creatine
Options
fruity_man
Posts: 180 Member
can creatine supplementation put pounds of bodyweight (water weight) on you in a few weeks?
0
Replies
-
For most people it will. 5lbs or so.0
-
leolibby233 wrote: »yes, it did for me... do you have to be lifting ? is creatine ethyl ester a good form?
It does nothing to justify the premium cost. Basic Creatine Monohydrate with nothing added is the way to go.
0 -
leolibby233 wrote: »but it does work? because regular creatine doesn't work for me unless i lift
I suppose that depends on what you think it's supposed to do. It's not a weight gaining supplement.
0 -
Creatine needs to build up in your body for a few weeks (5mg a day) before it starts adding water weight (the loading phase is a myth), so I'm surprised it added a bit of weight over a weekend. If your diet is on point though and you know it's only water weight I wouldn't worry about it.0
-
Creatine is intracellular retention, so it's actually inside the muscle you hold water, more specifically inside of your cells, this is where ATP occurs. This will give you more endurance, slightly better strength and overall better performance.
12 weeks on
1 week off
Repeat.
In my opinion one of the best value supplements on the market.0 -
Ethyl ester is more efficient, so you need less of it and its faster acting hence the premium.0
-
Creatine is a system saturater. You take it every day (or every other day), and over time, it builds up in your system. Therefore, taking it pre-, intra-, or post- workout does not matter.
My recommendation would be to get unflavored, Creapure trademarked, micronized Creatine Monohydrate. This is the purest form that dissolves the easiest. You can mix it with anything and not taste it. You may notice a slight power benefit when hitting the weights. What I mean by slight, is maybe you're able to do an extra rep or two of heavy weight.
When supplementing and lifting, it can offer boosts of Power at the same point in time that your muscles should have completely tired out by not supplementing with it. If you're not weight lifting or interested in gaining new muscle then I really don't see a need for taking creatine.
On the topic of "Gains"... that benefit is really only "gained" from a caloric surplus, adequate protein, + weight lifting. Creatine does nothing "directly" for gains... But the increased intensity and power in the gym indirectly benefits muscle growth.
Following a loading phase (if recommended) is useless. It is a marketing gimmick designed to make you use more than necessary. The most up-to-date information on dosage is 3-5 grams per day, regardless of gender, weight, height, etc. and skipping a day or two won't negate the benefits.
Creatine can come with a slight increase in water weight (but not enough to make you look fat). It basically makes your muscles look fuller when taken with adequate daily water intake. Some people will mention the bloating issue, but this is really only noticeable when it comes to sub 10% bodyfat bodybuilders in competition, who are trying to look as vascular as possible.
Lastly, some people are non-responders. Creatine literally doing nothing for a percentage of society.0 -
Less efficient in terms of absorption rate, which does not mean any more effective once your body has reached the correct levels of saturation. It can also mean less bloat from those who are affected by it.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/southfacts_cee.htm
If you wnat actual studies then just google them. I found a few but they are a bit dry and long. That article links a few as well, but it explains the difference in a more readable way.
0 -
Less efficient in terms of absorption rate, which does not mean any more effective once your body has reached the correct levels of saturation. It can also mean less bloat from those who are affected by it.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/southfacts_cee.htm
If you wnat actual studies then just google them. I found a few but they are a bit dry and long. That article links a few as well, but it explains the difference in a more readable way.
Ethyl Ester is not better.
Go check out the bodybuilding.com supplement forum where just about everyone takes creatine in monohydrate form.
Bloating is a non-issue unless you're 3-7% bodyfat and in competition.0 -
Less efficient in terms of absorption rate, which does not mean any more effective once your body has reached the correct levels of saturation. It can also mean less bloat from those who are affected by it.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/southfacts_cee.htm
If you wnat actual studies then just google them. I found a few but they are a bit dry and long. That article links a few as well, but it explains the difference in a more readable way.
Ethyl Ester is not better.
Go check out the bodybuilding.com supplement forum where just about everyone takes creatine in monohydrate form.
Bloating is a non-issue unless you're 3-7% bodyfat and in competition.
Did you bother to read what I wrote?0 -
Less efficient in terms of absorption rate, which does not mean any more effective once your body has reached the correct levels of saturation. It can also mean less bloat from those who are affected by it.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/southfacts_cee.htm
If you wnat actual studies then just google them. I found a few but they are a bit dry and long. That article links a few as well, but it explains the difference in a more readable way.
Ok......I googled and this is a very credible source on my first hit......
http://examine.com/faq/what-is-the-best-form-of-creatine/
Here so you don't have to search around a bit like did in 2 mins......
"Assuming Creatine Monohydrate (most frequently used in studies) is the standard by which to compare, no form of creatine has shown to be more powerful or potent.
Creatine Magnesium chelate may be a bit promising for its ability to prevent water weight gain at low doses. Creatine pyruvate also seems to produce higher blood levels of creatine, but this hasn't been shown to increase performance in any way.
Creatine Citrate and Creapure (Micronized Creatine), although just as potent as Creatine Monohydrate, are more water-soluble and may be of interest to avoid the clumping in water. This is similar to Creatine Nitrate, which currently does not have any legitimate scientific evidence to support the claims of superiority over Creatine Monohydrate.
Buffered Creatine (Kre-Alkalyn) and Creatine Hydrochloride (Con-Cret) both are negated by stomach acid, and turn into the basic creatine molecule. They are not worse, but not better either (assuming the dose is the same). Creatine Hydrochloride may be more water-soluble than Monohydrate as well.
It should be noted that the form known as 'Creatine Ethyl Ester' is actually much worse than creatine monohydrate, and degrades almost completely into the metabolite creatinine in the intestines.
There are no significant differences between powders, tablets, or capsules. Capsules and tablets are just vessels for the powder.
Overall, Creatine Monohydrate is the best 'bang-for-you-buck' form of creatine as the others tend to carry higher prices on the labels. That being said, other forms may have benefits that are not related to the creatine molecule itself but due to solubility."
Care to change your stance?0 -
Less efficient in terms of absorption rate, which does not mean any more effective once your body has reached the correct levels of saturation. It can also mean less bloat from those who are affected by it.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/southfacts_cee.htm
If you wnat actual studies then just google them. I found a few but they are a bit dry and long. That article links a few as well, but it explains the difference in a more readable way.
Ethyl Ester is not better.
Go check out the bodybuilding.com supplement forum where just about everyone takes creatine in monohydrate form.
Bloating is a non-issue unless you're 3-7% bodyfat and in competition.
Did you bother to read what I wrote?
Two more minutes......
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19228401/
And just so you don't have to read a bunch......
" 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."0 -
Less efficient in terms of absorption rate, which does not mean any more effective once your body has reached the correct levels of saturation. It can also mean less bloat from those who are affected by it.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/southfacts_cee.htm
If you wnat actual studies then just google them. I found a few but they are a bit dry and long. That article links a few as well, but it explains the difference in a more readable way.
Ethyl Ester is not better.
Go check out the bodybuilding.com supplement forum where just about everyone takes creatine in monohydrate form.
Bloating is a non-issue unless you're 3-7% bodyfat and in competition.
Did you bother to read what I wrote?
Yes, none of that applies since you are arguing a moot point.
Neither does this...Ethyl ester is more efficient, so you need less of it and its faster acting hence the premium.
Stick with monohydrate form.0 -
leolibby233 wrote: »I got BulkSupplements Pure Micronized Creatine Monohydrate Powder (1 Kilogra from amazon
Nice.... now just take it daily or every-other day 3-5grams.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 923 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions