YB
BannerBanner
Reply to post

CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study!

Author
Lonsdale
Universe Member
  • Total Posts : 348
  • Reward points: 6002
  • Joined: 2005/12/01 14:29:52
  • Status: offline
2007/06/18 23:47:02 (permalink)
0

CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study!

I'm no scientist but thought i would share the link below - basically it seems that CEE has been compared to Creatine Monohydrate in a scientific study and comes up very short, with the additional ester apparently actually increasing the conversion rate of creatine into creatanine.

Disclaimer: don't flame me, i'm just a messanger that wanted to share this for discussion!

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=3209281

18 Replies Related Threads

    stevie1977
    Universe Member
    • Total Posts : 348
    • Reward points: 9156
    • Joined: 2005/05/19 09:35:54
    • Status: offline
    RE: CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study! 2007/06/19 09:15:43 (permalink)
    0
    Thats why theres no bloat from CEE then
    JMA
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 1111
    • Reward points: 3852
    • Joined: 2004/10/20 15:22:53
    • Status: offline
    RE: CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study! 2007/06/19 09:27:46 (permalink)
    0
    Nice post Lonsdale..

    Thank you.
    The Graduate
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 2818
    • Reward points: 9975
    • Joined: 2003/09/30 10:48:09
    • Location: Hove
    • Status: offline
    RE: CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study! 2007/06/19 09:34:59 (permalink)
    0
    Interesting but not suprising, was something that i had heard rumours about.

    Good post though!

    beholder69
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 2538
    • Reward points: 3639
    • Joined: 2007/01/16 22:27:11
    • Location: Greece
    • Status: offline
    RE: CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study! 2007/06/19 10:18:53 (permalink)
    0
    Yes,no surprise at all I'd say. Mono has been proved effective numerous times. If you're a not a responder,then you probably just don't need any supplementation
    post edited by beholder69 - 2007/06/19 10:38:02
    ak12345
    New Member
    • Total Posts : 72
    • Reward points: 1028
    • Joined: 2007/03/22 15:34:17
    • Status: offline
    RE: CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study! 2007/06/19 15:43:58 (permalink)
    0
    I was wondering why I wasn't getting much response out of CEE. Mono did work much better!

    Can anyone definitely say that CEE has been more effective than Mono, in their experience, without succumbing to the OTT marketing behind CEE?

    Good post BTW...
    WeeMuscle
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 1853
    • Reward points: 5511
    • Joined: 2006/08/08 21:27:25
    • Location: Leeds WY
    • Status: offline
    RE: CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study! 2007/06/19 18:53:14 (permalink)
    0
    awww downer. I didnt respond at all to mono. Am hoping to try CEE soon though, hope I get something out of it. If not, never mind lol


    theiopener
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 27998
    • Reward points: 5225
    • Joined: 2007/01/06 00:20:48
    • Status: offline
    RE: CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study! 2007/06/19 22:27:19 (permalink)
    0
    very very nice mate. Im actually annoyed i didnt find thid out earlier as im taking CEE ATM . But youve saved me money and next time its sure to be Creapure for me all the way
    macrophage
    Universe Member
    • Total Posts : 348
    • Reward points: 2632
    • Joined: 2007/05/04 19:49:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study! 2007/06/20 00:36:40 (permalink)
    0
    before you accept the musings of the bb.com follow the leader clan... you might want to look at the parameters of the study and who conducted it...
    DrChild@CR-Technologies.net
    DrTallon@CR-Technologies.net

    Latest News
    The dream is available today and it is called Creasafeâ„¢, the worlds safest and most advance creatine

    Request More Information
    An introduction to CR-Technologiesâ„¢


    CR-Technologiesâ„¢ is a leading innovator in the manufacture of functional foods and nutraceutical ingredients. Our philosophy is simple - to control the release of raw ingredients to make more efficacious products, at an affordable price. CR-Technologiesâ„¢ has achieved this by implementing and incorporating the very latest science for nutrient delivery and release systems into our products. All our ingredients are backed by rigorous science, providing manufacturers with greater formulation flexibility, effectiveness and safety. As a leader in the industry, CR-Technologiesâ„¢ dedicates a substantial proportion of its resources to research and development to further improve its ingredient range.
    CR-Technologiesâ„¢ provides its clients with the most advanced food ingredients, but our expertise does not simply stop there. Our customer centric business model also provides technical and legislative expertise, to help our customers fully exploit the expanding global market in functional foods and nutraceuticals.


    ------------------------------------------------------
    studies like this are a dime a dozen, it has not been published in a real journal, and it wont be. It would not stand up to legitimate peer review.
    amystoe
    New Member
    • Total Posts : 39
    • Reward points: 962
    • Joined: 2007/04/24 00:04:50
    • Status: offline
    RE: CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study! 2007/06/20 00:49:41 (permalink)
    0
    I'd laugh if only I could be bothered.......... mono causes water retention in you entire intestine which is what gives you the bloat.................... CEE does not............ and it work great for me. I been trying Aviforms CEE and wasn't impressed, not getting the results I got from BSN CEllMASS, some one on this site recommended adding maltodex to it and what do you know it works like Cellmass.

    Remember the 'MMR causes autisim' bull........ it was 'world renown doctors' that produce that nonsense, and guess what they had their own cure that they would sell you for a hefty price tag.

    That was rubbish and so is this daft report.
    dinot1985
    Senior Member
    • Total Posts : 135
    • Reward points: 4468
    • Joined: 2007/06/01 00:11:22
    • Status: offline
    RE: CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study! 2007/06/20 01:01:00 (permalink)
    0

    ORIGINAL: macrophage

    before you accept the musings of the bb.com follow the leader clan... you might want to look at the parameters of the study and who conducted it...
    DrChild@CR-Technologies.net
    DrTallon@CR-Technologies.net

    Latest News
    The dream is available today and it is called Creasafeâ„¢, the worlds safest and most advance creatine

    Request More Information
    An introduction to CR-Technologiesâ„¢


    CR-Technologiesâ„¢ is a leading innovator in the manufacture of functional foods and nutraceutical ingredients. Our philosophy is simple - to control the release of raw ingredients to make more efficacious products, at an affordable price. CR-Technologiesâ„¢ has achieved this by implementing and incorporating the very latest science for nutrient delivery and release systems into our products. All our ingredients are backed by rigorous science, providing manufacturers with greater formulation flexibility, effectiveness and safety. As a leader in the industry, CR-Technologiesâ„¢ dedicates a substantial proportion of its resources to research and development to further improve its ingredient range.
    CR-Technologiesâ„¢ provides its clients with the most advanced food ingredients, but our expertise does not simply stop there. Our customer centric business model also provides technical and legislative expertise, to help our customers fully exploit the expanding global market in functional foods and nutraceuticals.


    ------------------------------------------------------
    studies like this are a dime a dozen, it has not been published in a real journal, and it wont be. It would not stand up to legitimate peer review.


    You haven't replied to my responce to this when I posted the study in the other thread. Like I said, it's legit.
    beholder69
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 2538
    • Reward points: 3639
    • Joined: 2007/01/16 22:27:11
    • Location: Greece
    • Status: offline
    RE: CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study! 2007/06/20 01:01:48 (permalink)
    0


    Apart from this "daft report" you do know mono has been proved numerous times it works, while CEE hasn't (been proved),don't you?

    The notion that the ester will actually help is more like a guess up to now. But if you have results with it,then of course you should continue using it

    Oh and btw mono works great for me and it doesn't bloat me either
    The Graduate
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 2818
    • Reward points: 9975
    • Joined: 2003/09/30 10:48:09
    • Location: Hove
    • Status: offline
    RE: CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study! 2007/06/20 09:49:35 (permalink)
    0
    If mono works for you use it, if CEE works for you use it. At the end of the day make an informed choice with the information you have at hand. I personally wont use CEE but thats just my choice.

    I am looking at trying to get CEE tested in a similar fashion to this study!

    macrophage
    Universe Member
    • Total Posts : 348
    • Reward points: 2632
    • Joined: 2007/05/04 19:49:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study! 2007/06/20 12:17:06 (permalink)
    0

    ORIGINAL: dinot1985


    ORIGINAL: macrophage

    before you accept the musings of the bb.com follow the leader clan... you might want to look at the parameters of the study and who conducted it...
    DrChild@CR-Technologies.net
    DrTallon@CR-Technologies.net

    Latest News
    The dream is available today and it is called Creasafeâ„¢, the worlds safest and most advance creatine

    Request More Information
    An introduction to CR-Technologiesâ„¢


    CR-Technologiesâ„¢ is a leading innovator in the manufacture of functional foods and nutraceutical ingredients. Our philosophy is simple - to control the release of raw ingredients to make more efficacious products, at an affordable price. CR-Technologiesâ„¢ has achieved this by implementing and incorporating the very latest science for nutrient delivery and release systems into our products. All our ingredients are backed by rigorous science, providing manufacturers with greater formulation flexibility, effectiveness and safety. As a leader in the industry, CR-Technologiesâ„¢ dedicates a substantial proportion of its resources to research and development to further improve its ingredient range.
    CR-Technologiesâ„¢ provides its clients with the most advanced food ingredients, but our expertise does not simply stop there. Our customer centric business model also provides technical and legislative expertise, to help our customers fully exploit the expanding global market in functional foods and nutraceuticals.


    ------------------------------------------------------
    studies like this are a dime a dozen, it has not been published in a real journal, and it wont be. It would not stand up to legitimate peer review.


    You haven't replied to my responce to this when I posted the study in the other thread. Like I said, it's legit.


    not sure what thread you are referring to have seen this nonsense posted and reposted.

    the study is not legitimate, have seen hundreds of studies presented at such conferences, guess what most of them never make it passed peer review. The authors obvious bias should make you question it, only sheeple would take it at face value. You will notice that the study claims increased creatinine conversion, yet it makes no mention of them and of course their is the test parameters, well designed to break down the ester (big surprise a PH of 1 causes slow degradation of an ester), with greater "loss" seen with a larger ester. the study is a joke.
    mad_cereal_lover
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 10022
    • Reward points: 8332
    • Joined: 2004/04/13 21:49:50
    • Location: Southwest, United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study! 2007/06/20 13:44:59 (permalink)
    0
    Well first of all you cannot call that a "scientific study" as such until it is peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. It has not, it is not published, and was only present by a group in a conference it seems. So I would use the word "scientific" loosely around any such "study."

    Secondly, the stomach's pH is not pH1 - which stands out like sore thumb to me, that these scientists aren't even carrying out an in vitro experiment that is under similar physiological conditions to what they are meant to be measuring!! The stomach's pH never goes below pH2. So why didn't they do the study at that pH?!?

    Thirdly, they haven't assessed the effectiveness of CEE in uptake within muscle cells or on performance etc. All it is is a simple assay in a test tube. So what if only 75% remains of the CEE? Maybe it is more effective than CM when it gets past the stomach and is absorbed into the body and then is more effective at getting into muscles over CM. They haven't assessed that.

    Fourthly, it is purely in vitro with no in vivo modelling. The stomach is not simply an acidic solution with nothing else. There are other conditions and proteins and enzymes present that haven't been considered with such an approach.

    Take it with a pinch of salt, IMO, and it certainly doesn't mean CEE is useless based on that!

    mcl
    The Graduate
    Pro-Member
    • Total Posts : 2818
    • Reward points: 9975
    • Joined: 2003/09/30 10:48:09
    • Location: Hove
    • Status: offline
    RE: CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study! 2007/06/20 14:28:37 (permalink)
    0

    ORIGINAL: mad_cereal_lover

    Well first of all you cannot call that a "scientific study" as such until it is peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. It has not, it is not published, and was only present by a group in a conference it seems. So I would use the word "scientific" loosely around any such "study."

    Secondly, the stomach's pH is not pH1 - which stands out like sore thumb to me, that these scientists aren't even carrying out an in vitro experiment that is under similar physiological conditions to what they are meant to be measuring!! The stomach's pH never goes below pH2. So why didn't they do the study at that pH?!?

    Thirdly, they haven't assessed the effectiveness of CEE in uptake within muscle cells or on performance etc. All it is is a simple assay in a test tube. So what if only 75% remains of the CEE? Maybe it is more effective than CM when it gets past the stomach and is absorbed into the body and then is more effective at getting into muscles over CM. They haven't assessed that.

    Fourthly, it is purely in vitro with no in vivo modelling. The stomach is not simply an acidic solution with nothing else. There are other conditions and proteins and enzymes present that haven't been considered with such an approach.

    Take it with a pinch of salt, IMO, and it certainly doesn't mean CEE is useless based on that!

    mcl


    Not sure if you read all the comments, its quite long but the auther does join in the discussion. He states "These studies represent only a small proportion of the work we have done on this area and will be releasing full data in the subsequent peer review submissions including work in neutral pH (CEE much more unstable in this environment i.e. the site of absorption)"

    One of the marketing claims that has been levelled by those that sell CEE is that it doesnt (when compared to CM) break down to creatinine as quickly. If this information, whilst not 100% scientific (as we have seen it), is correct then it sheds some interesting information on the whole CEE debate.


    dinot1985
    Senior Member
    • Total Posts : 135
    • Reward points: 4468
    • Joined: 2007/06/01 00:11:22
    • Status: offline
    RE: CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study! 2007/06/20 15:16:17 (permalink)
    0

    ORIGINAL: macrophage


    ORIGINAL: dinot1985


    ORIGINAL: macrophage

    before you accept the musings of the bb.com follow the leader clan... you might want to look at the parameters of the study and who conducted it...
    DrChild@CR-Technologies.net
    DrTallon@CR-Technologies.net

    Latest News
    The dream is available today and it is called Creasafeâ„¢, the worlds safest and most advance creatine

    Request More Information
    An introduction to CR-Technologiesâ„¢


    CR-Technologiesâ„¢ is a leading innovator in the manufacture of functional foods and nutraceutical ingredients. Our philosophy is simple - to control the release of raw ingredients to make more efficacious products, at an affordable price. CR-Technologiesâ„¢ has achieved this by implementing and incorporating the very latest science for nutrient delivery and release systems into our products. All our ingredients are backed by rigorous science, providing manufacturers with greater formulation flexibility, effectiveness and safety. As a leader in the industry, CR-Technologiesâ„¢ dedicates a substantial proportion of its resources to research and development to further improve its ingredient range.
    CR-Technologiesâ„¢ provides its clients with the most advanced food ingredients, but our expertise does not simply stop there. Our customer centric business model also provides technical and legislative expertise, to help our customers fully exploit the expanding global market in functional foods and nutraceuticals.


    ------------------------------------------------------
    studies like this are a dime a dozen, it has not been published in a real journal, and it wont be. It would not stand up to legitimate peer review.


    You haven't replied to my responce to this when I posted the study in the other thread. Like I said, it's legit.


    not sure what thread you are referring to have seen this nonsense posted and reposted.

    the study is not legitimate, have seen hundreds of studies presented at such conferences, guess what most of them never make it passed peer review. The authors obvious bias should make you question it, only sheeple would take it at face value. You will notice that the study claims increased creatinine conversion, yet it makes no mention of them and of course their is the test parameters, well designed to break down the ester (big surprise a PH of 1 causes slow degradation of an ester), with greater "loss" seen with a larger ester. the study is a joke.



    You need to head over bb.com then where the discussin is being taken seriously.

    People from both sides of the support are in talk but those supporting CEE as superior are getting owned.
    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=3209281

    Are they any studies backing CEE? Nope. You feel it? Well people have felt smilax and even the Fizogen Strap lol.

    If you want to call bull on the study, you can also say it die to them using pH 1.

    This will carry on just like the whole Glutamine issue.

    How about a response from the doctor himself?
    http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do;jsessionid=FC9045B903472EC7CB4BE716C720AE84.hydra?id=1614564&pageNo=0#bottom

    iaink
    Moderator
    • Total Posts : 23602
    • Reward points: 10819
    • Joined: 2006/01/03 17:59:15
    • Status: offline
    RE: CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study! 2007/06/20 15:25:49 (permalink)
    0
    I know both Dr Child and Dr Tallon. I have done some work with/for Dr Child and Dr Tallon taught me as an undergraduate. Plus we have the same phd supervisor ('had' in his case). I would take notice of any work they have conducted.

    However as already been said this is just an intial piece if research and not the final word. Still CEE has never been a proven ergogenic aid, but if it works for some people more power to em
    Redemption
    Universe Member
    • Total Posts : 385
    • Reward points: 9498
    • Joined: 2004/03/27 16:20:48
    • Location: Glasgow United Kingdom
    • Status: offline
    RE: CEE and Kre-alkyln debunked in scientific study! 2007/06/20 15:42:13 (permalink)
    0
    I would say ignore the study for now, as it really is far too theoretical for my liking, and if you have used both kinds of Creatine and find CEE works, keep using it, if you have used both and Mono works better keep using that.

    Ive used 10 years of Creatine products, so would say i would know what is and isn't a placebo more than most, and when a bulk bought pure cheap CEE gives me twice the results of a £50 branded Monohydrate, I'm inclined to stick to the CEE no matter what some new unsubstantiated, possibly biased study tells me.

    People are too eager to be sheep, and follow some one else, than to find out themselves.

    Jump to:
    ©2018 All content is copyright of MuscleTalk.co.uk and its use elsewhere is prohibited.
    (posting guidelines | privacy | advertise | earnings disclaimer | contact us | supported by)
    © 2018 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.5