The Creatine Grave Yard
By Will Brink © 2009
Looks like another “high tech” form of creatine has got one foot planted firmly in the creatine grave yard. What is the creatine graveyard? It’s where forms of creatine – other then monohydrate – go when either science has shown them inferior to monohydrate, and or it’s life cycle of hype has come to and end.
I refer specifically to creatine ethyl ester (CEE). As with the many “high tech” forms of creatine before it, all manner of claims were/are made about how superior it is to creatine monohydrate (CM). It always starts the same. First the company will invent a long list of negatives about CM such as “poorly absorbed” or “causes bloat” or “is not stable” and then goes onto claim their form of creatine has solved all those invented negatives. The problem is, the data already shows CM does not suffer from virtually any of the negatives they invent, nor do they show their form “cures” those negatives. Sellers of CCE for example claimed CEE was better absorbed and utilized vs. CM, and that has been shown to be nonsense. There have been several in vitro (test tube) studies pointing to the fact CEE is inferior to CM, but a recent study done in humans puts a final nail in the coffin as far as I am concerned. This study is titled “The effects of creatine ethyl ester supplementation combined with heavy resistance training on body composition, muscle performance, and serum and muscle creatine levels” The full study is public access and can be read here:
Warning, the abstract is confusing and not well written. If you read the full paper, it’s clearer. If you don’t have the time or interest to read it, the take home is: although all subjects in this study (CEE vs. CM vs. Placebo) experienced approximately the same effects; they all had improvements in bodycomp and got stronger. Why? Because they used untrained subjects in the study. Thus, a drawback of this study was due to using untrained people, they couldn’t differentiate between PL, CEE, and CM in terms of effects on bodycomp and strength within that time period as newbies always make fast progress in the beginning. No news there.
However, the study did achieve the essential point, which is it clearly showed the claims of CEE false: CEE had much higher creatinine levels and lower muscle creatine levels compared to CM in this study, thus, yet again, the claims by sellers of CEE that it’s superior to CM and that CM is “poorly absorbed” or “causes bloat,” or my favorite “CM is not stable,” etc are false. They also looked at changes in water compartments (CEE actually had a trend toward greater extra cellular water then CM BTW, so there goes that stupid “no bloat” claim for CEE…) and other issues claimed to make CEE superior, and it failed.
CEE is less stable then CM, increases creatinine to a much greater extent then CM, and is inferior for increasing muscle creatine levels to CM. This study is not perfect by any means, but when combined with what else exists, and the counter studies sellers of CEE offer (which is to say zero), well you don’t have to be a scientist to see the writing on the wall there…
CEE will be added to the creatine graveyard with a ton of others all claiming to be superior to CM which all started with big claims and now sit in the grave yard.
Two essential points about the grave yard before we get to that:
(1) Because they are in the grave yard does not mean they are worthless. Some forms, such as magnesium creatine chelate for example looked promising, but a head to head study with CM found it no better. Remember, another form does not have to show it’s the equal of CM, it has to show it’s superior to CM per its claims. Forms such as creatine pyruvate and many others on the list may be just as effective as CM, but not superior, so it comes down to cost. Others on the list have in fact been proven inferior to CM in studies, such as serum creatine, various liquid creatine versions, and now CEE. Serum creatine was all the rage a few years ago, and studies found not only was it inferior to CM in every respect, it contained virtually no creatine! Of course, there were still those on the various forums using ‘bro logic’ with “bro, I don’t care what the studies say, it works like da bomb for me!” posts, but I digress….Finally, other forms on the list simply lack any data at all to compare to CM. The companies selling these forms will routinely make claims of superiority with nadda for hard data to support them. Therefore, it’s impossible to really separate fact from fiction (i.e., marketing hype) to recommend them.
Me, I will use what has literally hundreds of studies to support its efficacy and safety over a form with zero data to support it’s claims of superiority over CM. Thus, they get put into the grave yard. Future studies may get them out of the graveyard, but I aint holding my breath…
(2) CM is not perfect. It’s not very soluble, and in about 30% of users, does not appear to work at all. At higher doses, generally above 3g-5g or so in a single dose, can cause stomach upset for some, among other small, but significant drawbacks for some users. Therefore, I am in favor of continued research into improved delivery technologies, improved forms of creatine, and so on. I’m all for it, but as they say, don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining. In God we trust, everyone else must show data. Hard data talks, BS walks.
I could randomly take two forms from the list below, say dicreatine malate and creatine ethyl carbonate ester and make dicreatine malate creatine ethyl carbonate*, but would it be superior to CM? Unknown as there would be no data. I could just invent a bunch of unproven claims like others do and sell the stuff… Do companies just invent a form of creatine for no other reason then it sound “high tech”? Hell, one company (BSN) is currently in court over one form they sell, called CEM3 or “Creatine Ethyl Ester Malate” which according to the charges “does not exist and is impossible to manufacture”! As I said, CM is not perfect and I am all for continued research into improved (vs. just different!) forms of creatine and or improved delivery technologies, but companies should do their due diligence on these products and stop with all the hype and CM bashing to sell unproven products.
So, without further delay, here is my current list for the creatine graveyard:
The Creatine Graveyard List:
Creatine ethyl ester (CEE)
creatine pyruvate
creatine taurinate
creatine ethyl ester malate
creatine ethyl carbonate ester
creatine gluconate
creatine malate
dicreatine malate
tricreatine malate
creatine citrate
tricreatine citrate
Kre-Alkalyn
creatine phosphate
creatine alpha-ketoglutarate
creatine-6,8-thioctic Acid-ketoisocaproic Acid Calcium (CREAKIC)
creatine pyroglutamate
“conjugated creatine” (Con-Cret)
magnesium creatine chelate
creatine anhydrous
dicreatine orotate
tricreatine orotate
creatine alpha-amino butyrate
creatine HMB
“titrated creatine”
“creatine serum”
“liquid creatine”
Also:
glycocyamine (precursor)
creatinol-o-phosphate (analog)
* = for the sake of an example. I have no idea if such a form is chemically possible, nor do I care.
Will,
Excellent write up! And right after I received yet another email … pitching Creatine Gluconate. Then it goes into all kinds of Bro Logic.
Loved the term!
Yes, I was going to point you toward it per your questions on gluconate. My guess is it’s as good as CM, but not better. Factor in costs, and CM is again the easy choice.
What about micronized creatine? Is it any better than non-micronoized creatine?
Micronized mixes easier. That’s it’s only major advantage.
If I already have CEE pills, should I dump them? In other words, are they harming me?
Kre-Alkalyn in the graveyard? Come on dude. Do you take the stuff?
Nice write up Will.
I’ve always been a bit skeptical of those products with no credible studies that cost 3x’s as much MH.
Sometimes I wonder if I’m actually missing out, but I’ve always figured that if anything is really that much better than MH, eventually someone will do some studies and give me a better reason to believe that it’s worth spending more on.
But until then, I’m happy with my economical MH.
Why do you not like Kre=Alkalyn; I thought it was equal to CM but less side effects and makes less creatinine?
THANKS!!
Kre Alk is on that list for the same reason all the others are, which is outlined. The claims made by the company have either been proven to be false, and or there is not data to support them. A good review on that can be found here:
http://bodybuilding.ultimatefatburner.com/Kre-Alkalyn.html
I think the wrong question is being asked in those studies. The question shouldn’t be whether or not CEE(or other forms) is better than CM in creatine responders, but whether it’s better for non-resonders, in which case most non-responders claim it is. I don’t think there are any studies testing the other forms vs CM in non-responders specifically.
That’s the question that should be asked (and now answered) because that’s exactly the claims made by sellers of CEE. Now a study where they took known non responders to CM and gave them CEE would be interesting for sure, but all the major claims of CEE have been debunked in my view. I see no reason it’s going to have any magical effects on CM non responders, but I agree it would make for an interesting study.
Will- I was still hoping you could answer my question regarding whether I should continue using up the CEE I already have? If it breaks down to creatinine won’t it be damaging my liver? Should I bite the bullet ($), trash it and go buy some monohydrate?
I would finish the CEE and move onto CM or throw out the CEE and get CM if it worries you.
Thanks will another item i wont be putting on my shopping list.
Interesting article – just had an ad for ” Creatamax-X4™” – surprised that it is endorsed by a renown trainer -
I see that Kre-Alkalyn is in the graveyard, which may be deserved. I can say that I have had digestive probs with CM and none with
Kre-Alkalyn. That is why I buy it and it works well for me.
Thanks so much for that Will. You have answered a question for me that i wanted to know the answer to. So now I can just go ahead and buy the cheaper Creatine Monohydrate, and not bother with the CEE. I wonder if you can clear up another anomally (if that’s the right term)? What is the difference between the capsules and the powder? The dosage (5g) of the powder seems to be far greater than that of the capsules. So how does that work?
Besrt Regards Al
Caps generally cost more and may be be poorly absorbed. Read report. If you really want to know what works and what does not for pretty much all supplements on the market, including nutrition and training, and save yourself years of wasted time and money, I highly recommend you consider my ebook Bodybuilding Revealed. Good luck.
Thanks for another great blog, Will. It’s great to see someone point out that although technology and medicine move forward, it’s about 10% the rate at which new products hit the shelves. Just like new vehicles and changing styles or additional gadgets, supplement manufactures realize that advertising the newest “research-substantiated” and “breakthrough” products is going to sell the product faster than putting the same stuff on the shelves year after year. Not to mention the psychology; the more the “new and improved” product costs, the more credibility we give it, and the more willing we are to buy. We’re experiencing the highest rate of these “breakthrough” supplements because it’s all about who can virtually trademark the newest “term” as the new industry benchmark. When it comes to bodybuilding, I’m a proponent of hard work and sticking to the [supplement] basics, while keeping up-to-date with new options, techniques and ideas. Not to mention keeping my body free of these “mystery substances.”
Mike, I think you hit the nail on the head with those comments. Of course they don’t usually uses a term like “research-substantiated” as that’s too specific and too easy to disprove! Terms like “clinically proven” which does not really mean anything are what’s common. The problem is, the few companies that really do their best to use good science to sell their products are drowned out by the companies who use hype and BS over good science.
Hello Will,
thank you for excellent article!
Creatine monohydrate did work for me at higher doses at 15 grams(15 grams once a day).
I have to write that Gaspari’s SIZE ON (tablets) works like nothing before… My muscles feel full-going to explode…
I’ve never tried CM as all the info I read said it had to be taken with a ton of sugar / glucose several times a day and I didn’t want to sugar load. So I tried Kre-alkylyn, just 2 caps a day and no sugar and it worked great.
So how about NOS Will? Doesn’t nicotinic acid do just the same job at a fraction of the price?
You don’t need to take sugar with CM, though studies suggest increased uptake when taken with high GI carbs. You can download my free report on creatine on the brinkzone site or http://www.creatine-report.com for more info on that. Not sure what you mean regarding NOS (nitric oxide synthase?) and nicotinic acid.
They both give you good pumps in the gym, NOS is about $60 and Nicotinic acid about $3.
I wouldn’t bother with either of them honestly. Neither has ever been shown to actually build muscle or improve strength. The pump is secondary to those goals.
I’ve used CM many times, and it always causes bloat. Last year I added Kre-Alkalyn to the few supplements I take and it clearly has made my my workouts and my jogging easier.
I tried it with skepticism, because I know from experience that most supplements are just marketing hype. There is no question that Kre-Alkalyn works.
Very glad you make this point about all the silly new forms of creatine. Our team at vitamins-dot-nl has been trying to keep these products out of Holland but sadly there is really no state organisation that prevents this type of consumer fraud.
I hope this gets blogged around the world!
Will, I’ve have always wondered if products such as HMB and Vanadylsulphate actualy produce results in trained and untrained subjects. Also do you offer brand specific advice on these products? I’m a soldier in the military deploying in a few months and I need some strength and size gains before and during my deployment to AFgahnistan. straight shooting will serve volumes here……
Why Is Di-Malate in the graveyard? I use it and I notice better results than CM.
Andrew, I cover HMB, etc and pretty much everything on the market in my ebook, and give brand ame recs on them on the forums that come with the ebook, so if you want to know what works, what does not, as well as training and nutrition, and save yourself years of wasted time and $$$, the ebook is what you want. The data on HMB is conflicting at best and VS I didn’t know was even being sold anymore. Waste of $$$.
Roland, the reason it’s on the list is explained fully in the write up. Not much else I can add to that. That you feel it works better for you then CM is great, but that’s not objective science.
Thanks for the response. Which write-up are you refering to? The short essay of yours that I just read? It has no scientific basis to say that it doesnt work..or that it doesnt work better.I also read your “creatine report” and to put it in the graveyard without putting it through its paces frankly bewilders me. If anything it should be in the E.R. or something haha. Obviously I will keep using DM as I get better results from it, and I had previously been a CM user for over 15 years.
Regards,
Roland
Roland, “It has no scientific basis to say that it doesnt work.” is not how objective science works. You don’t prove a negative. That there is no scientific basis that it DOES work, is why it’s on the list. “Putting it through its paces” is to have actual hard data showing it’s equal to, much less superior to, CM, which does not exist. So other then the manufacturers claims, there is zero proof it’s superior to CM. Again, n =1 anecdotal reports like yours “I think it works better then CM for me” is fine, but it’s not science nor should it ever trump objective research. Again, read the above I wrote clearly, about why they are on the list, as well as “bro logic” which is what you are using here. Again, if you feel it works for you, great, but it’s not objective science and none exists for the form you currently use.
Why should it be in the graveyeard then..as in dead and not good for anything but rotting, if it hasn’t been thouroughly reseached? That notion seems like your getting ahead of yourself. My “Bro logic” is validated in the fact that I have compared the two with my own body. I am not endorsing its usage for anyone else based on that though, thats my own opinion, as CM bieng the king of creatines is yours. You lump all of the creatines into a mold of lesser or at the maximum equal effects, without there bieng any reasearch to prove or disprove that they ALL belong in that category. Thats hardly objective. Thats opinion bub. You would have to test them all equally and compare to be truly objective.
CM may be the most reasearched, but it may not be the best form. Only time, research and hard data as you say will prevail in the combat of the creatines. Hard lifting guinea pigs,like myself though have been there done that and can SEE and FEEL the difference between them all.
I will not repeat myself as I think I have been very clear about why each are on the list. You seem unable to understand the difference between objective science methodology and simple subjective opinion. Thus, I am done attempting to explain it. Please refrain from future posting on the topic unless you have something new to offer here. Thanx and good luck with your efforts in the gym.
That’s the blessing and curse of DSHEA of 1994.
It’s nice that we have freedom to buy stuff that HASN’T been shown empirically to be bad for our bodies, because that makes it more of a pain in the butt for people with alternate agenda’s to ban stuff that SHOULD be legal. But with that freedom, it also opens the door to products whose effectiveness is questionable, or even products that are bad for our health. So there are definite pros&cons to the current legislative status of the supplement industry in the USA.
If someone comes out w/ a new product, and they have to chose between paying for expensive peer reviewed studies on the product, (Risking the possibility of it showing the product to be worthless) or simply selling based on some testimony of some random gym rats espousing what we are referring to on here as “bro logic”, and making a lot of money until someone else produces the expensive studies that either support or refute those claims, the choice is obvious. To a business minded person it’s just common sense.
I’m NOT inferring that I personally take that position, but the reality of the current legislative specifications does have a tremendous influence on the mentality of companies in the business, and I DO understand WHY that is the case. Albeit (one could argue) unfortunate.
The problem is, that if we started REQUIRING that the companies (as opposed to the FDA or whoever) be the ones responsible for baring the “burden of proof”:
A: The wealth would be concentrated in the hands of the few companies rich enough to afford the studies, which creates a sort of supplement company “oligarchy”. (Weather that’s good or bad is for you to decide, since it no doubt depends on your perspective and intentions.)
B: Prices for products that finally did become validated as being safe and effective would be MANY times more expensive. BAD if your a consumer, and GOOD if your one of those few companies that monopolized.
This would partially be to offset the high prices of the studies, but also to compensate for the money lost in products that didn’t make the grade, (but still cost the company money to produce and study).
I don’t have a “perfect” solution.
However,
for the consumers: If more people remain agnostic about newly hyped products until more credible evidence is produced, then the smart companies would quickly realize that investing their time into long-shot products and riding the initial wave of excitement until people realize it’s nothing special, will no longer seem as attractive an option.
I suspect that this would be better than discarding DSHEA because products that people who have done their home work chose to invest in will not be in danger of arbitrary banning. So the responsibility would be on the individual to become aware of the available information (or lack thereof) on a product they chose to consider.
The companies will always just be adjusting to the conditions of the market and legislation anyway. If consumers will buy any crap that “Big Eddie” or whoever at the gym says worked, then the companies will be compelled to put new unqualified stuff out and hype the hell out of it until proven otherwise.
There’s an upshot AND a down shot to that. If it really IS all that great and the research to support it is just simply lagging behind, then you get an effective product for low cost, but if it’s NOT really all Big Eddie cracked it up to be, then you are paying for a placebo effect. In which case, self hypnosis cd’s would probably be cheaper and last longer.
What people do with their money is not only a personal responsibility, but it also has ripple effects on the practices on the industries practices because business people will always have to react to the stimuli of their environment, or else they wouldn’t BE business people.
I find it disheartening that even after a product has been trashed by science, people still want to defend it. There is such a strong anti-science, anti-intellectualism current in bodybuilding that allows shady manufacturers to keep selling their snake oil, and the sad thing is the consumer actually would rather believe the lies, and will vigorously defend the lies. Your anecdotal experience means nothing. That includes mine as well. There are far too many variables in a persons training, diet, other supplementation, and the most significant variable, the mind
That is why studies need to be placebo controlled, because people can trick themselves into believing a product works and they will perform better. People will experience negative side effects (like bloat) because they expect them. Creatine bloating is very rare and not at all the way most people describe it. People are too easily influenced by marketing and other people’s opinions to adequately evaluate a supplement. That is why strict scientific protocols are needed to determine if a product truly is effective. I have been in this area for a long time and have seen hundreds of products come out and are praised highly, and then later disappear because they were not really effective. Placebo is your wallets enemy.
One other comment. It is not the role of science to prove a product does not work, it is the DUTY OF THE PRODUCER TO PROVE THEIR PRODUCT DOES WORK. I can not stand it when people ask critics of a product to prove it does not work. That is scientifically, logically, and ethically backwards, wrong headed reasoning. If a person makes a substantive claim about their product, ie my new product will make you stronger, I the proponent has the burden of demonstrating the truth and validity of this statement. The skeptical person asking for proof of these claims is completely in the right. The skeptic has absolutely no burden to disprove the products effectiveness. The product has to be proven effective. Just because someone makes a claim to efficacy does not make it so. They have to be able to substantiate those claims. Only a fool would take a company’s “word for it” that a product works as advertised. They are trying to get your money, demanding proof before handing it over is the wise course of action.
Will,
I was looking for a type of creatine in the grave yard that I couldn’t find a headstone for…creatine hydrochloride as in GNC’s Pro Performance AMP. The label claims 189% improved muscle creatine absorption, the power of 5g of creatine in 2 tablets, and 400% increase in dose efficiency. I would imagine that it probably falls into the category of “equal to or less effective than CM, but at an equal or higher cost,” but would you mind confirming or referring me to a resource if you can? Thanks for all your expertise!
Sultan, I guess I need to add that one to the list, but it’s hard to keep up with them all! If CM saturates muscles cells to 100% (and it does) how does one make something 189% better? Anyway, I don’t know exactly what that claim is based on so, it’s hard to know if it’s as you say, “equal to or less effective than CM, but at an equal or higher cost,” but my guess is you are probably correct there.
I’ve tried many Creatine and personally CM has always the one I have to be found to be the best in terms of increased strength and muscle mass. I took Kre-alk tabs and though they were absolutely hopeless!
I can’t take CM as it upsets my stomach and I seem to have a hard time getting it down.
Over the last year I’ve been using a product with Creatine Kre-Alkalyn and beta-alanine in pill form. My workouts went through the roof for about 6 months, but settled down after that. Now I’m about to try a similar product with beta-alanine and creatine magnesium-chelate. Most people would question why I would change something that was obviously working. I just can’t stop searching for a magic pill, or at least something close to magic.
kre alkalyn “Kre-Alkalyn is the top most creatine supplement on the market. It does work, sharing my experience..”
I am one of the unfortunate few who can’t take monohydrate due to stomach upset. I can barely eat all day after taking 5 g in the morning; obviously counterproductive to gaining weight or strength.
Do you know of any studies at all with malate forms of creatine? If it is even AS good as CM but without the stomach upset I would be thrilled. Some of the tricreatine and dicreatine malate products have come down in price recently so they are making a little more since economically.
I should note that I am a chemist so I do see through the hype surrounding the “structures” of these supplements. In fact, since creatine is an amino acid and is what is known as a zwitter ion (both positive and negative charges in the same molecule that cancel each other out to make the molecule net neutral), it can’t form the types of bonds or structures most of the supplement companies claim. For example, tricreatine malate does not exist as a discreet molecule. It is just a mixture of creatine and malic acid. However, the three “OH” groups on malic acid may form what is known as hydrogen bonds with the creatine and thus take the place of the waters of hydration in creatine monohydrate. This could change it’s physical properties (solubility, taste) but it is unlikely to change it’s biological effect unless there is synergy (or an antagonistic effect) between malic acid and creatine.
I don’t have access at this time to a decent scientific library or I wouldn’t need to ask but are you aware of any studies AT ALL that look at creatine malate mixtures? Just using my knowledge of chemistry and biology, my GUESS would be the malate formulations would be no different than the monohydrate in terms of creatine loading and creatinine formation. The malate part may have an additive effect on ATP production (or not).
There are no studies that directly compare CM to that form. On paper, Cr-malate should be at least as effective as CM. The malate, as you point out, might have some added benefits due to the Krebs cycle, but data is lacking specific to that form of creatine vs CM. If you have problems with CM, malate, citrate, gluconate, and Mg forms might be worth trying. They will cost a bit more, but at worst, should be equal in effect to CM. Unlike CEE, and some others in the graveyard list, they are not likely to be any worse then CM in terms of conversion to creatinine, etc.
On CM, make sure it’s fully dissolved before taking. That often solves most stomach issues.
God bless you, man. I recently encountered one of those pro-Kre-Alkalyn pages that claims CM degrades completely to creatinine in 8 minutes in water and was about to panic to buy another pre-workout drink that uses Kre-Alkalyn instead of any of the other forms. I use a pre-workout drink for the energy and psychological benefits, preferring one with some form of creatine for consolidation purposes.
After reading this and a few other sites, I realized that the stability difference claims aren’t quite legitimate, so I’ll finish what I have, rather than make a panic buy to replace it.
Kevin, CM is quite stable for at least days. No worries there.
Hey there,
I’ve just bought some CR2 (Creatine Di-Phosphate) and i didn’t see any comments related to it. You have creatine phosphate in the graveyard, so im hoping there’s a bit of a difference in CR2.
I’ve done small bits of research on CR2 but it’s very hard to find something that isn’t written by ALRI. From what i’ve read, you have a great knowledge of the different types of creatine so it would be really great if you could shed some light on the di-phosphate if you know anything about it.
Great thread so far, and i hope you can help me.
Conway, that form will be in the graveyard list for the same reasons as the others: simply no real solid data showing it to be superior to CM.
I just thought of a question: I know Kre-Alkalyn is in the graveyard because it is, at best, only equal to CM. But I just remembered today that Cytosport uses Kre-Alkalyn in their Monster Milk RTD formula. Is there any data to back up the idea that it doesn’t break down to creatinine in liquid? Mind you, I don’t buy a protein drink based on content other than the actual protein, but I’d be interested in finding out if that Kre-Alkalyn is providing any benefit at all.
Kevin, there’s no reason to think the Kre-alk is more stable in liquids then CM over time. CM is stable in liquid for days at least (contrary to claims by makers of Kre-alk) but over months, a % will convert to creatinine. Creatine, in any form, is not stable in liquids over long periods of time, so I would not recommend using creatine added to liquids that sit on store shelves for months at a time. The Creatinine will not do you any harm per se, but you are not getting the dose of creatine you paid for either.
Thanks, Will! I really appreciate the quick response to my comments.
Hi,
There is so much hype on Kre-Alkalyn by people that seem to know there stuff.
Or at least that seems to know there stuff. Like Elliott Hulse, Dan Doberman and many more.
It gets very fratration tring to figure out who is telling you the truth and who is just tring to sell you something.
What is your outlook on Kre=alkalyn creatine..(help)
Thanks
Lewis
Lewis, as that brand of creatine is listed in the graveyard, and I outline how types/products are added to the list, you already have my opinion. There is nothing that convinces me it’s superior in any way to monohydrate at this time.