Monday, March 2, 2009

Creatine vs. Creatine: Heavywight Bout of The Century!!

The effects of creatine ethyl ester supplementation combined with heavy
resistance training on body composition, muscle performance, and serum and
muscle creatine levels

Mike Spillane1, Ryan Schoch4, Matt Cooke1, Travis Harvey5, Mike Greenwood1, Richard
Kreider3, Darryn S. Willoughby1,2,ΞΎ

Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 2009, 6:6


Numerous creatine formulations have been developed primarily to maximize creatine
absorption. Creatine ethyl ester is alleged to increase creatine bio-availability. This study
examined how a seven-week supplementation regimen combined with resistance training
affected body composition, muscle mass, muscle strength and power, serum and muscle
creatine levels, and serum creatinine levels in 30 non-resistance-trained males. In a
double-blind manner, participants were randomly assigned to a maltodextrose placebo
(PLA), creatine monohydrate (CRT), or creatine ethyl ester (CEE) group. The
supplements were orally ingested at a dose of 0.30 g/kg fat-free body mass
(approximately 20 g/day) for five days followed by ingestion at 0.075 g/kg fat free mass
(approximately 5 g/day) for 42 days. Results showed significantly higher serum creatine
concentrations in PLA (p = 0.007) and CRT (p = 0.005) compared to CEE. Serum
creatinine was greater in CEE compared to the PLA (p = 0.001) and CRT (p = 0.001) and
increased at days 6, 27, and 48. Total muscle creatine content was significantly higher in
CRT (p = 0.026) and CEE (p = 0.041) compared to PLA, with no differences between
CRT and CEE. Significant changes over time were observed for body composition, body
water, muscle strength and power variables, but no significant differences were observed
between groups. In conclusion, when compared to creatine monohydrate, creatine ethyl ester was not as effective at increasing serum and muscle creatine levels or in improving body composition, muscle mass, strength, and power. Therefore, the improvements in these variables can most likely be attributed to the training protocol itself, rather than the
supplementation regimen.

This was a really convenient and interesting article for myself because I have had countless conversation with colleagues on the effectiveness of CpR mono and CpR ethyl ester, almost all of which end in an agree to disagree solution. I was excited to read this article and the conclusion when it ended in my favor. Not to say that this is THE WORD on CpR however it helps to support my long time arguements that supplements are a great thing for athletes whose coaches do not know how to apply theory into practice to maximize the athlete's athletic potential. Many fellow Ex Sci affiliates I have spoken with can ramble off many things about what SHOULD happen to the body and how this effects that but, it seems that they can't put that into practice. Its evident when you review a program they write and ask for the goals they are attempting to achieve with this program, over half the programs don't correlate with the goals set in the appropriate timing!!! Another thing that this article shows is that all those fitness guru's in the GNC's and the Vitamin Shop's are pushing you towards overpriced and over advertised products because they supposedly have more pump or can creatine higher levels of creatine in your system. This article makes all these claims very debatable. It appears that sticking to the "cheap stuff" does just as well, who would have figured that? Its a good thing that some of us actually use real sources and our degree in order to make educated, and not ignorant choices.

No comments: