Creatine Monohydrate ?

1994jacob

My friends have been raving about this stuff for weeks and claim its natural, but they also take stuff like jack3d and N.O shotgun (which I don't trust).

I'm considering buying the Creatine Monohydrate but wanted to ask you guys your thoughts on it and if you think its natural (well as natural as this stuff gets) and if you think its worth while.

p.s if you quoting any articles or if you know of any that might be useful can you please link them

Thanks Jacob

mrpink6789

You'll prob get some mixed reviews here.

Personally I have been using Creatine Ethyl Ester for the last 5 weeks, yes I definitely have found I have had more strength and have seen some size gains. However I have also been eating a lot more calories and increased my protein intake so maybe its that?

Im taking nothing next week and then Im going to try Monohydrate after that to see if I notice a difference.

My advice would be to just life heavy, eat more protein and increase your calorie intake, if you feel you could do with an extra push try it out to see what you think.

deadlybuzzman

1994jacob wrote: »

My friends have been raving about this stuff for weeks and claim its natural, but they also take stuff like jack3d and N.O shotgun (which I don't trust).

I'm considering buying the Creatine Monohydrate but wanted to ask you guys your thoughts on it and if you think its natural (well as natural as this stuff gets) and if you think its worth while.

p.s if you quoting any articles or if you know of any that might be useful can you please link them

Thanks Jacob

I think unless already training hard 3/4 days every single week and eating 1g+ protein bodyweight perday for the best part of a year Id say no.
define natural, everything you eat thats in a packet isnt natural

deadlybuzzman

mrpink6789 wrote: »

You'll prob get some mixed reviews here.

Personally I have been using Creatine Ethyl Ester for the last 5 weeks, yes I definitely have found I have had more strength and have seen some size gains. However I have also been eating a lot more calories and increased my protein intake so maybe its that?

Im taking nothing next week and then Im going to try Monohydrate after that to see if I notice a difference.

My advice would be to just life heavy, eat more protein and increase your calorie intake, if you feel you could do with an extra push try it out to see what you think.

Ive used both and the great news is after suffering the puke in a glass goodness of CEE I got mono and its tasteless. I read up a few things on CEE vs mono and there didnt seem to be as the theory of the CEE working faster with less of a loading period doesnt seem to hold up. The flip side of that is you wont notice any downside with the mono.
Gonna hit the mono again in feb and hopefully the extra water will finally get me up to 15 stone!! :pac:

Mellor

deadlybuzzman wrote: »

define natural, everything you eat thats in a packet isnt natural

Some subtances occur in nature
Some subtances are only exist by being synthesized in a lab.

Creatine does occur naturally, in red meat for example.
But the creatine you buy as a supplement is synthesized in a lab. Take from that what you want, it means nothing to me tbh.

Due to marketing and the media, being natural occuring is automaticly assumed to be positive. Which is not the case, some of the deadlyist subtances in the world are "natural"

Degsy

For me at least it doesnt work..save the money and buy some steak.

mailliw

Creatine does work, but it's only really effective on a course. What it does-effectively, is draw water into the muscles cells, so it increases your strength. Once you stop taking it, however the water will be excreted, so if you don't keep up a regular training regime your muscles will just shrink! I wouldn't advise taking it for any longer than a month, even that is a bit long.

COH

mailliw wrote: »

I wouldn't advise taking it for any longer than a month, even that is a bit long.

Why?

mailliw

COH wrote: »

Why?

Because the longer you take it, the more of your muscle becomes water, and the more work you'll have to do to retain the actual muscle tissue.

COH

mailliw wrote: »

Because the longer you take it, the more of your muscle becomes water, and the more work you'll have to do to retain the actual muscle tissue.

So if i take it forever my muscle will become 100% water?

mailliw

No, but you won't put on as much pure muscle as you would training without it.

COH

mailliw wrote: »

No, but you won't put on as much pure muscle as you would training without it.

Did bodybuilding.com tell you that too?

Whats pure muscle? Creatine makes fake muscle? I was under the impression that muscle tissue was muscle tissue. If creatine actually prevents you putting on 'pure muscle' then surely nobody should ever take it

Crasp

mailliw wrote: »

Creatine does work, but it's only really effective on a course. What it does-effectively, is draw water into the muscles cells, so it increases your strength. Once you stop taking it, however the water will be excreted, so if you don't keep up a regular training regime your muscles will just shrink! I wouldn't advise taking it for any longer than a month, even that is a bit long.

That's not what creatine does. Creatine provides a source of phosphate for donation to AMP or ADP to make ATP, the energy molecule.


A side effect of it is that it increases muscle hydration and thus bulks muscle slightly.

Degsy

mailliw wrote: »

Because the longer you take it, the more of your muscle becomes water, and the more work you'll have to do to retain the actual muscle tissue.

Oh for God's sake :rolleyes:

gymsoldier

Mono all the way, CEE is just marketing hype. Make sure you fully disolve your CM in warm water, any particals will not be fully absorbed and will pass trough you.

gymsoldier

mailliw wrote: »

Creatine does work, but it's only really effective on a course. What it does-effectively, is draw water into the muscles cells, so it increases your strength. Once you stop taking it, however the water will be excreted, so if you don't keep up a regular training regime your muscles will just shrink! I wouldn't advise taking it for any longer than a month, even that is a bit long.

Its hard not to get harsh when your posting ridiculas things like this.

kevpants

gymsoldier wrote: »

Its hard not to get harsh when your posting ridiculas things like this.

It's not ridiculous. Creatine creates water bloat. Do not underestimate the strength gains from bloat. Increased "muscle mass" is not just about lean hard muscle. Taking on water increases the mass of the muscle therefore creatine guarantees increased muscle mass.

When the creatine goes away so does the water, so does the size, so does the mass, so does SOME of the strength. The remaining strength is the true gain. It's probably not as much as you hoped.

gymsoldier

kevpants wrote: »

It's not ridiculous. Creatine creates water bloat. Do not underestimate the strength gains from bloat. Increased "muscle mass" is not just about lean hard muscle. Taking on water increases the mass of the muscle therefore creatine guarantees increased muscle mass.

When the creatine goes away so does the water, so does the size, so does the mass, so does SOME of the strength. The remaining strength is the true gain. It's probably not as much as you hoped.

Your portraying creatine as a miracle supplement, your not gonna "bloat" up on creatine as if your on a cycle on methandrostenolone. What you've just said is that any gains in mass will dissapear if creatine is stopped, therefore what you're saying is that ill get stronger but stay the same size. Only one person has talked about how creatine affects creatine phosphate and ATP in the muscle. Alot of people think they know what they're talking about on here but have no knowledge or credentials backing up what they've said.

Bottle_of_Smoke

The effect of short-term creatine loading on active range of movement.
Sculthorpe N, Grace F, Jones P, Fletcher I.

School of Sports Sciences, University of Bedfordshire, Polhill Avenue, Bedford, MK41 9EA, UK. nick.sculthorpe@beds.ac.uk

Abstract
During high-intensity exercise, intracellular creatine phosphate (PCr) is rapidly broken down to maintain adenosine triphosphate turnover. This has lead to the widespread use of creatine monohydrate as a nutritional ergogenic aid. However, the increase in intracellular PCr and the concomitant increase in intracellular water have not been investigated with regard to their effect on active range of movement (ROM). Forty male subjects (age, 24+/-3.2 years) underwent restricted randomization into 2 equal groups, either an intervention group (CS) or a control group (C). The CS group ingested 25 g.day(-1) of creatine monohydrate for 5 days, followed by 5 g.day(-1) for a further 3 days. Before (24 h before starting supplementation (PRE) and after (on the 8th day of supplementation (POST)) this loading phase, both groups underwent goniometry measurement of the shoulder, elbow, hip, and ankle. Data indicated significant reductions in active ROM in 3 movements: shoulder extension (57+/-11.3 degrees PRE vs. 48+/-11.2 degrees POST, p<0.01), shoulder abduction (183.4+/-6.8 degrees PRE vs. 180.3+/-5.1 degrees POST, p<0.05), and ankle dorsiflexion (14.2+/-4.7 degrees PRE vs. 12.1+/-6.4 degrees POST, p<0.01). There was also a significant increase in body mass for the CS group (83.6+/-6.2 kg vs. 85.2+/-6.3 kg, p<0.05). The results suggest that short-term supplementation with creatine monohydrate reduces the active ROM of shoulder extension and abduction and of ankle dorsiflexion. Although the mechanism for this is not fully understood, it may be related to the asymmetrical distribution of muscle mass around those joints.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20725117

gymsoldier

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20725117

Creatine makes you less flexible?

Doug Cartel

gymsoldier wrote: »

Creatine makes you less flexible?

I might have just dreamed this up, but I think there's another study that counters this. Anyone know if it exists?

drdeadlift

Im going to go look for studies to quote.

kevpants

gymsoldier wrote: »

Your portraying creatine as a miracle supplement

What?

How am I saying it's a miracle supplement? I think it's a bit of a waste of time TBH. It doesn't need to be miraculous to make you bloat. I've gone up a notch on my lifting belt in 24hrs thanks to McDonalds bloat for god sake.

gymsoldier wrote: »

your not gonna "bloat" up on creatine as if your on a cycle on methandrostenolone. What you've just said is that any gains in mass will dissapear if creatine is stopped, therefore what you're saying is that ill get stronger but stay the same size.

I've never actually been more misquoted in my life, I was referring to the mass associated with the water. That was the point of my post, water bloat is temporary but effective in making you bigger and stronger for that period. The remaining size and strength would be the net gain from Creatine. Actually it could be said it was the net gain from the training in that period also, another reason I doubt the effectiveness of it.

Why did you feel the need to drop "methandrostenolone" in there, what relevance is that? Menstruation and salt also bloat, going for a triple word score were we?

gymsoldier wrote: »

Only one person has talked about how creatine affects creatine phosphate and ATP in the muscle. Alot of people think they know what they're talking about on here but have no knowledge or credentials backing up what they've said.

That's because no one cares. I personally don't give any credence to someone outlining a supplements effectiveness quoting the chemical reactions and changes it causes and the knock on effects. I have no knowledge or interest in biochemistry etc and as far as I'm concerned most of the evidence that gets spouted could actually be made up.

Since I'm not qualified to critique a chemical analysis of how these things work I'm not going to accept it as an explanation.

ATP in my muscles? How many extra kilograms on my squat is there in 42 ATP's?

Kev M

kevpants wrote: »

ATP in my muscles? How many extra kilograms on my squat is there in 42 ATP's?

Oh well the probability of your current 20 rep max seeming perhaps marginally easier would be somewhat higher than without those 42 badboys however due to the million other factors to be taken into account this would be a pointless post.

Kev M

Creatine mono is good stuff. There's no reason, in my slow mind, to ever come off it really... "But oh god the gains aren't real!!".. yeah well come off protein and them gains won't have been real either...

gymsoldier

kevpants wrote: »

I have no knowledge or interest in biochemistry.

Since I'm not qualified to critique a chemical analysis of how these things work I'm not going to accept it as an explanation.

Point proven. Talk about something else you actually might know something about.

/thead

discus

whoops...

kevpants

gymsoldier wrote: »

Point proven. Talk about something else you actually might know something about.

/thead

/thead.

Kinda spoiled your big exit there.

dartstothesea

kevpants wrote: »

That's because no one cares. I personally don't give any credence to someone outlining a supplements effectiveness quoting the chemical reactions and changes it causes and the knock on effects. I have no knowledge or interest in biochemistry etc and as far as I'm concerned most of the evidence that gets spouted could actually be made up.

"Personally. I have no interest. As far as I'm concerned".
I think you'll find that it's this stuff right here^ that no-one cares about.

wrote:

Since I'm not qualified to critique a chemical analysis of how these things work I'm not going to accept it as an explanation.

You're admitting you haven't the mental faculties to understand the answer someone gave, so you're just refusing to entertain it? Really? No chance you would even try getting your head around it?

wrote:

ATP in my muscles? How many extra kilograms on my squat is there in 42 ATP's?

How many extra kilograms on your squat are there in 42 waters? I know you're not necessarily even trying to advocate creatine's effects here or anything but, just for the sake of, you know, backing up what you're saying even a tiny bit: can you explain what the water stored in the muscle actually DOES to make one stronger? just because I don't understand it yet and am actually willing to consider explanations based on stuff I'm not already "qualified" on.
As I understand it, size and strength are only interchangeable terms up to a point, like. Just saying water bloat makes you bigger doesn't actually necessarily make it evident why it makes you stronger.

discus

dartstothesea wrote: »

I know you're not necessarily even trying to advocate creatine's effects here or anything but, just for the sake of, you know, backing up what you're saying even a tiny bit: can you explain what the water stored in the muscle actually DOES to make one stronger? just because I don't understand it yet and am actually willing to consider explanations based on stuff I'm not already "qualified" on.
As I understand it, size and strength are only interchangeable terms up to a point, like. Just saying water bloat makes you bigger doesn't actually necessarily make it evident why it makes you stronger.

From what I gather of Kevpants post, he related leverage to cellular water retention. [Apologies if I've gotten that wrong!! Or misquoted you.]

For what it's worth, I don't believe you or gymsoldier understand how Creatine works on a cellular level either, so why are you calling him out?

I think you'll find that it's this stuff right here^ that no-one cares about.

Kevpants has contributed more to this forum than most. From what he posts, I'd argue that he's at the higher end of the forums intellect too. So stop calling him out over retarded ****e like this, please.

Hanley

Wow... haven't seen Kev called out before

*gets popcorn

Hanley

dartstothesea wrote: »

Just saying water bloat makes you bigger doesn't actually necessarily make it evident why it makes you stronger.

Mass moves mass.

Jarren

1994jacob wrote: »

My friends have been raving about this stuff for weeks and claim its natural, but they also take stuff like jack3d and N.O shotgun (which I don't trust).

I'm considering buying the Creatine Monohydrate but wanted to ask you guys your thoughts on it and if you think its natural (well as natural as this stuff gets) and if you think its worth while.

p.s if you quoting any articles or if you know of any that might be useful can you please link them

Thanks Jacob

Hi Jacob

This website is all about creatine

http://www.creatine-monohydrate.org/

I have never used CM but from what I heard from the other gym users that it will work on some people if the mass gains your are after(not on everyone though)

J

Hanley

May as well do a semi serious post...

-Your muscles run off ATP, as you do reps, your store of ATP goes down.
-Creatine effectively helps replenish your ATP levels during a workout
-The effect isn't huge, but might get a couple of extra reps per set, of 5kg more with same reps

The effect is you do more reps, or lift more weight, so the gains ARE real. In strength terms anyway.

Creatine also pulls water in, making you look bigger/bloated. These size gains aren't permanent.

Creatine does nothing other than facilitate your body and muscles to work slightly harder by giving it more energy to do so.

It doesn't eat your kidneys or liver and it won't run off with your girlfriend behind your back.

Barry.Oglesby

All the time people spend reading broscience websites on how creatine works should be spent lifting or building an orphanage.

dartstothesea

Yo Hanley (and Discus), I only "called out" that never-before-called-out (OMG I must've been wrong then!?) lad because he basically seemed to be rubbishing anything about CM working by replenishing ATP and he tried speaking for everyone, when I knew I'd previously seen you (and maybe g'em IIRC) for example saying it was about ATP and lo and behold you've come and talked about ATP again.

Now maybe the water bloat is how CM refills ATP and not a separate thing, but otherwise I just wanted to ask kevpants exactly what the hell the water bloat does.

Oh I personally haven't noticed CM do anything for me, not even defending it's efficacy or anything here. Beef > creatine :V

gymsoldier

discus wrote: »

I don't believe you or gymsoldier understand how Creatine works on a cellular level

Quote me where I have given false information.

Bottle_of_Smoke

gymsoldier wrote: »

Creatine makes you less flexible?

Well that paper just suggested that for a part of the shoulders and ankles. I was actually just quoting the article for the significant mass gains it mentioned

kevpants

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

All the time people spend reading broscience websites on how creatine works should be spent lifting or building an orphanage.

This

Hanley wrote: »

Mass moves mass.

And this.

I may have been a total smartass in putting it across, this is the internet after all, but what I was trying to say was two things. Exactly what Hanley said in that mass moves mass, so water bloat = more strength. We powerlifters go for the bloat post weight in for a reason, it's not to fill out the lycra!

The point about the chemical effects of creatine is summed up in what Barry said. I can link to tonnes of seemingly flawless scientific explanations of how 500 different products or compunds increase testosterone/GH. I don't have the ability to dispute them, I'm not qualified, but at the same time I'm not going to blindly accept it because I feel like the people advocating it are smarter than I am.

It's that exact effect that the whol bifidus feckinspectacularus yoghurt drink industry is based on, shampoo ads too.

I think it was Barry who linked to a really interesting site where actual chemists pull apart the broscience of the like of Poliquin and the various other fitness experts. A bit of an eye opener.

All any of us here can really speak about is what we've been told by other people who train etc and our own experience. It's up to us to sort out the BS from the sense. All the sciencey stuff as far as I'm concerned is a bit irrelevant because there's so much tainted scientific "proof" out there and secondly because we aren't qualified to debate it (for the most part).

I personally think the new trend of linking to studies on this forum is a bad thing. Firstly because YAAAAWWWWNNNN and secondly zzzzzzzzzz.

deadlybuzzman

heres an idea-someone says "Im thinking of doing X" and then other people instead of quoting studies, either say "yeah my lifts went up 10 kg doing that" or "no its a balls"
if you have to quote studies for the most part either its a self serving study paid for by the manufacturer thus its rubbish or its so subtle an effect you would be far better off stuffing your face with cow rather than reading it-thats my take anyway! :pac:

Doug Cartel

deadlybuzzman wrote: »

heres an idea-someone says "Im thinking of doing X" and then other people instead of quoting studies, either say "yeah my lifts went up 10 kg doing that" or "no its a balls"

I wore a blue T-shirt the other day and set a personal best on my bench press, so if anyone's thinking of wearing a blue T-shirt I recommend them. Last time I failed my set, I was wearing a red T-shirt. Red T-shirts are a balls.

People do all sorts of dumb stuff that they seem to think is beneficial to their fitness, but which probably doesn't actually do a thing. Ask if something works on here, and chances are you'll get a few people who will swear by it - and not just the clueless people. Sometimes it's nice to know what studies have been done.

Burkatron

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Ask if something works on here,and chances are you'll get a few people who will swear by it

Powerbands...that is all!

deadlybuzzman

Doug Cartel wrote: »

I wore a blue T-shirt the other day and set a personal best on my bench press, so if anyone's thinking of wearing a blue T-shirt I recommend them. Last time I failed my set, I was wearing a red T-shirt. Red T-shirts are a balls.

People do all sorts of dumb stuff that they seem to think is beneficial to their fitness, but which probably doesn't actually do a thing. Ask if something works on here, and chances are you'll get a few people who will swear by it - and not just the clueless people. Sometimes it's nice to know what studies have been done.

Just because a study has been done means nothing if its flawed, be it controls, stat analysis or just plain bias.
how many studies have you read about fat loss, insulin spikes, cartinine etc that have just happened to come out around the time certain products have been released? even NO explode and the like have studies that would support their use.
Without getting into some tedious interwebs battle ill happily take my chances doing what the guys bigger than me or lifting more than me are doing because at the end of the day thats what counts
Keep wearing your blue t shirt

Doug Cartel

deadlybuzzman wrote: »

Just because a study has been done means nothing if its flawed, be it controls, stat analysis or just plain bias.

These are all things I cannot judge without reading the bloody paper first.

I hear a bunch of anecdotes, I think to myself "hmmm, has anyone looked at this properly?" I find a paper, I give it a leaf through. It's how I keep myself entertained.

You might just want to do whatever the big boys are doing so you can be like them. That's fair enough, but it's not exactly the same thing as what I'm interested in. I want to look at the studies, I find them interesting. I'm probably not alone. Don't shoot us down because it's not exactly what you want to talk about.

Barry.Oglesby

kevpants wrote: »

All any of us here can really speak about is what we've been told by other people who train etc and our own experience. It's up to us to sort out the BS from the sense. All the sciencey stuff as far as I'm concerned is a bit irrelevant because there's so much tainted scientific "proof" out there and secondly because we aren't qualified to debate it (for the most part).

I personally think the new trend of linking to studies on this forum is a bad thing. Firstly because YAAAAWWWWNNNN and secondly zzzzzzzzzz.

People post studies because these days thanks to google you too can be an academic. Mostly you can tell they've only read the abstract anyway.

But you know what, having some actual science to back up or completely blow out of the water some of the broscience and gym myths that float around is far better than no science at all.

deadlybuzzman

Doug Cartel wrote: »

These are all things I cannot judge without reading the bloody paper first.

I hear a bunch of anecdotes, I think to myself "hmmm, has anyone looked at this properly?" I find a paper, I give it a leaf through. It's how I keep myself entertained.

You might just want to do whatever the big boys are doing so you can be like them. That's fair enough, but it's not exactly the same thing as what I'm interested in. I want to look at the studies, I find them interesting. I'm probably not alone. Don't shoot us down because it's not exactly what you want to talk about.

Im not looking to shoot anyone down or indeed say I know more than anyone else, what I am saying is though that for all the academic studies done about so many many compounds, products and nutritional protocols how many of them have made a real tangible difference?
Maybe Im just a cynic at this stage but after years or reading about things that were going to really make a difference to my size and strength theres a much longer list of duds than what did work and although I did enjoy going through studies much more back in the day, now I wait to hear feedback and let someone else spend their money and test it out before me

Scuba Ste

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

People post studies because these days thanks to google you too can be an academic. Mostly you can tell they've only read the abstract anyway.

But you know what, having some actual science to back up or completely blow out of the water some of the broscience and gym myths that float around is far better than no science at all.

Like you say though most people are reading an abstract that seems kind of, nearly, almost related to something they want to prove and posting it.

I think that kind of stuff just reinforces the broscience instead of refuting it.

Journal articles are a great resources but most people who post them here don't have the expertise to understand or interpret them. And that happens a LOT lately.

tweedledee

Creatine Mono is an excellent product to take,mix it with some water and its great,easy on the stomach and tasteless.it is very natural and recommended by everybody,I take it with ON Gold standard Whey and CLA tabs.Expensive pastime but great combo for bulking up and the CLA rips me up.This stuff costs me more than my car :eek:

drdeadlift

5-10grams after training with lucozade,its a very good supplement.

kevpants

Doug Cartel wrote: »

I wore a blue T-shirt the other day and set a personal best on my bench press, so if anyone's thinking of wearing a blue T-shirt I recommend them. Last time I failed my set, I was wearing a red T-shirt. Red T-shirts are a balls.

That's just a silly comparison. Pretty much all trainers, experienced lifters etc recommend things based on trying things and noting the results.

I'll put it this way, I find nothing wrong with a thread filled with statements like:

I recommend deadlifting against bands, I found they helped my bar speed immensely

I have an issue with statements like:

I recommend deadlifting against bands, the progressive loading stimuli engages your CNS in creating a faster neuron response for a longer period of time

In summary. Piss off with the granular cellular explanations for why you're right and let's all not get above our station.

itsallaboutheL

kevpants wrote: »

In summary. Piss off with the granular cellular explanations for why you're right and let's all not get above our station.

Translated to cat.