Archive for April 2009

creatinepowderSome people believe that liquid creatine is better than powder creatine, such as Universal Nutrition creatine, or perhaps the other way around and that powder creatine is better than liquid.  Actually, neither party is correct — whether you take creatine by liquid or powder, you will receive the same results.

With that being said, however, there are differences in the way you supplement with liquid creatine as opposed to its creatine powder counterpart.  The most obvious difference with liquid creatine is the method of supplementation, in addition to its dosage size being different from a powder.  We’ll go over the differences between these two delivery vehicles for creatine in this post.

» Read more after the jump →

cellmass by BSNQ: I’ve been using creatine for years and have tried many types (creatine monohydrate, citrate, malate, etc.)—some with better results than others. I’ve now been hearing about a new type of creatine and am wondering if it’s worth trying. What is this “creatine ethyl ester”? Is it a better form of creatine? What do you know about it?

A: The first question we need to clarify is what do you mean by better? Yes, there is reason to believe creatine ethyl ester (or CEE) is probably more soluble than creatine monohydrate (Cr.H20) or other forms of creatine. And, as solubility affects transport over biological membranes (such as muscle cells), it probably is taken up into your muscles more effectively. Meaning, you can load it faster. However, whether this leads to a greater accumulation of creatine in your muscle, at the end of a five-day loading phase, compared to creatine monohydrate, is relatively unknown. At least, there’s no human data as of yet that can support or dispute this claim.

» Read more after the jump →