BSN CellMass vs MuscleTech Cell-Tech
First of all, let me start off by saying that this comparison is purely based on the numbers. I'm not here to compare which ones works better, I really don't care because you can hear a million different opinions in a million other posts. If that's what you want then use the nifty little search feature.
Nobody cares what you think about their advertisements or the claims they make. Saying "dat dere Cell-Tech" is old, and makes you look foolish. And we REALLY don't care if you make your own creatine mix, if you can't afford the real deal then don't bother slamming a product. I don't use CellMass or Cell-Tech so I am just going to get to the point now.
And we all know sugars/dextrose/etc. all make creatine intake much better. Leave it alone.
BSN CellMass
http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/bsn/cell.html
1.4lbs (640g), $36.95, 40 servings
3g creatine ethyl ester malate, maltodextrin, sucralose
MuscleTech Cell-Tech
http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/mt/cell.html
2.0lbs, $23.79, 10 servings
4.3lbs, $39.99, 20 servings
6.7lbs, $57.49, 30 servings
10g creatine (creatine mono, dicreatine malate, creatine alpha-ketoglutarate), dextrose, various vitamins/minerals, taurine, alpha lipoic acid
Comparing weight this means to equal Cell-Tech, BSN CellMass would cost:
4.3lbs @ $113.49 (compared to $39.99 for Cell-Tech)
6.7lbs @ $176.83 (compared to $57.49 for Cell-Tech)
Not to mention any extra shipping costs to get those extra bottles of CellMass.
"But CellMass has 40 servings! Haha!". Yes it has 40 servings, but you are required to take 2 servings per day. This equals 20 real servings.
Comparing the cost of creatine per gram, it works out like this:
Cell-Tech 2.0lbs - (100g creatine) 23.8 cents per gram
Cell-Tech 4.3lbs - (200g creatine) 20.0 cents per gram
Cell-Tech 6.7lbs - (300g creatine) 19.2 cents per gram
CellMass 1.4lbs - (120 g creatine) 30.8 cents per gram
Cell-Tech suggests a loading phase for one week. CellMass claims no loading required. I won't argue the idea one way or the other because there is a pile of research for and against loading creatine. Do whatever works best for you.
Another interesting fact, on the BSN website they claim that CellMass' patent-pending CEM3 blend is "no bloat, no load, no cycle". But about 2 inches to the right of that claim the product specs suggest a minimum cycle of 6 weeks, optimal cycle of 12 weeks, and cycling off for 4 weeks. No cycle eh?
Winner: MuscleTech Cell-Tech
Now lots of people have made good gains on CellMass. And lots of people have made good gains on Cell-Tech. It's a matter of personal preference and some people are just non-responders to one or the other. But so many people complain about the cost of Cell-Tech, well just look at CellMass, much worse.
*All costs based on BodyBuilding.com listed prices as of 08/31/2006.
End of story. Flame on all you reps, trolls and shills.
|
|
Closed Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 54
-
08-31-2006, 06:37 PM #1Classic Lines
- Join Date: Jan 2006
- Location: Canada
- Age: 42
- Posts: 352
- Rep Power: 244
BSN CellMass vs MuscleTech Cell-Tech
-
08-31-2006, 06:41 PM #2GFH!!
- Join Date: Jun 2006
- Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States
- Posts: 2,262
- Rep Power: 1137
GREAT POST! considering the 4.3lb jug of cell tech has only 20 servings...........
-
08-31-2006, 06:44 PM #3Registered abUser
- Join Date: Aug 2006
- Location: ENOGGERA, QLD, Australia
- Age: 35
- Posts: 472
- Rep Power: 285
everyone knows celltech will make u 900 times stonger, ur muscles increase in size by 30 times,.....this is all by sitting on a couch drinking beer and eating chips
nah but serously i would go with the bsn due to qualityLast edited by irongrasshopper; 08-31-2006 at 06:50 PM.
-
08-31-2006, 06:53 PM #4Classic Lines
- Join Date: Jan 2006
- Location: Canada
- Age: 42
- Posts: 352
- Rep Power: 244
Quality in what way? That's a pretty vague statement. The production standards of both companies are both extremely top-notch.Originally Posted by irongrasshopper
-
-
08-31-2006, 06:53 PM #5Registered abUser
- Join Date: Aug 2006
- Location: ENOGGERA, QLD, Australia
- Age: 35
- Posts: 472
- Rep Power: 285
an even better supp would be xpand by dyamatize, it also contains no2 but even without is great for energy and good quality cee creatine
search it up on the forums and see all the great reviews it has gotten
-
08-31-2006, 07:01 PM #6Classic Lines
- Join Date: Jan 2006
- Location: Canada
- Age: 42
- Posts: 352
- Rep Power: 244
I'm sure it is. But this topic is comparing two particular products. Why bother cluttering it up with naming every other creatine product out there. You want the "Best Overall Creatine Product?" forum:Originally Posted by irongrasshopper
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=44607
-
08-31-2006, 07:03 PM #7GFH!!
- Join Date: Jun 2006
- Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States
- Posts: 2,262
- Rep Power: 1137
what exactly is your point to this thread..20 servings of cell mass cost 36.95..20 servings of cell tech costs 39.99
-
08-31-2006, 07:09 PM #8I Aim To Misbehave
- Join Date: Mar 2006
- Location: United States
- Posts: 7,874
- Rep Power: 55313
Dude the sugar is cell tech alone f***s up your kidneys. I am however looking foward to see what they have going with nitro-tech hardcore and cell-tech hardcore that they are working on.
PSN E-Go
Hold The Line
Love Isn't Always On Time.
-
-
08-31-2006, 07:10 PM #9Classic Lines
- Join Date: Jan 2006
- Location: Canada
- Age: 42
- Posts: 352
- Rep Power: 244
That you still get less creatine and none of the other beneficial ingredients. I thought it was quite obvious. Gram for gram CellMass is far more expensive.Originally Posted by jcilla26
-
08-31-2006, 07:12 PM #10GFH!!
- Join Date: Jun 2006
- Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States
- Posts: 2,262
- Rep Power: 1137
because there is alot of garbage in cell tech..and cell tech is mainly MONOHYDRATE which is absorbed way less then CEE like cell mass has in it
-
08-31-2006, 07:17 PM #11Back in full swing!!
- Join Date: Oct 2005
- Location: Michigan
- Posts: 913
- Rep Power: 360
Really.... Whats a more proven creatine again??Originally Posted by jcilla26
-
08-31-2006, 07:19 PM #12GFH!!
- Join Date: Jun 2006
- Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States
- Posts: 2,262
- Rep Power: 1137
monohydrate is more proven..but i said that CEE's absorbtion rate is higher than monohydrate
-
-
08-31-2006, 07:25 PM #13Classic Lines
- Join Date: Jan 2006
- Location: Canada
- Age: 42
- Posts: 352
- Rep Power: 244
Creatine mono + 75g dextrose (the proven optimal dose) absorbs much faster than creatine ethyl ester.
-
08-31-2006, 08:31 PM #14Registered abUser
- Join Date: Aug 2006
- Location: ENOGGERA, QLD, Australia
- Age: 35
- Posts: 472
- Rep Power: 285
hey stix why did u neg rep me???
cell tech is overpriced
cell tech hage huge amounts of sugar
they make outrageus claims that they cant back up
spend all their money on advertising instead of the product itself
muscletech already have a pretty bad reputation
their creatine mono is no better than any other product, infact in mine and alot of other peoples opinions cee is much more effective
they say they have ala(but scaming as they r it is mostly "s" type ala wich is practically useless compared to "R" type ala)
Originally Posted by WCC
is that enough reasons?
-
10-10-2006, 07:59 PM #15
Shill
This guy is clearly a shill.
Read this post:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...68&postcount=6
That is such a bad comparison, it is just awful.
300g Monohydrate = ~$7
2100g Dextrose = ~$5
Homebrewed Cell Tech can cost $15 tops for 30 servings. I personally do not see the need just for ALA or Chromium.
Cell MASS gives you 6g CEE daily, with close to 500mg Cinnulin-PF, which is very expenisve and good post-Workout, for $25-35.
Both product's aren't top notch IMO.
-
10-10-2006, 08:05 PM #16Classic Lines
- Join Date: Jan 2006
- Location: Canada
- Age: 42
- Posts: 352
- Rep Power: 244
Plenty of people love CellMass, plenty of people love CellTech. All I did was compare some numbers.
Not being a shill, I recommend anyone go read the post this random newbie linked to.
-
-
10-10-2006, 08:10 PM #17I Am Teh Lolrus
- Join Date: May 2006
- Location: Texas: swimming in a way that you can't detect...
- Age: 36
- Posts: 46,472
- Rep Power: 19965
CEE is absorbed better, but yeah for those who love mono but who would rather buy Cell Mass are just being haters on Muscle Tech. Cell Tech is fine if you take it post workout. I don't see why people complain about the sugar. Just use common sense. Anyway, I wouldn't use it because CEE is apparently the only kind of creatine that I've tried that has worked for me. I have beef with BSN though so I'm lookin to buy CEE AKG (a blend of two highly absorbably creatines)
-
10-10-2006, 08:10 PM #18You compared the numbers wrong and put Cell Mass at a disadvantage. There is one important compound in there, Cinnulin-PF. The other ingredients in the blend are just electrolytes, so you can conclude each serving has a comparable amount of Cinnulin as of nearly 2 capsules of Cinnulin-PF by Scivation. 60 capsules of Scivation Cinnulin PF cost $20, so that give Cell Mass a nice jump in price.Originally Posted by iDesign
So, bad comparison, and much more while we are going at it. Anyone who does not see this is blind.
-
10-10-2006, 08:16 PM #19F*ck Genetics!!
- Join Date: Mar 2004
- Location: NC
- Age: 37
- Posts: 1,532
- Rep Power: 293
are you on the muscletech payroll??
Placebo Is One Hell Of A Drug
-
10-10-2006, 08:20 PM #20Classic Lines
- Join Date: Jan 2006
- Location: Canada
- Age: 42
- Posts: 352
- Rep Power: 244
No. I receive nothing from any company for what I say around here.Originally Posted by music_man185
-
-
10-10-2006, 08:23 PM #21No, I am not.Originally Posted by music_man185
The other character might be.
Also, he denied my permission to start a poll.
Looking at his bodySpace, he has two people. Deserusan is possibly affiliated with MuscleTech, and the second character seems to be on a similar bandwagon.
Take a look for yourself. I am here to point out what is already there.
-
10-10-2006, 08:24 PM #22Oh, because I never seen anyone put into so much effort with such biased opinions, all for free.Originally Posted by iDesign
-
10-10-2006, 08:25 PM #23Classic Lines
- Join Date: Jan 2006
- Location: Canada
- Age: 42
- Posts: 352
- Rep Power: 244
You're obviously just someone with another account. I wouldn't be surprised if you yourself work for a supplement company. You created an account tonight and within an extremely short time period went around to every post spreading lies about me being a corporate shill.Originally Posted by smh31
-
10-10-2006, 08:27 PM #24Classic Lines
- Join Date: Jan 2006
- Location: Canada
- Age: 42
- Posts: 352
- Rep Power: 244
I am also a member of the Toronto Maple Leafs forums and have thousands of posts there. Does that mean I work for the Toronto Maple Leafs now? They don't pay me either but I still give biased opinions on that hockey team.Originally Posted by smh31
-
-
10-10-2006, 08:28 PM #25dragonpit
- Join Date: Apr 2005
- Posts: 388
- Rep Power: 0
cell tech is an awesome creatine if your going for the classic lets get fat and bloated offseason look.(which ive gotten most overall gains from) but most people go for the poster boy image and dont even care about competing so they have the typical goal of wanting to be 6' 200+ with 8%. lee priest use to do this all the time. sure its harder to diet but hey you get the best overall gains.
-
10-10-2006, 08:31 PM #26Cell Tech and Nitrotech combo provides 40g Whey, 11g Creatine, and 70g Carbohydrates post-Workout. That could be considered the ideal that newbies never hit, but it is not worth $100 or however much it costs.Originally Posted by dragonpit
-
10-10-2006, 08:32 PM #27Lies about you? Then why won't you let me start that poll about you.Originally Posted by iDesign
All the evidence I need is right on the boards.
I am not affiliated with any company either. You can run a check on my IP address. Either way, it is of no difference because you're the one that needs to prove yourself tonight.
-
10-10-2006, 09:30 PM #28Supplement killer
- Join Date: Feb 2006
- Age: 43
- Posts: 128
- Rep Power: 222
It's tricky the way you wrote this... It seems that your whole point was to try and make Cell-Tech seem cheaper by comparing weight. You said it yourself "$39.99 for 20 servings of CT," so I don't see "the big savings." Especially when CellMass is "$36.95" - ("But CellMass has 40 servings! Haha!". Yes it has 40 servings, but you are required to take 2 servings per day. This equals 20 real servings.)" and "All costs based on BodyBuilding.com listed prices as of 08/31/2006" If I had 4.3lbs of CellMass it would be somewhat over 60 servings compared to 4.3lbs of 20 servings with CT. You can be one sided all you want, just don't make **** look better than it is.Originally Posted by iDesign
-
-
10-10-2006, 09:43 PM #29
Thats exactly what I am saying. Cell Tech is loaded on Sugar, so it clearly packs more weight.
-
10-10-2006, 09:47 PM #30nom nom nom
- Join Date: Mar 2004
- Location: New York, United States
- Age: 44
- Posts: 28,068
- Rep Power: 57861
I'll moderate this debate because it is funny. For all you guys claiming CEE is absorbed faster than creatine monohydrate and dextrose please provide us with your data. Also, please provide with data that CEE is both safe and effective in athletes.............
"I just use my muscles as a conversation piece, like someone walking a cheetah down 42nd Street." - Arnold Schwarzenegger
Heretic....
Bookmarks