Help....Creatine Monohydrate vs. Creatine Ethyl Ester

[AJmuscle]

I'm finally gonna buy my first creatine supplement, but i was wondering what kind was better and gave more results....Creatine Monohydrate or Creatine Ethyl Ester (CEE)....What would you recommend, if you've tried both or just know one to be better, thanks!

[stealth_swimmer]

I would recommend Creatine Ethyl Ester because it is more easily absorbed by the body and you don't need as large doses with it. Howver, many still use creatine monhydrate because it is tried and true. Trust me though, creatine is not necessary. It works great for some of my friends, but I'm a non-responder and have made great gains without using it. i tried some for a while but there wasn't a difference from when I didn't use it. Anyway, go ahead and try some if you like. CEE is probably best.

[dbx]

.............. Howver, many still use creatine monhydrate because it is tried and true. Trust me though, creatine is not necessary. It works great for some of my friends, but I'm a non-responder and have made great gains without using it. i tried some for a while but there wasn't a difference from when I didn't use it. Anyway, go ahead and try some if you like. CEE is probably best.

It is indeed tried and true for responders. It is also MUCH cheaper. If you do respond, you'll be glad you tried it. It may not be necessary, but it sure as heck helps folks who respond.

[Dr. Doom]

It kind of costs the same,
Mono = $20 for 100 days assuming you take 10g a day
CEE = $20 for 100 days assuming you take 5g a day

I am going to switch over to mono again because of no bad taste.

If you dont respond, why not try:
1.6g Betaine Anhydrous
0.4g Glycocyamine

Both are dirt cheap in bulk, about $5 for per 100g of whichever one.

[dbx]

It kind of costs the same,
Mono = $20 for 100 days assuming you take 10g a day
CEE = $20 for 100 days assuming you take 5g a day

Pardon me Dr., but that's kinda voodoo math there. I only take 5g of mono per day which would make it 1/2 the cost of the CEE And actually, I take phos****en which is pure creatine mono and costs $15 for 200 servings (5g), making it even cheaper.

[Dr. Doom]

If you can, PM me on the phos****en source.

Sorry, I like Mono @ 10g, but 5 is definatly a good dose.

I am going for the Cell Tech x2 effect:
50g Whey
80g Carbs
5g Leucine
10g Monohydrate

WPI+Carbs+Leucine = Greater Insulin Response

[dbx]

If you can, PM me on the phos****en source.

Done.

[Dr. Doom]

Done.

Thanks.
Does Phos****en come with a scoop or no?

[dbx]

Thanks.
Does Phos****en come with a scoop or no?

No. You only need a teaspoon of it. It is pure pharmaceutical grade creatine mono.

[Bodybuilder2049]

id tottally reccomend creatine mono, it gave me the best results and i went through a whole tub of CEE and didnt get ****, and it tasted NASTY, stick with some mono nd youll be glad

[Dr. Doom]

No. You only need a teaspoon of it. It is pure pharmaceutical grade creatine mono.

That sucks
On the bottle it says 1.5 teaspoons for 5g Creatine.

[IntensityX]

I would recommend Creatine Ethyl Ester because it is more easily absorbed by the body and you don't need as large doses with it. Howver, many still use creatine monhydrate because it is tried and true. Trust me though, creatine is not necessary. It works great for some of my friends, but I'm a non-responder and have made great gains without using it. i tried some for a while but there wasn't a difference from when I didn't use it. Anyway, go ahead and try some if you like. CEE is probably best.

Creatine works for a lot and it doesn't work for some but the most important thing is that you are making gains period.

[deserusan]

This might help somewhat with regards to this debate.

Analysis

Over the past few years I have payed a lot of attention to supplement trends as my level of interest in competitave natural bodybuilding has grown. Competing naturally requires a lot of research into what supplements are legal and what is not by whatever federation you choose to compete in. One of the best supplements out there is creatine monohydrate and their are numerous studies supporting it's efficacy. However, one recent trend I have witnessed is companies and young aspiring bodybuilders touting the superiority of creatine ethyl ester over creatine monohydrate.

Creatine ethyl ester is merely creatine monohydrate with an added ester attached to make the creatine molecule more lipopholic. In theory, this would make the absorption more efficient and possibly would require less CEE to serve as an ergogenic aid.

Personally, I have used both CEE and monohydrate with great success. However, the recomended doses of CEE (2.5 grams) never seemed to have the same effect as the recommended dose of monohydrate (5.0 grams). To me this seemed a little odd considering the claims of most CEE products. When I started to experiment with higher doses of CEE (5 grams) I noticed similiar effects to that of monohydrate at the equivalent dose. Something wasn't adding up here.

Upon further reading on monohydrate, because no ethyl ester studies exist, I came across one that studied the physiological differences between monohydrate responders and non responders. This intrigued me because it actually shows that monohydrate isn't inefficient given a certain set of physiological values with regards to pre-existing creatine and phosphocreatine levels in muscles, muscle fiber cross-sectional areas (CSA), the prevalanace of type II muscle fibers, and the amount of fat free mass.

Type II muscle fibers are also called fast twitch muscle fibers. Olympic sprinters may have up to 80% fast twitch fibers while a marathon runner may have up to 80% type I fibers (slow twitch). Both fiber types produce the same force but type II can fire more rapidly, hence the name fast twitch. Based on the the study I was referring to it appears those with a high type II fiber % respond well to creatine monohyrate and much more efficiently to those with a type I fiber %.

Also, it appears that those with larger muscle fiber (CSA) and fat free mass percentages are also better monohydrate responders. This means that if you have a high bodyfat percentage you might not respond well to monohydrate or if you have low muscle mass. Also, if you have smaller muscles in general you might not respond well.

For someone like myself, I do have a high percentage of fat free mass and therefore I respond well to creatine monohydrate. Also, I require the same amount of CEE to have the same ergogenic effects as monohydrate. I feel some companies have been pushing CEE a little too hard and have been addressing some of it's shortfalls for those who might not respond well, like me, by telling the consumer to take another dose.

It is my recommendation that any consumer out there interested in creatine supplementation try using the more basic form of creatine first, which is monohydrate. It is the only form of creatine that has been studied extensively and proven. CEE is a good choice for those who don't fit the physiological criteria stated above, however for general purposes, it is not "better" than monohydrate as many companies would lead you to believe.

Syrotuik DG, Bell GJ. Acute creatine monohydrate supplementation: a descriptive physiological profile of responders vs. nonresponders. Journal of Strength Conditioning Research. 2004 Aug;18(3):610-7.

Bizzarini E, De Angelis L. Is the use of oral creatine supplementation safe? J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2004 Dec;44(4):411-6.

Silber ML. Scientific facts behind creatine monohydrate as sport nutrition supplement. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1999 Sep;39(3):179-88.

[NATHAN518]

This might help somewhat with regards to this debate.

Excellent post

[jdubbya23454]

This might help somewhat with regards to this debate.

Thanks. Helped a metric butt Ton!

[WCC]

It kind of costs the same,
Mono = $20 for 100 days assuming you take 10g a day
CEE = $20 for 100 days assuming you take 5g a day

I am going to switch over to mono again because of no bad taste.

If you dont respond, why not try:
1.6g Betaine Anhydrous
0.4g Glycocyamine

Both are dirt cheap in bulk, about $5 for per 100g of whichever one.

If you can, PM me on the phos****en source.

Sorry, I like Mono @ 10g, but 5 is definatly a good dose.

I am going for the Cell Tech x2 effect:
50g Whey
80g Carbs
5g Leucine
10g Monohydrate

WPI+Carbs+Leucine = Greater Insulin Response

10g creatine mono a day is a huge waste of both money and creatine.
studies have shown muscle creatine saturation can be maintained at daily amounts of as little as 0.03g/kg, so 5g is more than enough for the average person.
unless you're loading, there's no point in taking 10g a day - most of it'll just get pissed away and put unnecessary strain on your kidneys.

i like your idea of taking it with protein. studies have shown that you need a ridiculous amount of glucose to exert a strong enough insulin response to make a difference to creatine uptake (20g glucose per g creatine), but by mixing it with protein you can half this glucose requirement.

[SupplementTruth]

Creatine Ethylester Converts to Creatinine and Should be Avoided

Not long ago I wrote a blog called the “Creatine Graveyard” where I took a look at the various “high tech” forms of creatine (see list in the Graveyard blog) with a specific focus on Creatine Ethyl Ester (CEE) as a study had just been published putting CEE in a less than positive light.

The study found found CEE to be inferior to creatine monohydrate (CM) and so, CEE was dumped into the graveyard along with a bunch of others. No big shock to yours truly, additional research appears to confirm CEE is a poor choice for a replacement for CM, and now we have this latest study that finds CEE converts to creatinine (which has no ergogenic effects), which = people using CEE are throwing their hard earned $$$ away as far as I am concerned.

This study concludes “creatine ethyl ester is a pronutrient for creatinine rather than creatine under all physiological conditions encountered during transit through the various tissues, thus no ergogenic effect is to be expected from supplementation.”

In other words, as I’ve been saying for a long time now , stop wasting your money…

[HatedAn1mal]

Creatine Ethylester Converts to Creatinine and Should be Avoided

Not long ago I wrote a blog called the “Creatine Graveyard” where I took a look at the various “high tech” forms of creatine (see list in the Graveyard blog) with a specific focus on Creatine Ethyl Ester (CEE) as a study had just been published putting CEE in a less than positive light.

The study found found CEE to be inferior to creatine monohydrate (CM) and so, CEE was dumped into the graveyard along with a bunch of others. No big shock to yours truly, additional research appears to confirm CEE is a poor choice for a replacement for CM, and now we have this latest study that finds CEE converts to creatinine (which has no ergogenic effects), which = people using CEE are throwing their hard earned $$$ away as far as I am concerned.

This study concludes “creatine ethyl ester is a pronutrient for creatinine rather than creatine under all physiological conditions encountered during transit through the various tissues, thus no ergogenic effect is to be expected from supplementation.”

In other words, as I’ve been saying for a long time now , stop wasting your money…

Great post, thanks for the awareness.