Cee & Kre-alkyln Debunked!!!!

[str8flexed]

Creatine ethyl ester rapidly degrades to creatinine in stomach acid

Child R1 and Tallon MJ2

1Department of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom. 2University of Northumbria, Sport Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, DrChild@CR-Technologies.net

Creatine ethyl ester (CEE) is a commercially available synthetic creatine that is now widely used in dietary supplements. It comprises of creatine with an ethyl group attached and this molecular configuration is reported to provide several advantages over creatine monohydrate (CM). The Medical Research Institute (CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (CE2) provides greater solubility in lipids, leading to improved absorption. Similarly San (San Corporation, CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (San CM2 Alpha) avoids the breakdown of creatine to creatinine in stomach acids. Ultimately it is claimed that CEE products provide greater absorption and efficacy than CM. To date, none of these claims have been evaluated by an independent, or university laboratory and no comparative data are available on CEE and CM.

This study assessed the availability of creatine from three commercial creatine products during degradation in acidic conditions similar to those that occur in the stomach. They comprised of two products containing CEE (San CM2 Alpha and CE2) and commercially available CM (Creapure?). An independent laboratory, using testing guidelines recommended by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), performed the analysis. Each product was incubated in 900ml of pH 1 HCL at 37? 1oC and samples where drawn at 5, 30 and 120 minutes. Creatine availability was assessed by immediately assaying for free creatine, CEE and the creatine breakdown product creatinine, using HPLC (UV)

After 30 minutes incubation only 73% of the initial CEE present was available from CE2, while the amount of CEE available from San CM2 Alpha was even lower at only 62%. In contrast, more than 99% of the creatine remained available from the CM product. These reductions in CEE availability were accompanied by substantial creatinine formation, without the appearance of free creatine. After 120minutes incubation 72% of the CEE was available from CE2 with only 11% available from San CM2 Alpha, while more than 99% of the creatine remained available from CM.

CEE is claimed to provide several advantages over CM because of increased solubility and stability. In practice, the addition of the ethyl group to creatine actually reduces acid stability and accelerates its breakdown to creatinine. This substantially reduces creatine availability in its esterified form and as a consequence creatines such as San CM2 and CE2 are inferior to CM as a source of free creatine.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Kre-alkalyn? supplementation has no beneficial effect on creatine-to-creatinine conversion rates.

Tallon MJ1 and Child R2

1University of Northumbria, Sport Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 2Department of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom. DrTallon@CR-Technologies.net

All American Pharmaceutical and Natural Foods Corp. (Billings, MT, USA) claim that Kre-alkalyn? (KA) a ?Buffered? creatine, is 100% stable in stomach acid and does not convert to creatinine. In contrast, they also claim that creatine monohydrate (CM) is highly pH labile with more than 90% of the creatine converting to the degradation product creatinine in stomach acids. To date, no independent or university laboratory has evaluated the stability of KA in stomach acids, assessed its possible conversion to creatinine, or made direct comparisons of acid stability with CM.

This study examined whether KA supplementation reduced the rate of creatine conversion to creatinine, relative to commercially available CM (Creapure?). Creatine products were analyzed by an independent commercial laboratory using testing guidelines recommended by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP). Each product was incubated in 900ml of pH 1 HCL at 37? 1oC and samples where drawn at 5, 30 and 120 minutes and immediately analyzed by HPLC (UV) for creatine and creatinine.

In contrast to the claims of All American Pharmaceutical and Natural Foods Corp., the rate of creatinine formation from CM was found to be less than 1% of the initial dose, demonstrating that CM is extremely stable under acidic conditions that replicate those of the stomach. This study also showed that KA supplementation actually resulted in 35% greater conversion of creatine to creatinine than CM. In conclusion the conversion of creatine to creatinine is not a limitation in the delivery of creatine from CM and KA is less stable than CM in the acid conditions of the stomach.



I was at the ISSN conference when Mark Tallon presented these and I literally almost high fived him. It's about time this crap died!

Now no more of this "cee works bro & kre-alkyln works bro' bull****

-Layne

[TheNameless]

Yes!! good stuff.

[leonidas300]

I am not surprised at all.

[drxmn]

yuh oh

[catertroy08]

Creatine ethyl ester rapidly degrades to creatinine in stomach acid

Child R1 and Tallon MJ2

1Department of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom. 2University of Northumbria, Sport Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, DrChild@CR-Technologies.net

Creatine ethyl ester (CEE) is a commercially available synthetic creatine that is now widely used in dietary supplements. It comprises of creatine with an ethyl group attached and this molecular configuration is reported to provide several advantages over creatine monohydrate (CM). The Medical Research Institute (CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (CE2) provides greater solubility in lipids, leading to improved absorption. Similarly San (San Corporation, CA, USA) claim that the CEE in their product (San CM2 Alpha) avoids the breakdown of creatine to creatinine in stomach acids. Ultimately it is claimed that CEE products provide greater absorption and efficacy than CM. To date, none of these claims have been evaluated by an independent, or university laboratory and no comparative data are available on CEE and CM.

This study assessed the availability of creatine from three commercial creatine products during degradation in acidic conditions similar to those that occur in the stomach. They comprised of two products containing CEE (San CM2 Alpha and CE2) and commercially available CM (Creapure?). An independent laboratory, using testing guidelines recommended by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), performed the analysis. Each product was incubated in 900ml of pH 1 HCL at 37? 1oC and samples where drawn at 5, 30 and 120 minutes. Creatine availability was assessed by immediately assaying for free creatine, CEE and the creatine breakdown product creatinine, using HPLC (UV)

After 30 minutes incubation only 73% of the initial CEE present was available from CE2, while the amount of CEE available from San CM2 Alpha was even lower at only 62%. In contrast, more than 99% of the creatine remained available from the CM product. These reductions in CEE availability were accompanied by substantial creatinine formation, without the appearance of free creatine. After 120minutes incubation 72% of the CEE was available from CE2 with only 11% available from San CM2 Alpha, while more than 99% of the creatine remained available from CM.

CEE is claimed to provide several advantages over CM because of increased solubility and stability. In practice, the addition of the ethyl group to creatine actually reduces acid stability and accelerates its breakdown to creatinine. This substantially reduces creatine availability in its esterified form and as a consequence creatines such as San CM2 and CE2 are inferior to CM as a source of free creatine.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Kre-alkalyn? supplementation has no beneficial effect on creatine-to-creatinine conversion rates.

Tallon MJ1 and Child R2

1University of Northumbria, Sport Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 2Department of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom. DrTallon@CR-Technologies.net

All American Pharmaceutical and Natural Foods Corp. (Billings, MT, USA) claim that Kre-alkalyn? (KA) a ?Buffered? creatine, is 100% stable in stomach acid and does not convert to creatinine. In contrast, they also claim that creatine monohydrate (CM) is highly pH labile with more than 90% of the creatine converting to the degradation product creatinine in stomach acids. To date, no independent or university laboratory has evaluated the stability of KA in stomach acids, assessed its possible conversion to creatinine, or made direct comparisons of acid stability with CM.

This study examined whether KA supplementation reduced the rate of creatine conversion to creatinine, relative to commercially available CM (Creapure?). Creatine products were analyzed by an independent commercial laboratory using testing guidelines recommended by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP). Each product was incubated in 900ml of pH 1 HCL at 37? 1oC and samples where drawn at 5, 30 and 120 minutes and immediately analyzed by HPLC (UV) for creatine and creatinine.

In contrast to the claims of All American Pharmaceutical and Natural Foods Corp., the rate of creatinine formation from CM was found to be less than 1% of the initial dose, demonstrating that CM is extremely stable under acidic conditions that replicate those of the stomach. This study also showed that KA supplementation actually resulted in 35% greater conversion of creatine to creatinine than CM. In conclusion the conversion of creatine to creatinine is not a limitation in the delivery of creatine from CM and KA is less stable than CM in the acid conditions of the stomach.



I was at the ISSN conference when Mark Tallon presented these and I literally almost high fived him. It's about time this crap died!

Now no more of this "cee works bro & kre-alkyln works bro' bull****

-Layne

good stuff i love cm always did

[ZDub212]

Primaforce better stop selling bulk CEE then huh?

[drxmn]

Primaforce better stop selling bulk CEE then huh?

lawl i think most companies that have creatine products use either CEE or kre or both

[uhockey]

Interesting studies, but I don't think anyone ever said CM doesn't work.....and this really doesn't assess real world conditions, at all, as there are hundreds of other enzymes that could be potentially protective of Kre-alk or CEE in vivo.

[str8flexed]

Primaforce better stop selling bulk CEE then huh?

Marc has always told people he recommends monohydrate far and away over CEE and has never made outlandish claims regarding CEE. In fact he pretty much high fived Tallon (the researcher who did this study) at the ISSN conference and told him how awesome he thought the study was. We would both be happy to see this die and have people just buy monohydrate. IMO the purveyors of Kre-Alkyln have been just as bad or worse in their marketing nonsense.

-Layne

[str8flexed]

Interesting studies, but I don't think anyone ever said CM doesn't work.....and this really doesn't assess real world conditions, at all, as there are hundreds of other enzymes that could be potentially protective of Kre-alk or CEE in vivo.

which enzymes? and how would they be protective? I am not saying in vivo studies aren't needed, certainly they are; but i'm just a bit baffled by your statement

[drxmn]

Marc has always told people he recommends monohydrate far and away over CEE and has never made outlandish claims regarding CEE. In fact he pretty much high fived Tallon (the researcher who did this study) at the ISSN conference and told him how awesome he thought the study was. We would both be happy to see this die and have people just buy monohydrate. IMO the purveyors of Kre-Alkyln have been just as bad or worse in their marketing nonsense.

-Layne

i would like to see a study on the other creatine forms, especially the ones in the major creatine mixes, like sizeon, ragnarok, green magnitude, clout, etc

[punksurfer024]

great info!

[crucialkc]

in on one

[uhockey]

which enzymes? and how would they be protective? I am not saying in vivo studies aren't needed, certainly they are; but i'm just a bit baffled by your statement

Oh, I don't have any in mind, I'm just saying that these studies don't damn or debunk CEE or Kre-Alk entirely. You mention that a lot of bros picked up on those products, I'm just making the counterpoint that a lot of bros and fanbois will look at this post and instantly say "it DEFINITELY doesn't work."

I know personally the 2 times I used CM I felt bad on it, while I've never had that issue with any CEE product. I don't use creatine regularly, regardless, so it is not a big deal to me.....this just isn't a be-all-end-all "debunking."

[str8flexed]

my point is even if they do work somewhat; they are certainly no better than monohydrate. And their outlandish claims of 'no water retention' and the like is preposterous.

[smh31]

interesting studies but im not sold on them

[jdd48]

Well, results (for me) speak for themselves. I never had any type of results with mono, and had great results with CEE.

[str8flexed]

lol. this is going to end up being just like glutamine. Despite whatever REAL evidence, 'brotelligence' will always prevail

welcome to placeboville


population: you

[TheNameless]

lol. this is going to end up being just like glutamine. Despite whatever REAL evidence, 'brotelligence' will always prevail

welcome to placeboville


population: you

"There is evidence that up to 53% of a tracer dose of glutamine is removed on the first pass through the splanchnic bed, accompanied by a large increase in the rate of glutamine oxidation, presumably in the splanchnic viscera (15). However, in the present study, provision of glutamine orally was successful in elevating plasma glutamine at the peak concentration by 46%, which suggests that a substantial proportion of the oral load escaped utilization by the gut mucosal cells and uptake by the liver and kidneys."

Bowtell JL, Gelly K, Jackman ML, Patel A, Simeoni M, Rennie MJ. Effect of oral glutamine on whole body carbohydrate storage during recovery from exhaustive exercise. J Appl Physiol 86: 1770-1777, 1999;

..Just sayin (;

[drxmn]

lol. this is going to end up being just like glutamine. Despite whatever REAL evidence, 'brotelligence' will always prevail

welcome to placeboville


population: you

brotology?

[str8flexed]

"There is evidence that up to 53% of a tracer dose of glutamine is removed on the first pass through the splanchnic bed, accompanied by a large increase in the rate of glutamine oxidation, presumably in the splanchnic viscera (15). However, in the present study, provision of glutamine orally was successful in elevating plasma glutamine at the peak concentration by 46%, which suggests that a substantial proportion of the oral load escaped utilization by the gut mucosal cells and uptake by the liver and kidneys."

Bowtell JL, Gelly K, Jackman ML, Patel A, Simeoni M, Rennie MJ. Effect of oral glutamine on whole body carbohydrate storage during recovery from exhaustive exercise. J Appl Physiol 86: 1770-1777, 1999;

..Just sayin (;

Just sayin'...

that same study found NO INCREASE IN INTRACELLULAR SKELETAL MUSCLE GLUTAMINE. so it increases in the plasma and since it is obviously not taken up by skeletal muscle; it is merely being oxidized by the liver & other tissues. Additionally, infusion of glutamine has shown NO impact on protein synthesis or degradation so even if you bypass the gut, it does nothing to build/retain muscle.

[INGENIUM]

lol. this is going to end up being just like glutamine. Despite whatever REAL evidence, 'brotelligence' will always prevail

i have to agree...if there were studies on CEE/Kre Alk that supported them, then I can understand skepticism. Certainly the studies are not perfect and in vivo data would be helpful, but until such studies are presented i will take science over "real world feedback" everytime.

I am not a huge fan of CEE and i certainly don't find it any more effective than mono but in my personal experience with it, i found the results comparable to mono. So, i think it "works" just not better than mono as originally claimed. The wealth of science supporting the benefits of mono makes it my personal choice.

[Drabnak]

It's weird that I had similar results with, Kre-Alkalyn, CM and CEE. I would like to see a study done on other forms of creatine too.

[TheNameless]

Just sayin'...

that same study found NO INCREASE IN INTRACELLULAR SKELETAL MUSCLE GLUTAMINE. so it increases in the plasma and since it is obviously not taken up by skeletal muscle; it is merely being oxidized by the liver & other tissues. Additionally, infusion of glutamine has shown NO impact on protein synthesis or degradation so even if you bypass the gut, it does nothing to build/retain muscle.

Yes I know, I was not being pro-glutamine with my post...

[BabyBodybuilder]

i would like to see a study on the other creatine forms, especially the ones in the major creatine mixes, like sizeon, ragnarok, green magnitude, clout, etc

Same, but who would fund it? Not like any of these companies would put their products up to the test willingly

[TheNameless]

Same, but who would fund it? Not like any of these companies would put their products up to the test willingly

Gaspari did a few (I think)

[Segansational]

First, great find Layne. Should this be stickied?

i would like to see a study on the other creatine forms, especially the ones in the major creatine mixes, like sizeon, ragnarok, green magnitude, clout, etc

I agree, I'd love to see this with MCC and DCM. I personally can't do creatine mono because it makes my stomach upset so I'm using other types.

[INGENIUM]

First, great find Layne. Should this be stickied?



I agree, I'd love to see this with MCC and DCM. I personally can't do creatine mono because it makes my stomach upset so I'm using other types.

MCC performed very similar to monohydrate. of course, the additional magnesium is nice around workout time for other reasons...but...

Mg2+-creatine chelate and a low-dose creatine supplementation regimen improve exercise performance.

Selsby JT, DiSilvestro RA, Devor ST.

Section of Sport and Exercise Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.

We tested the hypotheses that, compared with a placebo group or creatine (Cr) group, a Mg(2+)-Cr chelate group would demonstrate improvements in the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) on the bench press and be able to perform more work at 70% of the 1RM for the bench press. Thirty-one weight-trained men were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to a placebo group (multidextran), a Cr group (2.5 g of Cr daily), or a Mg(2+)-Cr group (2.5 g of Cr daily). Baseline data were collected for the bench press 1RM and maximal work completed during a fatigue set at 70% of the 1RM. Following 10 days of Cr supplementation, follow-up tests were completed for the dependent variables. Groups were similar when the change in 1RM was evaluated either absolutely or relatively. Both the Cr and the Mg(2+)-Cr groups had significantly larger increases in work, both absolutely and relatively, when compared with the placebo group. Partial support for the hypothesis suggests that low doses of Cr are effective at increasing fiber Cr content, and consequently, performance. Further, the Cr and Mg(2+)-Cr groups were similar in both performance tests, suggesting that the proposed mechanism of entry is no better than the conventional method when 2.5 g of Cr is administered and performance is measured as work. This study raises the possibility that a low dose of Cr may be an effective means of enhancing performance after short-term ingestion.

[dvsness]

I am not a huge fan of CEE and i certainly don't find it any more effective than mono but in my personal experience with it, i found the results comparable to mono. So, i think it "works" just not better than mono as originally claimed. The wealth of science supporting the benefits of mono makes it my personal choice.

x2.

I have responded well to all the forms of creatine I've tried (though I never tried Kre-alk). I did get quite a bit of bloat the first times I used mono, when I was dosing it in excess. That problem has been solved, and is one reason I don't agree with the "5g for everyone!" recommendations I see often.
Mono is cheap and effective.

But I still <3 glutamine.

[TheNameless]

x2.

I have responded well to all the forms of creatine I've tried (though I never tried Kre-alk). I did get quite a bit of bloat the first times I used mono, when I was dosing it in excess. That problem has been solved, and is one reason I don't agree with the "5g for everyone!" recommendations I see often.
Mono is cheap and effective.

But I still <3 glutamine.

Why do you love glutamine?