11 replies to this topic

[the_eternal]

I visited my local sports suppliments store and the shop assistant recommended tri-creatine malate over the regular creatine monohydrate, saying that the malate form was absorbed more readily and I would avoid the bloating effect. This is my first try with creatine so I trusted him but it's extremely expensive to do it this way. I'm trying it to make sure I don't have any negative effect (while I'm not playing Rugby).

Does anyone know/have any studies on the difference in performance vs side-effects for these two forms of creatine? The malate form (which is fairly new in Australia I'm told) is somewhere between 2-3 times the price of the basic monohydrate.

Cheers

[zoolander]

I have been researching creatine for the last 4 years on aged human subjects with resistance training. From all the research and hype articles I have read, I will still recommend normal everyday creatine monohydrate. The bloating effect (i.e cell hydration) is what creatine does. Creatine, as a solute, travels into the cell via creatine transporters following a positive gradient from high to low. As a result, creatine enters the cell and changes the solute concentration inside the cell. Water then flows into the cell along its osmotic gradient which results in cell swelling.

Some bodybuilders will tell you that creatine causes increased water in the cell and that the increase in size is a false sense of change. That's bullshit. The hydration status of the cell or the cytoplasmic to nuclear ratio is well regulated. When you increase the hydration of the cell through creatine supplementation you dilute the macromolecules contained within the cell which in turn effects cellular kinetics. The cell tries to bounce back by re-establishing the correct ratio. In a dilution environment this is done by upregulating protein synthesis. Whether this protein synthesis comes from contractile, SR or mitochondrial proteins is not yet know by I am working towards finding out.

In summary, the bloating is a good thing. I think we are talking about the same thing.
Just buy the normal creatine monohydrate. Saleman will try and sell you something new and expensive telling you it is the next best thing since chuck norris.

That's my 20 cents worth.

P.S I am from Australia. Did you mention that you are?

[the_eternal]

I was told that creatine monohydrate can tend to sit outside the cells because of the difference in something between the inside and outside of the cells (I really have no idea) so the cells don't absorb the majority of the creatine whereas the malate form is supposed to be more bio-available and be absorbed more readily. The other thing he said was that because it's absorbed better I should get the boost from my first dose instead of after loading with monohydrate.

[sentinel]

Zoolander

Thank you for the detailed, yet thankfully concise, overview of Creatine absorption. At the risk of belatedly hijacking the thread, what do you think of the relevant dosage (ie quantity (5/7/more grams per day?), initial "loading" periods, and glucose transportation via simple sugars, grape juice etc.

I haven't been on Creatine for a few years and the PR/Salesmen have been busy... and I went off the thing based on the "keep your gains while you keep creatine topped up" dependency - a bit too much like mini-roids conceptually, although you seem to imply that one will keep most of the (muscle) gains for good.

Fascinated in advance.

Sentinel.

[the big b]

I would go to www.bodybuilding.com, take a look at the top selling creatines, there are 3 or 4 new kinds that are popular, and then look them up on the site and you can read the differences. I am a Mag Cre Che fan personally.

[sentinel]

But the point Zool appears to be making is that C Monohydrate is as effective (provided quality is high) as the "latest" micro-filtered, CEE etc. Given that, for the moment, I am still seing conflict between the loading and consistent usage camps and complimentary delivery aids including simple sugars and taurine.

If you look at the top 5 surely you'll just be buying the spin like everyone else. (Although it's always useful to know what people rate, B [thumb] )

Sentinel

[Shepard]

If you're planning on using creatine long term, I so no reason for loading or taking it with "delivery aids". Even if you plan on using it short term, I don't see any appreciable difference occuring with any of that.

Taurine is a wonderful cell-volumizer, and I supplement with it for various reasons. It has not been studied WRT exercise performance like creatine has as far as I know. So, if you're going for one of the two, creatine might be what you want. They are both so cheap, I don't see any reason to not use both.

I've never experienced any bloating from creatine (atleast nothing that has hung around for the long-term), so I still use monohydrate.

[jaydfox]

what do you think of the relevant dosage (ie quantity (5/7/more grams per day?), initial "loading" periods, and glucose transportation via simple sugars, grape juice etc.

Yes, ditto. Other than whey protein, creatine monohydrate is the only supplement I've used when lifting weights. I don't know about size or anything like that, because my muscles are hidden under a thick layer of fat (except my triceps, which are big enough to show through). But I did notice increased stamina in my workouts. I couldn't lift more weight, but I could do more reps at 80% or 85% max than I could without the creatine.

But I used sugar water with my creatine 20-30 minutes prior to workouts, to help load it via insulin (that's what the magazines and product ads said to do, no idea if it makes a real difference), so perhaps it was just the extra glucose spike that was making the extra stamina available.

Anyway, haven't done it in a few years, but thinking about doing it again, due to very poor stamina in my biceps. After one or two sets of curls or pulldowns (or assisted pullups), my biceps basically lose all strength. Other muscle groups, like those used in bench press, have much more stamina, and can go three sets (I don't normally do three sets, but I have enough stamina to, so I was just saying...), and still have enough to lift 60%-70% of max. With my biceps, I might be able to curl 20 pounds (one arm) for a set or two, and then I won't even be able to curl 10 pounds for a single rep, not even after a 3-minute rest.

So I don't know if creatine will help, but I figured it's worth a shot.

BTW, what's a proper ratio of strength for biceps and triceps. I can do dips with my body weight at 210 pounds for 15 reps, yet I need 85 pounds of assistance to do 8 pullups. This doesn't seem right to me. My biceps are very weak and have very low stamina.

[Shepard]

The pullup brings in a lot more than biceps. So do dips, depending on your angle.

It really doesn't matter when you take creatine.

[the_eternal]

The creatine I was originally asking about it 3 molecules of creatine monohydrate bound to a molecule of malic acid, the malic acid is supposed to assist delivery and can also help with the functioning of the aerobic energy cycle (this all from the packaging, would still like a 2nd opinion). The Tri-creatine malate is supposed to be more bioavailable than even the CEE form. Jayd, I noticed the same thing after just a few days on the creatine, I easily added 5kg to my bench press and just felt a lot more energised at the gym.

[sentinel]

Jaydfox

Re your bicep/tricep strength ratio there does not seem to be a recognised ideal (although I have found a couple of references to triceps being 140% of bicep strength). Firstly there are no direct exercise comparisons, as Shepard said Pull-ups/chins are primarily a Lats and general back exercise, but biceps are the weakest link and will fail first if not proportionally strong as your back, and these can not be compared directly to bench press as a means of assessing chest to back strength ratios.

More importantly is that you are (like me) predisposed to having mediocre biceps and good triceps, conversely I know a lot of guys who have prominent biceps even though they do desk jobs but little in the way of horseshoe on the back of their arm. Triceps are just a bigger muscle and will always be stronger so if, like me, you have hams on the back of your arm but depressingly flat biceps then you would aesthetically and physiologically be better off doing priority training for your biceps and just maintain your triceps. Stick to low volume, fairly low rep (6-8) – high volume will just make them worse.

Sorry, bit off topic but meanwhile, Zoolander – got any definitive science you care to through into the Creatine mix?


Sentinel