....listen read the label and follow the directions. Point. blank. period.