Guru Will Brink sanoo creatiinistä
Muistan ekan kerran aikoja sitten kun
EAS tuli markkinoille tuon tunnetun
Phosphagen crea tuotteella. No pitihän sitä purkillinen ostaa. Toimi järjettömän hyvin. Lihasten pumpit oli vallan mahtavaa. Paino nousi (neste) voima nousi ja into treeniin nousi. En ole vuosiin ottanut creaa mutta nyt viime vuonna ostin
BSN cellmassaa pari purkkia. Ei mitään tapahtunut.
Will Brinkin newsletterissä tuli eilen crea asiaa. Olen melkolailla hänen kanssa omien kokemuksien kautta samaa mieltä. Tästä eteenpäin jos käytän creaa, ostan perus kamaa ja juon sen mehun kanssa. Ainaskin niin kauan kun tulee kunnon tietoo uusista. Alla on vain osa artikkelista. Linkin kautta koko paketti.
:wtf:
The Creatine Graveyard List::wtf:
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.
http://www.brinkzone.com/blog/bodybuilding/the-creatine-grave-yard/
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:
.
. 
