How many grams of creatine are needed daily?

[Ragin Cajin]

Just want to see what everyone else thinks

[dinoiii]

this too depends (but if you are familiar with my posts, 9/10 times you will begin with that response).


Are you just starting its use? Are your receptors saturated? What are the goals?

[SNS8778]

There is no single answer to this question as Dinoii pointed out. It depends on the factors that Dinoii wrote, but also on whether you are talking about Creatine Ethyl Ester, Creatine Monohydrate, DiCreatine Malate, or Kre-Alkyln.

Plus, individuals respond differently to different doses.

Me personally, I do not respond to Creatine Monohydrate at any dose. That is why I prefer our Creatine E2 and why we made that product is that it seems to work well for those that do not respond well to creatine monohydrate.

One of the logs being done on our Creatine E2 Matrix is being done by someone who did not respond to Creatine Monohydrate and he is doing great off of the Creatine E2 Matrix.

[wedgylx]

I get nothing from monohydrate unless i dose at 15+g, and even those results are nothing to brag about.

Dicreatine malate i get GREAT results from. I'm starting to use CEE now for the first time. I'm stackine E2 by SNS with CVM by SNS and I'm getting great pumps. I'm starting a log on it tommorow. I was going to start the log sooner but i got very sick and wasnt using it/working out.

[max von]

ive noticed that on cee i get the same results from 3grms or 6grams makes no difference the others i would have to do 10+ but then i bloated up

max von

[italionstallionl]

agreed with everyone else, mono you are going to need more than cee, it just depends on how well your body responds to it. i got some decent results from 6-7 g of mono, ill see how e2 matrix works for me with recommended dosage ( i think 4 g)

[caniplaywith_madness]

this too depends (but if you are familiar with my posts, 9/10 times you will begin with that response).


Are you just starting its use? Are your receptors saturated? What are the goals?

by receptors saturated you mean the effect that the loading stage gives?
when i was taking monocreatine the directions said to do a loading phase first but with cex there are no directions to load first. any idea?

[SNS8778]

this too depends (but if you are familiar with my posts, 9/10 times you will begin with that response).


Are you just starting its use? Are your receptors saturated? What are the goals?

by receptors saturated you mean the effect that the loading stage gives?
when i was taking monocreatine the directions said to do a loading phase first but with cex there are no directions to load first. any idea?

CEX contains Creatine Ethyl Ester. You do not need to load with creatine ethyl ester because the absorption is so much better than with monohydrate.

I must point out though that CEX contains Creatine AKG which I am not a fan of.

[italionstallionl]

with cee and i even heard with mono studies have shown that there is no benefit to loading/cycling so you can take it continuously. i read someone on this site still cycles it, cant remember who, maybe dinoiii, i guess its a personal preference, i was taking mono, took a week off for my wisdom teeth and gonna take one more week off of creatine before i start my e2 matrix

[dinoiii]

Hey stallion,

I think it was Steve who mentioned cycling it. I concurred with cycling while on methylated PHs. Please correct me if I am wrong, Steve - I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Receptors could potentially only be fully depleted if you ceased all meat product, etc.... I wouldn't worry about my scientific mumbo jumbo... It seems general consensus these days is science matters a bit less.

[max von]

I agree with dinoiii that cycling is a good thing at least for me it seems that after some time on it that my body seem to plateau on creatine. I took almost a year off this time and can tell the difference

max von

[italionstallionl]

so do you guys think the 2 weeks off i am gonna do will be beneficial? i know its not very long, but i dont think i can wait any longer, that new bottle of e2 matrix is staring me in the eyes and im getting pretty tempted to see if the cee will work better than mono

[dinoiii]

Stallion,

I actually think that if your plans do not include 4 weeks or longer off, you may as well remain on it.

[italionstallionl]

bummer

i think i will still take a week off, chart all my weights while being off creatine for 2 weeks then get on it and see how it goes, couldnt hurt

[wedgylx]

In regaurds to loading up, I find with mono I get better results that way. With dicreatine malate I dont have any need for it (other than wasting money), and the same goes for CE so far.

[max von]

Wedg
thats a good point i was never able to do that loading phase it was always such a pain. I like the fact that the cee are in pill form easy to take anywhere anytime

max von

[SNS8778]

My viewpoints on creatine monohydrate loading:
While research indicates that you do not 'have' to load, keep something in mind. You do not 'have' to do anything. However, take note that no one is saying that you will get the same results as if you did load. It is true that without loading, the levels of creatine will eventually build up in the system as to where they would have gotten during the loading phase. Example: It may take two to three weeks to establish the level of creatine in the body by not loading that could have been done during a one week loading process. Now, being that many users stop responding well to creatine after being on it for 4 to 6 weeks, if you do not load, then that is valuable time wasted.

Creatine cycling:
This is where science sometimes does not always equal real world results. There are studies saying that you do not need to cycle creatine. However, as many people know, the name of the game in bodybuilding involves tricking your body into responding better by manifpualting diet, exercise, and supplementation tactics. In real world response, most users of creatine monohydrate will see only very negligible results after about 4 to 6 weeks of being on creatine monohydrate. In going back to something that Dinoii mentioned, when cycling creatine, I would stay off for at least 4 weeks to get the maximum response to it when getting back on again.

Creatine Monohydrate - disadvantages of:
Creatine Monohydrate first arrived to the bodybuilding market back in the early 90's. It has been and is a great product for many people, but it has it's inherent downfalls. These downfalls include: poor absorption, negative methods being pushed to improve absorption, bloating, and non-responders. First, creatine monohydrate has a poor absorption rate. Plain and Simple. Second, when I say negative methods for increasing absorption I refer to the practive of overloading the system with dextrose in an effort to invoke an insulin response in order to help your body absorb creatine monohydrate more efficiently. Overloading the system with dextrose is something I view as a negative because dextrose is a sugar, and excess sugar intake will go to body-fat. It can also cause a spike-drop effect in blood sugar levels which can negatively effect many internal factors within the body. (Not to mention adult onset diabetes and Syndrome X which I could write about forever). Now the argument can be made that for people with a fast metabolism, the amount of dextrose used to help aid in the absorption of creatine monohydrate should not lead to increased fat storage, but I would still argue that when looking for an increase in calories in the quest to gain muscle tissue, there is a difference between pointless calories and quality calories. I feel that dextrose only has a place in a nutrition regimen in relation to post-workout nutrition. I actually feel that there are better methods post workout than dextrose, but we will be trying out my theory of replacing dextrose post workout with another method shortly on some personal training clients and testers, so I will reserve further comment until then on that. Third issue, bloating is just that. Most people hold a substantial amount of water weight off of creatine monohydrate. Fourth, creatine non-responders are those individuals that simply do not respond or get any benefit off of creatine monohydrate.

Note: My personal feeling towards those dextrose ladden creatine powders that promise gains of 10 lbs. in x amount of weeks. First off, most will not see that type of gain. For those that do, what the ads don't tell you is that if you were to gain 10 lbs. by that strategy, you would in reality have gained quite a few lbs. of water weight, a few pounds of fat from the absurd amount of dextrose, and then a little muscle tissue.

Creatine Non-Responders:
For those that do not respond to creatine monohydrate at all or that respond poorly, there used to be no alternatives within the creatine family. Then came along DiCreatine Malate, which without over-complicating the issue, I will just say is much better than monohydrate and has a much better absorption rate. It also does not require the dextrose to be added to it for absorption. It also requires no loading when used with the proper ingredient matrix, and causes little to no fluid retention. Many creatine non-responders found DiCreatine Malate to be the first type of creatine that was beneficial. (And yes, I am going to plug our CVM Xtreme here because I feel that it is the best Dicreatine Malate product on the market today. Plus, it contains the necessary ingredients to aid in increased uptake and absortpion while still being sugar free, and contains nitric oxide potentiators as well.) Then there is Creatine Ethyl Ester, such as our Creatine E2 and Creatine E2 Matrix. From our feedback, Creatine E2 Matrix has been like a 'wonder-creatine' for those that had never responded to regular creatine monohydrate or even to DiCreatine Malate. Creatine Ethyl Ester has several exciting features: excellent absorption, no loading phase is required, works well with non-responders, and does not cause bloating. Plus, most users report much better gains in lean muscle and strength, better endurance, better pumps, and more vascularity.

In my opinion, at this point basic creatine monohydrate is completely outdated by DiCreatine Malate and Creatine Ethyl Ester. Both DiCreatine Malate and Creatine Ethyl Ester offer better absorption, less bloating, no need for increased dextrose intake, better gains in lean muscle and strength, better pumps, better endurance, are excellent choices for creatine non-responders, etc.

[wedgylx]

As always, Steve has outdone us all :lol:

Great post.

[dinoiii]

Alleluia!!!

Some science, some real world, shared ideas --> OUR world as bodybuilders.

Steve your posts are beginning to challenge mine in length. Should I be concerned?

Great post and I share ALL sentiments expressed in your post.

[dinoiii]

Also,

good to see use of your avatar.

[SNS8778]

Alleluia!!!

Some science, some real world, shared ideas --> OUR world as bodybuilders.

Steve your posts are beginning to challenge mine in length. Should I be concerned?

Great post and I share ALL sentiments expressed in your post.

Glad that we agree on that. There are so many misconceptions that have been put into peoples heads from companies marketing various types of creatines and so many studies quoted as do this or do that that have absolutely nothing to do with bodybuilding. An example being that some of the backing of the idea of not cycling creatine pertained to fibromyalgia patients, not bodybuilders. (I'm sure Dinoii can second that.)

Nah, no need to worry about my posts challenging yours for length. I generally try to make things short and sweet, but felt like that needed to be addressed properly.

Also, I must thank Chris for putting the avatar on there for me. I had never taken the time to do it yet.

[max von]

wow steve that was one of the best that i have ever read i cut and pasted it to word so that men my mono friends need the truth i can hand it to them you are the man

max von

[SNS8778]

Thanks Max.

[italionstallionl]

thanks for all the info, but what about tricreatine malate? is that just marketing hype?

[wedgylx]

thanks for all the info, but what about tricreatine malate? is that just marketing hype?

Yes. Theres no such thing as tri-creatine malate. Its Dicreatine Malate with added creatine (i cannot remember the name of the type) which doesnt even yield good results

[italionstallionl]

then is san making this up

v12 turbo
Nutrition Facts
Serving Size: 12.5g
Servings Per Container: 50
Amount Per Serving % Daily Value*
Calories 0 *%
Calories from Fat 0 *%
Sugars 0 g *%
CVT™ (Cell Volumizing Technology)
Proprietary Matrix of:
TriCreatine MalateTM 4.0 g **%

[wedgylx]

then is san making this up
TriCreatine MalateTM 4.0 g **%

Sort of. It contains what they call "Tricreatine malate", but its really not any better than dicreatine malate. Its all about marketing really. Someone brought this up in another thread, I'll try to find it and jar my memory of the other factor in Tricreatine.

Like i said before, its dicreatine malate compounded with another kind of creatine which i read had little to no effect. So basically it was just Dicreatine malate. Hopefully that makes sense....

[italionstallionl]

sure does, thanks a lot, those guys are tricky
lol

[wedgylx]

Found what i was looking for

Tricreatine Malate (simply mix of di + mono creatine salts)

[SNS8778]

Just wanted to state that Wedgylx is right on the money in reference to TriCreatine Malate. I just did not want to be the one to point that out.

[wedgylx]

Its not to say tricreatine malate wouldnt give you good results. Just that you're really supplementing with dicreatine malate. For example, NOZ supercharged has tricreatine matrix yet max von is getting good results from it.

[max von]

guys

what about the krealklyn creatine ive heared about probly spelled that wrong but im sure you guys know which one im talking about anygood. Myochem i think you make a product with that dont you?

max von

[wedgylx]

guys

what about the krealklyn creatine ive heared about probly spelled that wrong but im sure you guys know which one im talking about anygood. Myochem i think you make a product with that dont you?

max von

I'm interested in that too. never used it and i've heard mixed results. I almost took it at one point last year made by a company I wont name here. The reviews for the product i was going to get on that particular website were good, I just never got around to purchasing it.

[max von]

well hopefully we will hear soon i think that Leonard has a product in it but could be wrong

max von

[italionstallionl]

i too am intrigued by this stuff, but not totally sure the difference.


is it the fact that it never turns into creatinine, and is absorbed better that separate it from mono?

[SNS8778]

Kre-Alkyln is basically buffered creatine.

My best response is that KreAlkyln is okay, but that Creatine Ethyl Ester is worlds better based on real life feedback. Think about it like this, KreAlkyln has been around for over a year and word of mouth really hasn't carried it far. Creatine Ethyl Ester has been around for half the time and look at how popular it is.

We looked into making a KreAlkyln product, but it our goal to provide products that are the best in their respective categories and I/we just didn't feel like KreAlkyln cuts it on that issue.

I am not going to go into overly tearing down on KreAlkyln because I know Leonard makes one and I do not want to disrespect him.

[max von]

Thanks Steve for the information on that if you dont mind me asking what was the purpose for buffering it and what was that supposed to do to the product

max von

[SNS8778]

Max Von:

The theory of buffering it is mainly to help the absorption and to eliminate stomach upset. There are many claims thworn around, but I believe that is the true reasoning.

Feel free to e-mail me for more discussion on it Max.

[wedgylx]

Found this at another site, had to get rid of the name and site since its not offered here, but its a buffered KreAlkalyn:

I ordered some XXXX buffered creatine from XXX and I'd like to say it works very well. I am a creatine responder and the benefit is that I get the same effect as regular micronized creatine monohydrate without the loading phase. I take it as recommended it's like 1 teaspoon full (they have a scoop for the serving) with 4oz. of water. I get the same pump and fullness as with regular creatine. I have been using for about 5 days and I am impressed. I would like to see a non-creatine responder use it and report results.

DREi

Looks like he's getting decent results but compares them to mono, which leads me to beleive it might not be as powerful as CEE or DCM

[italionstallionl]

steve-i read one of the biggest beneifits of buffered creatine is the fact it doesnt turn into creatinine like regular mono. is this true? and does cee turn into creatinine?

[SNS8778]

steve-i read one of the biggest beneifits of buffered creatine is the fact it doesnt turn into creatinine like regular mono. is this true? and does cee turn into creatinine?

You are correct that it is an advertised difference that it does not convert to creatinine. However, DiCreatine Malate has very little conversion and neither does CEE. I do not feel that KreAlkyln offers any benefit that the others do not, and I feel that there are distinct advantages of DiCreatine Malate and CEE in real world users. When we looked into doing a KreAlkyln (not in place of CEE, but just a different product because I feel CEE is superior in so many ways), the feedback we were getting from people that had used various forms of KreAlkyln did not impress me compared to CEE or even to DiCreatine Malate. Plus, I got absolutely zero results from it. (That is not a biased statement as if I like a product I always say so no matter who makes it.)

The above paragraph is in no way meant to knock anyones product. It's just that I personally feel that there are better alternatives out there. If I felt that KreAlkyln presented a good value to the consumer, we would make one ourselves.

[max von]

sns8778

thanks for the help on that and i will email you on this

max von

[italionstallionl]

one more type of creatine i am unclear on-effervescent creatine?

thanks

[max von]

italion

good question i forgot about that one

max von

[SNS8778]

Effervescent Creatine is basically creatine monohydrate with an effervescent delivery system to supposedly help uptake absorption (think Alka Seltzer). It is a product that in the minds of most is largely outdated and overpriced. It was better than monohydrate back when they were the only two types, but there really is no reason for anyone to want to use this type of product at this point as it is inferior to DiCreatine Malate and Creatine Ethyl Ester products and is often more expensive.

(Not trying to knock anyone's products with this post. Just answering a question.)

[max von]

Steve

good answer that sounds like that would have a really bad bloating problem with that mixture

max von

[italionstallionl]

thanks for the help, i was wondering about this because as you said, it is often more expensive, which i have seen as beeing very highly priced, so i figured something had to be up with it, but i guess it is still inferior to cee and dicreatine malate. thanks for the help and clarification

[SNS8778]

No problem. The majority of the cost in effervescent creatine is the delivery system and simply mark-up. I can see no possible argument for it being better than any form of creatine other than regular monohydrate.

[max von]

Steve sounds like just another fad kinda like taking your creatine with grape juice huh

max von