Creatine Nitrate, any good?

[JornT]

Will, you come in so many topics to say:

Substance X has no evidence in humans with significant positive results on relevant endpoints.

Now that is not a bad thing. However, I find myself getting annoyed with the fact that you manage to go back and forth for multiple posts in such topics without really saying anything or contributing to the topic after that first post.

A) WB: Substance X has no evidence in humans with significant positive results on relevant endpoints
B) other poster: yeah, but there is no human data yet, based on what we know, I expect...
C) WB: yeah, maybe: but, substance X has no.....

After which a couple more rounds of variants on B and C will be posted.

(and the same conversation gets repeated in another topic with another substance)

Here is my opinion: Make one good post with your view. If a substance hasn't proved itself, you can tell that. You can even add that although there are one or more MOA that might be usefull wrt bodycomposition, that it is just guessing that it actually translates in (significant) positive effects because or heck even negative effects because god knows what else it does in the body we don't know about.

After that, add your own expectation if you like. Like: 'it influences vasodilation, which indeed may be beneficial and I don't see any drawbacks. In conclusion: this substance looks to have promise on paper, but it has yet to be shown.'

After that, be done. Yes it is very likely that someone comes around who says that it has effects on X and Y, which in turn are likely to have positive influence on Y. The people who only go for evidence based substances already share your view, and the people who are willing to take the leap of faith will take it regardless if you go another round of B and C. Once you made your point about that it has not been shown effective, you can further speculate about the MOAs and effects, but no need to repeat yourself over and over.

I'm not saying this to hate on you or something, but you must have noticed this trend in your arguments as well. So this will only save you and everybody reading those topics time.

[WillBrink]

HOWEVER, you cannot dispute the ergogenic benefits of the nitrates themselves, bonded to creatine or not. you ask above if there is any data in relation to strength, performance, etc....and there is. Nitrates are a wonderful ergogenic aid and i am sure NO HYPE would post a plethora of studies to confirm that. Using creatine nitrate will lead to perfomance gains, period (and its not only because of the creatine).

I have read the studies, probably before they did as I know some of the authors involved in some of those studies. Nitrates show some promise for endurance athletes, but of course creatine does not generally help with endurance anyway in studies. Whether or not combining nitrates with creatine is beneficial to strength oriented athletes (increased LBM, increased strength, etc) remains to be shown, and as stated, we have many examples where compound #1 that has been shown to have some egrogenic effects + compound #2 that has been shown to have ergonenic effects, when combined, did not show additive ergonenic effects.

Happens all the time in the research. It's not rocket science. As I said, if a legit attempt to actually look at CN vs CM is taking place, then I applaud their efforts and support it.

[WillBrink]

Simple logic gets turned upside down and inside out in the supplement world because you are messing with people's dreams and their all important body image. T

Well said.

[WillBrink]

Will, you come in so many topics to say:

Substance X has no evidence in humans with significant positive results on relevant endpoints.

Now that is not a bad thing. However, I find myself getting annoyed with the fact that you manage to go back and forth for multiple posts in such topics without really saying anything or contributing to the topic after that first post.

Letting people know they are being scammed, baffled with BS, etc, is contribution to a thread. Sad you can't see that.

A) WB: Substance X has no evidence in humans with significant positive results on relevant endpoints
B) other poster: yeah, but there is no human data yet, based on what we know, I expect...
C) WB: yeah, maybe: but, substance X has no.....

After which a couple more rounds of variants on B and C will be posted.

(and the same conversation gets repeated in another topic with another substance)

(1) false. If that's the case for a supp/compound, then I will state that fact. Yes, that's the problem for most supps. (2) there are supps I defend all the time, because they have solid data and are worth using: CM, whey, n-3 lipids, etc. (3) no one has repeated themselves over and over in this thread then NoHype.

Here is my opinion: Make one good post with your view. If a substance hasn't proved itself, you can tell that. You can even add that although there are one or more MOA that might be usefull wrt bodycomposition, that it is just guessing that it actually translates in (significant) positive effects because or heck even negative effects because god knows what else it does in the body we don't know about.

After that, add your own expectation if you like. Like: 'it influences vasodilation, which indeed may be beneficial and I don't see any drawbacks. In conclusion: this substance looks to have promise on paper, but it has yet to be shown.'

If that's what people like NoHype et al would simply state, then there would be no reason for me to respond. That's all I ask for, vs leading people to think there's anything beyond speculation regarding X form of creatine.

After that, be done. Yes it is very likely that someone comes around who says that it has effects on X and Y, which in turn are likely to have positive influence on Y. The people who only go for evidence based substances already share your view, and the people who are willing to take the leap of faith will take it regardless if you go another round of B and C. Once you made your point about that it has not been shown effective, you can further speculate about the MOAs and effects, but no need to repeat yourself over and over.

Have you read this thread???? That's some bias you have. No hype repeats himself for pages and pages (and poor Neuron went along with it as long as he could stand it...) I have a handful of posts in this thread, and I'm the one repeating myself.

OK, what ever.

[DR_P]

Let's say it is 1929 and a patient suffers from Staphylokokkus infection and is going to die.

Alexander Fleming, who discovered the antibiotic properties of penicillin, says: "Hey Dr. Brink, here is Penicillin, I just discovered it two months ago. It effectively kills Staphylococcus and might help this poor patient to survive. If not treated, the patient will definitely die within 12 hours."

Dr. W. Brink: "Fleming, you are mentally masturbating. First conduct a clinical trial and demonstrate the effectiveness of Penicillin, then let three other independent groups repeat your study and confirm your findings, after that we can discuss."

Patient: dies.


The entire supplement is built on the fact that products are being sold that MAY have ergogenic effects and that proof is mostly lacking because there is insufficient funding of clinical trials.

Of course I do prefer supps that have strong evidence, but when something new comes to the market with sound science and some good reasons to try it out, then I ask myself: why not?

Having said that, a first study has already been finished that covers a certain aspect of creatinenitrate, and more studies are on their way covering further aspects.

Stay tuned!

[De__eB]

Well, that example isnt exactly parallel, given that we aren't talking life or death here, and you dont need supplements at all to make gains. I like proven stuff

[michael3435]

I have read the studies, probably before they did as I know some of the authors involved in some of those studies. Nitrates show some promise for endurance athletes, but of course creatine does not generally help with endurance anyway in studies. Whether or not combining nitrates with creatine is beneficial to strength oriented athletes (increased LBM, increased strength, etc) remains to be shown, and as stated, we have many examples where compound #1 that has been shown to have some egrogenic effects + compound #2 that has been shown to have ergonenic effects, when combined, did not show additive ergonenic effects.

example please? And don't say CEE because that does not dissociate in the gut.

creatine nitrate is a salt, meaning it dissociates in the stomach acid. 1+1=2....unless you have an idea for an MOA in which creatine somehow inhibits the perfomance effects of nitrate and/or nitrate inhibits creatine uptake (which you will not find). It is the same idea as dicreatine malate and other creatine salts on the market.

AT THE VERY LEAST, it is how neuron said where it is no different than ingesting the 2 compounds on their own.

Happens all the time in the research. It's not rocket science. As I said, if a legit attempt to actually look at CN vs CM is taking place, then I applaud their efforts and support it.

So you agree to the performance enhancing benefits of nitrates?

[Fcukyou]

Well, that example isnt exactly parallel, given that we aren't talking life or death here, and you dont need supplements at all to make gains. I like proven stuff

Same here, but we aren't talking about Double-T Sports or USP labs here, Thermolife always releases quality-innovative supplements, and after having tried C-BOL I ain't looking back

[De__eB]

Same here, but we aren't talking about Double-T Sports or USP labs here, Thermolife always releases quality-innovative supplements, and after having tried C-BOL I ain't looking back

Well, I wasn't really questioning the product, verdict is in, both creatine and nitrates work, even if they didn't have a synergistic effect, taking them both provides clear proven benefits.

[WillBrink]

Of course I do prefer supps that have strong evidence, but when something new comes to the market with sound science and some good reasons to try it out, then I ask myself: why not?

As "ThermoLife scientific advisor" you'll forgive my questioning your objectivity there.... I have no problems at all with people trying products that studies suggest may be of benefit. Have done it myself many times. The debate has NOTHING to do with it. Has to do with making specific claims for which there is not actual supportive data for. If you have a PhD in the sciences, then you know exactly what I am talking about, and so you are being intellectually dishonest here. If you don't know what I'm talking about, per many of the very astute comments by Neuron for example, then I question your knowledge level here.

Having said that, a first study has already been finished that covers a certain aspect of creatinenitrate, and more studies are on their way covering further aspects.

Stay tuned!

And if said studies are legit and relevant to the population being sold to, I will make sure to recommend it as worth trying for sure.

Again, debate is simple: claims are being made for which there is no data, and that's what bugs me. I look forward to any studies that get completed, and applaud and SUPPORT any company that gets such essential things done.

Selling products on hype, and pseudo science and bro science, hurts EVERYONE in the industry, user and seller alike, in the long run.

Good luck!

[GeneGnomeX]

I think the research is pretty positive that nitrates or at least nitrate rich beet root juice can increase stamina and endurance.

There have only been 3 very small studies so far, 2 of which measure performance. They have found a reduction in oxygen cost at submaximal exercise, which suggests time to failure in long distance running may be increased, but this needs to be directly tested. The other findings of an increased time to failure at intense exercise is likely to be small (as noted by the authors) when translated to sprinting time (covering a distance as quick as possible). So it seems of little significance for the real world at this point.

It is much too early to suggest nitrate would significantly improve endurance in general. More groups need to replicate in different contexts and larger studies need to be performed.

HOWEVER, you cannot dispute the ergogenic benefits of the nitrates themselves, bonded to creatine or not. you ask above if there is any data in relation to strength, performance, etc....and there is. Nitrates are a wonderful ergogenic aid and i am sure NO HYPE would post a plethora of studies to confirm that. Using creatine nitrate will lead to perfomance gains, period (and its not only because of the creatine).

I am unaware of this research, can you please post it.

[DR_P]

As "ThermoLife scientific advisor" you'll forgive my questioning your objectivity there.... I have no problems at all with people trying products that studies suggest may be of benefit. Have done it myself many times. The debate has NOTHING to do with it. Has to do with making specific claims for which there is not actual supportive data for. If you have a PhD in the sciences, then you know exactly what I am talking about, and so you are being intellectually dishonest here. If you don't know what I'm talking about, per many of the very astute comments by Neuron for example, then I question your knowledge level here.




And if said studies are legit and relevant to the population being sold to, I will make sure to recommend it as worth trying for sure.

Again, debate is simple: claims are being made for which there is no data, and that's what bugs me. I look forward to any studies that get completed, and applaud and SUPPORT any company that gets such essential things done.

Selling products on hype, and pseudo science and bro science, hurts EVERYONE in the industry, user and seller alike, in the long run.

Good luck!

There are scientific / pharmacy claims and there are marketing / supplement claims. They are not the same because they require entirely different levels of evidence in order to be justified. When you release a drug, you MUST provide a high level of evidence (RCT) with proper statistical power.
In supplements you are not required to do it. Just Nestle is NOT required to conduct a clinical trial in order to substantiate the claim that their cornflakes have an amazing taste.

Foods and food supplements require a much lower level of evidence than drugs and if animal studies show a working mechanism and individual people anecdotally report huge gains, or if there is any other evidence in support of an ergogenic effect, you are allowed to make claims based on the evidence you have.

Now, we can throw away all the good stuff we have and wait for RCT or we can try and use innovative products with solid science and evidence, despite the fact tha we still don't have evidence level 1A.

[JornT]

Letting people know they are being scammed, baffled with BS, etc, is contribution to a thread. Sad you can't see that.

Letting people know they are being scammed, baffled with BS, etc, is indeed a contribution to a thread....the first time. If you keep repeating yourself, you are forcing your 'opinion' on people. I say opinion because although you state the fact there is no evidence on humans on relevant endpoints, in combination with statements like in the quote above, I think it is clear that your opinion is 'thus people should not buy it'.

That is YOUR opinion. Some people are willing to take the leap of faith, and that is their right.

Besides, repeating that statement over and over especially icm that condescending tone is only counterproductive. That is called physiological reactance (it has been researched in humans and published!!! ) . The more you try to force your opinion on people, the less they will listen.

(1) false. If that's the case for a supp/compound, then I will state that fact. Yes, that's the problem for most supps. (2) there are supps I defend all the time, because they have solid data and are worth using: CM, whey, n-3 lipids, etc. (3) no one has repeated themselves over and over in this thread then NoHype.

1) You can state the fact, that is not my problem with you. My problem is that you keep repeating it. People don't accidently miss it the first five times or didn't get it. Nobody is going to say the sixth time: oh damn, really? So I can't know for sure it is effective? Damn, I better stop buying this stuff than. The people who share your view that only evidence based supplements should be bought (assuming that is your view), already have that view or will share it with you after the first time you highlight there is no supporting evidence. If people for whathever reason want to buy the product anyway, they are allowed to! Why don't you go to magazine stand and start telling everybody that from a rational point of view, they shouldn't buy a lottery ticket, because, on average, you will lose more than you win. See how many people you can convince. Some people might have other motives than what you think is smart. But that does not mean your VIEW is the right one.

2) so?
3) Don't point your finger to someone else. Whether or not NO HYPE repeats himself, does it mean that you have to? Do you want to have the last word that badly? Or do you want to keep on going untill finally he says: oh damn, I think you're right! It wont happen.

If that's what people like NoHype et al would simply state, then there would be no reason for me to respond. That's all I ask for, vs leading people to think there's anything beyond speculation regarding X form of creatine.

That is fair, but it doesn't change much. When you see NO HYPE et all making claims without the statement benefical effects on significant endpoint havn't been shown in humans yet, I have no problem with you doing so. But of you keep repeating it and trying to force others to accept your view, than it becomes annoying.

Have you read this thread???? That's some bias you have. No hype repeats himself for pages and pages (and poor Neuron went along with it as long as he could stand it...) I have a handful of posts in this thread, and I'm the one repeating myself.

Again, stop pointing the finger at others. My post is about you. I haven't said I like or don't like NO HYPE posting style. What do you want me to do, tell the whole forum how to post? I'm not telling you what you can and cannot post. I just noticed a trend in your arguments (which you should recognize as well) and tried to explain to you that because of your argumentation style, the endless rounds of 'B and C' are not going to result in much. I have absolutely no problem with you just posting 'A'. But if you are happy with how your debates are going and the end result of them, by all means keep going. I just think your wasting your own time and not really helping people with it. I'm not forcing my view on you

OK, what ever.

If only you could say this in your debates when they are going in circles.

[antithesis3]

There are scientific / pharmacy claims and there are marketing / supplement claims. They are not the same because they require entirely different levels of evidence in order to be justified. When you release a drug, you MUST provide a high level of evidence (RCT) with proper statistical power.
In supplements you are not required to do it. Just Nestle is NOT required to conduct a clinical trial in order to substantiate the claim that their cornflakes have an amazing taste.

Foods and food supplements require a much lower level of evidence than drugs and if animal studies show a working mechanism and individual people anecdotally report huge gains, or if there is any other evidence in support of an ergogenic effect, you are allowed to make claims based on the evidence you have.

.

This is a complete misstatement of what the law is on this subject. There are indeed different standards of proof, but that also depends on the claims that are made by the supplement. You see, if you make certain claims, they become regarded as medical claims, and this is what companies are prevented from doing, but they either disregard this provision, or they stretch it past reasonable examples. For example, if a company claims that there product increases free testosterone 200%, this is a medical claim and technically against the DSHEA.

Nestle does not have to provide studies for taste, because "Taste" is subjective. But if you say a product increases lean muscle mass in users of your supplement, you are making a definite claim, which must be backed up by specific evidence, and no, animal studies are not enough. People think this and they are dead wrong, it is just the FDA and FTC has their hands full and the cost of a class action lawsuit would exceed an award. so companies have been pretty much left off the hook and they have pushed the boundaries as far as possible.

[DR_P]

This is a complete misstatement of what the law is on this subject. There are indeed different standards of proof, but that also depends on the claims that are made by the supplement. You see, if you make certain claims, they become regarded as medical claims, and this is what companies are prevented from doing, but they either disregard this provision, or they stretch it past reasonable examples. For example, if a company claims that there product increases free testosterone 200%, this is a medical claim and technically against the DSHEA.

Nestle does not have to provide studies for taste, because "Taste" is subjective. But if you say a product increases lean muscle mass in users of your supplement, you are making a definite claim, which must be backed up by specific evidence, and no, animal studies are not enough. People think this and they are dead wrong, it is just the FDA and FTC has their hands full and the cost of a class action lawsuit would exceed an award. so companies have been pretty much left off the hook and they have pushed the boundaries as far as possible.

I agree with you, it actually depends on the kind of claims. however, not every claim is a "medical" claim. for example, there is a difference between the claim: "this is a testosterone-booster" and "this product increases testosterone in men by 200%".

The former claim can be everything and anything, it's not a medical claim, as opposed to the latter claim.

[antithesis3]

I agree with you, it actually depends on the kind of claims. however, not every claim is a "medical" claim. for example, there is a difference between the claim: "this is a testosterone-booster" and "this product increases testosterone in men by 200%".

The former claim can be everything and anything, it's not a medical claim, as opposed to the latter claim.

Actually the claim that a substance boost testosterone period is a medical claim under FTC guidelines because you (the figurative you) are asserting a direct medical benefit, ie, raised testosterone levels. I agree it becomes more murky at this end of the pool, but under a strict reading, saying a product will boost testosterone is a medical claim.

I suggest people use the following link to gain a better understanding about what is and is not permissible.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus09.shtm

Again, I hope Creatine Nitrate is a monumental success, and I do trust your endorsement of the product, you are quite sincere in your posting.

[DGreekStallion]

The parts of this thread that I understood were great.

Thanks Neuron and NO HYPE.

Great information.

[Peter LeDrew]

STOP!!!

...and admire Ledrew's avi. Lookin' good brosef.

haha, thanks cycle brosef! Tour starts tomorrow!!


I'm loving the cycling/running... I now have a wetsuit too... might to it all tomorrow. Lots of races ahead to keep me motivated and continuing to enjoy trying anything/everything safe, natural and healthy to maximize performance.

[BringnIt]

Let's say it is 1929 and a patient suffers from Staphylokokkus infection and is going to die.

Alexander Fleming, who discovered the antibiotic properties of penicillin, says: "Hey Dr. Brink, here is Penicillin, I just discovered it two months ago. It effectively kills Staphylococcus and might help this poor patient to survive. If not treated, the patient will definitely die within 12 hours."

Dr. W. Brink: "Fleming, you are mentally masturbating. First conduct a clinical trial and demonstrate the effectiveness of Penicillin, then let three other independent groups repeat your study and confirm your findings, after that we can discuss."

Patient: dies.


The entire supplement is built on the fact that products are being sold that MAY have ergogenic effects and that proof is mostly lacking because there is insufficient funding of clinical trials.

Of course I do prefer supps that have strong evidence, but when something new comes to the market with sound science and some good reasons to try it out, then I ask myself: why not?

Having said that, a first study has already been finished that covers a certain aspect of creatinenitrate, and more studies are on their way covering further aspects.

Stay tuned!

That is really an apt analogy in your mind?

[DR_P]

Actually the claim that a substance boost testosterone period is a medical claim under FTC guidelines because you (the figurative you) are asserting a direct medical benefit, ie, raised testosterone levels. I agree it becomes more murky at this end of the pool, but under a strict reading, saying a product will boost testosterone is a medical claim.

I suggest people use the following link to gain a better understanding about what is and is not permissible.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus09.shtm

Again, I hope Creatine Nitrate is a monumental success, and I do trust your endorsement of the product, you are quite sincere in your posting.

That's a great link you posted.

But with regards to my example of using the term "testosterone booster".

THis term alone does not necessarily imply that the product in question "raises testosterone", because the term "test booster" is a proprietary term, without a real scientific definition.
For example: A test booster might improve some physiological effects of natural testosterone, such as libido. This doesn't necessarily need to be accompanies by a genuine increase of testosterone levels.

Another example: A "test booser" might increase the ratio between free test and total test, or between test and estradiol. In both cases, total test can stay completely unchanged (or even hav absolute lower levels).

That's why I emphasized (ina greement with your post) that precise wording used in claims and ads is of utmost importance.

[DR_P]

That is really an apt analogy in your mind?

Well, this analogy had one purpose: to show that either

1. the supplement industry as a whole would be able to sell only 3-4 products (in total!) for which 'evidence level 1' exists (multiple randomised, placebo controlled human trials, with sufficient statistical power, as reflected in meta-analyses),

or

2. the supplement industry can continue to be a driving engine of discovering and inventing new products, based on lower evidence levels thersholds but with still enough scientific substantiation that they get a status as being "promising" for various ergogenic and other uses.

[BringnIt]

Well, this analogy had one purpose: to show that either

1. the supplement industry as a whole would be able to sell only 3-4 products (in total!) for which 'evidence level 1' exists (multiple randomised, placebo controlled human trials, with sufficient statistical power, as reflected in meta-analyses),

or

2. the supplement industry can continue to be a driving engine of discovering and inventing new products, based on lower evidence levels thersholds but with still enough scientific substantiation that they get a status as being "promising" for various ergogenic and other uses.

I think this argument has been semantic in nature from the start. My interpretation is that Neuron/Will Brink take exception to creatine nitrate being touted as definitively better than monohydrate without proper evidence, when it is in fact only theory.

[NO HYPE]

Spoken like a true bro-scientist as expected.

Don't need to be a scientist to realize the aforementioned [facts].

Which you clearly are not.

Let me know when you wake up Will. --> "I have learned much through neuron's degree of knowledge. His knowledge is accredited, mine however, is not."

The debate has NOTHING to do with it. Has to do with making specific claims for which there is not actual supportive data for.

Again, debate is simple: claims are being made for which there is no data, and that's what bugs me.

Whether or not combining nitrates with creatine is beneficial to strength oriented athletes (increased LBM, increased strength, etc) remains to be shown.

Claims? Did you [conveniently] forget the fact that I merely stated that CN elicits more physiological benefits than CM via enhanced vasodilatory mechanisms? So where did I suggest that CN would conclusively elicit better results than CM when pertaining to end point results i.e. bodycomp, strength, performance? * silence*

Nitrates show some promise for endurance athletes, but of course creatine does not generally help with endurance anyway in studies.

Speaking of mental masturbation, sounds like you realize the same thing that I do after all --> i.e. CN aquires some properties that can elicit more physiological benefits than CM alone can. Thanx.

[DR_P]

I think this argument has been semantic in nature from the start. My interpretation is that Neuron/Will Brink take exception to creatine nitrate being touted as definitively better than monohydrate without proper evidence, when it is in fact only theory.

Will Brink has a point, no question. But, there is a difference between theories with extremely poor evidence and theories with a fairly good amount of science backing them up.

For example creatinenitrate: trials on creatinemonohydrate are all positive, trials on dietary nitrate are positive as well. Bind nitrate to creatine makes creatine much more water soluble = improved intestinal absorption and less gastrointestinal irritation. In stomach fluid, both components, creatine and nitrate, dissociate from each other and can do what they have already been found to do in separate clinical trials.

Is this a direct evidence? No.
Is it a relatively strong evidence.? Oh yes.

It's much diffetent from many supplements that are backed by much weaker evidence or by no evidence at all.

[BringnIt]

Will Brink has a point, no question. But, there is a difference between theories with extremely poor evidence and theories with a fairly good amount of science backing them up.

For example creatinenitrate: trials on creatinemonohydrate are all positive, trials on dietary nitrate are positive as well. Bind nitrate to creatine makes creatine much more water soluble = improved intestinal absorption and less gastrointestinal irritation. In stomach fluid, both components, creatine and nitrate, dissociate from each other and can do what they have already been found to do in separate clinical trials.

Is this a direct evidence? No.
Is it a relatively strong evidence.? Oh yes.

It's much diffetent from many supplements that are backed by much weaker evidence or by no evidence at all.

Stating it is promising is one thing, and not the issue at hand, at least in my mind. While nitrates do seem to merit a look into, I would hardly consider it established fact that they improve body composition, strength, or anything we would be generally concerned with. I have only seen the two small studies done that Genome alluded to, and neither were evidence of uses other than potentially boosting aerobic capacity.

I have no issue with people trying nitrates, recommending them, or whatever they so choose, but there is no proof in my mind that creatine and nitrates are additive, although maybe I am missing something.

I am a bottom line sort of guy. Theories are well and good and have their place, but theories often don't pan out, and ABC logic is generally the reason why.

[kincaid82]

Wow i just stumbled across this post, and have to say, i learned some things, and also found out how Spirodex can make you focus like a MOFO. Of course i am at the office and have not gotten a thing done in the last 30 min or so.

[GoldenGains]

Creatine monohydrate does not compare to creatine nitrate whatsoever. There are simply more physiological benefits to creatine nitrate.

Why should he start out with plain ol' mono, when he can recieve better results from creatine nitrate?

What are you basing this on? Please post links of the studies proving this.

[Neopragmatist]

What are you basing this on? Please post links of the studies proving this.

Read further...

[Whatsupwhatshap]

Creatine Nitrate is 100% Bro Science, and that is why thermolifes request on a patent has been turned down numerous times, and will continue to be turned down.

Bro science product from a bro science company.

[Whatsupwhatshap]

Well, this analogy had one purpose: to show that either

1. the supplement industry as a whole would be able to sell only 3-4 products (in total!) for which 'evidence level 1' exists (multiple randomised, placebo controlled human trials, with sufficient statistical power, as reflected in meta-analyses),

or

2. the supplement industry can continue to be a driving engine of discovering and inventing new products, based on lower evidence levels thersholds but with still enough scientific substantiation that they get a status as being "promising" for various ergogenic and other uses.

Option number 1. there are only 3-4 proven effective product divisions, after that it's all bro science and marketing.