Different form of creatine compared, effects on serum levels

[www.BrinkZone.com]

Hot off the presses from the JISSN. Full paper can be found via their web site:

http://www.jissn.com/articles/browse.asp

Too bad they didn’t test CEE, but it’s great they compared some different forms:





Research article

Comparison of new forms of creatine in raising plasma creatine levels

Ralf Jager email, Roger Harris email, Martin Purpura email and Marc Francaux email

Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 2007,

4:17doi:10.1186/1550-2783-4-17
Published:    12 November 2007
Abstract (provisional)

Background

Previous research has shown that plasma creatine levels are influenced by extracellular concentrations of insulin and glucose as well as by the intracellular creatine concentration. However, the form of creatine administered does not appear to have any effect although specific data on this is lacking. This study examined whether the administration of three different forms of creatine had different effects on plasma creatine concentrations and pharmacokinetics.
Methods

Six healthy subjects (three female and three male subjects) participated in the study. Each subject was assigned to ingest a single dose of isomolar amounts of creatine (4.4 g) in the form of creatine monohydrate (CrM), tri-creatine citrate (CrC), or creatine pyruvate (CrPyr) using a balanced cross-over design. Plasma concentration curves, determined over eight hours after ingestion, were subject to pharmacokinetic analysis and primary derived data were analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA.
Results

Mean peak concentrations and area under the curve (AUC) were significantly higher with CrPyr (17 and 14%, respectively) in comparison to CrM and CrC. Mean peak concentration and AUC were not significantly different between CrM and CrC. Despite the higher peak concentration with CrPyr there was no difference between the estimated velocity constants of absorption (ka) or elimination (kel) between the three treatments. There was no effect of treatment with CrPyr on the plasma pyruvate concentration.
Conclusion

The findings suggest that different forms of creatine result in slightly altered kinetics of plasma creatine absorption following ingestion of isomolar (with respect to creatine) doses of CrM, CrC and CrPyr although differences in ka could not be detected due to the small number of blood samples taken during the absorption phase. Characteristically this resulted in higher plasma concentrations of creatine with CrPyr. Differences in bioavailability are thought to be unlikely since absorption of CrM is already close to 100%. The small differences in kinetics are unlikely to have any effect on muscle creatine elevation during periods of creatine loading.

[GroinkTropin]

I wonder why they didn't test krealklyn or CEE? Study doesn't really do anything for me, thanks for posting it though.

[England_1]

That paper has very poor power with only only 6 people in it. There is a greatly increased probability that a type II error was made. I would take it with a grain of salt.

As well, look at this:

"The difference between means was larger when CrPyr and CrM were compared, but in this
last case the signification threshold was not reached (p=0.089). "

Since the P-value was greater than their alpha (.05 I'm assuming), there was too great of a probability (~9%) that their results were due solely to chance.

Bottom line: creatine monohydrate is still the way to go. Don't buy into paying 2-3x more for different forms of creatine.

[www.BrinkZone.com]

Bottom line: creatine monohydrate is still the way to go. Don't buy into paying 2-3x more for different forms of creatine.

That's more or less what the study says, small n numbers and all.

[The Freakshow]

I've ALWAYS taken Creapure pure creatine monohydrate and have continued to get phenomenal results.