Talk:Creatine/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Doping?

User:128.172.154.59 added this to the main article:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creatine&action=edit

"Creatine is not considered doping and is currently acceptable to all sports-governing bodies". That is not true everywhere. In the NCAA rules, athletes are not allowed to take creatine. Moreover I would say that it is important to notify that selling creatine in France is not allowed. I would also add that creatine has bad effects of long-term supplementation. Some of the effects are unknown but have already been studied.

What are these effects exactly? You can't make statements like this with no evidence

I'm just moving it here, where it's more appropriate. - jredmond 15:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NCAA has banned distribution of creatine and other supplements by its member institutions, but does not prohibit creatine use. [1] - Karl Stas 09:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Weight gain

User:Weightshead added this to the article:

"The reasoning behind creatine supplementation for bodybuilding, is that the increased performance during weight training provides a greater stimulus to muscle growth and thus leads to hypertrophy of the skeletal muscle." I don't think this is accurate. Creatine just increases water retention in the muscle cells. - Karl Stas 09:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Creatine doesnt just increase water retention in the cells -
Creatine DOES increase water retention INSIDE the cells, which is one of the reasons why creatine supplementation can cause dehydration. Michael Powers of the University of Florida made headlines with his research on this subject. - Karl Stas 22:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Lets stick to the point. we BOTH know creatine DOES increase water retention through cellular swelling, neither of us have said anything to the contrary. - Weightshead
Then, why delete any mention of it? - Karl Stas 16:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is covered elsewhere in the article, but your right its only in passing and it does need to be clearer as its the most notable effect of creatine. - Weightshead

even the article states that creatine "marginally increase athletic performance in high-intensity, anaerobic exercise".

I never disputed that, in fact, I probably even wrote it in the first place. Also, muscle hypertrophy just means "an increase of muscle mass". This increase can be caused by an increase in protein, but also by an increase in cellular water. - Karl Stas 22:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I dont mean to sound hostile but what is your point with regard to the article? is there anything you disagree with still? personally i think its clear from the publications that they talk about an increase in muscle mass, regardless of the water retention. Locally produced muscle growth factors are upregulated during creatine supplementation, method to enhance muscle size and strength _responses_ to resistance training. - Weightshead
My point is that we should be critical of marketing claims that creatine causes "true" muscle hypertrophy (as opposed to volumization through increased water retention). Creatine may allow body builders to do more reps or use heavier weights, which will obviously have an effect on muscle hypertrophy (indirectly). But most of the increase in muscle volume (especially in the short term) is caused by water retention. Creatine as such does not cause actual muscle growth, it only helps muscle protein synthesis. It does not improve muscle strength either. These are important distinctions to make, but which the article fails to make in its current revision. - Karl Stas 16:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your right most of the research on the effects of creatine do suggest that the actual muscle growth (sic) is due to being able to better overload the muscles through increased volume. I also dont want the article to give the impression that creatine is anything more than a training tool. I also agree with you that short term 'gains' are all water retention. However there are many publications suggesting that the cell volumization caused by creatine (and cell volumization in general actually) within the muscle upregulates certain factors of growth. One of these factors is considered to be glycogen supercompensation - also it is possible it affects carbohydrate and protein metabolism.
I also agree with you that the marketing spin on creatine is questionable. however I really think that trying to negate that marketing with an article which plays down creatine supplementation and its potential effect on muscle growth is not optimal. One thing i'd like to see in the article is the fact that some people do not respond to creatine supplementation, but I'm happy for you to go ahead and edit the article and we'll see if we can come up with something that we both feel is factual, accurate and complete. - Weightshead.
I just stumbled across a very interesting article which offers an overview of current theories on this subject.[2] I suggest we use it to rewrite the contentious part of the article. - Karl Stas 19:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agreed thats the best article on creatine i have ever read. great find! Weightshead 00:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From pubmed:
Scientific basis and practical aspects of creatine supplementation for athletes., Volek JS, Rawson ES.
Increases in muscle fiber hypertrophy and myosin heavy chain expression have been observed with creatine supplementation.
In summary, the predominance of research indicates that creatine supplementation represents a safe, effective, and legal method to enhance muscle size and strength responses to resistance training.
Making muscles "stronger": exercise, nutrition, drugs. Aagaard P.
Institute of Sports Sciences and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark and Sports Medicine Research Unit, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Creatine supplementation amplifies the hypertrophic response to resistance training, although some individuals may not respond positively. Locally produced muscle growth factors are upregulated during creatine supplementation, which contributes to increase the responsiveness of muscle cells to intensive training stimuli.
Creatine supplementation: exploring the role of the creatine kinase/phosphocreatine system in human muscle. Hespel P, Eijnde BO, Derave W, Richter EA.
Thus, muscle hypertrophy and glycogen supercompensation are candidate factors to explain the ergogenic potential of creatine ingestion.
im going to reword and reinstate my last edit. - Weightshead 11 Apr 2005


good rewrite, thanks. Weightshead 23:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Sorry, didn't know where to add this, but I was hoping to find some info in the article about creatine "stacking" or "loading". I keep hearing that some types of creatine should be stacked and other types don't need to be. Wikipedia is always my first stop so I was hoping maybe there would be a section on how creatine is taken, (before, after or during workouts), what amount is recommended, etc. I found a great Fact vs. Fiction on Creatine at this site: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/animalpak22.htm

Some facts that I found interesting or relevant to a "How it is taken" section are: -5 grams is the recommended amount of creatine for muscle development, stacking or loading more is potentially a waste -A normal diet will provide an average of 1g of creatine daily, much of it can be destroyed during cooking -When it is taken (before, during or after workouts, at night, etc) appears to make no difference, as long as you consume 5g per day -Taking creatine with juice or protien may enhance it's absorbtion due to changes in insulin levels

Thanks

Aerobic exercise

An anonymous user replaced the sentence "It must be noted creatine has no significant effect on aerobic exercise" with the following text:

Creatine has been noted to improve aerobic performance and anaerobic capacity in elite rowers in the course of endurance training. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2003 Jun;13(2):173-83.
Most studies agree that creatine has no effect on endurance (aerobic) exercise. I do not think the findings of one isolated study warrant this edit. At the very least, it should be phrased more cautiously. - Karl Stas 21:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I think the distinction needs to be made between aerobic endurance and aerobic exercise. Since aerobic exercise will always have anaerobic components (and vice versa, anaerobic exercise usually induces aerobic respiration afterwards), I still think it would benefit from creatine usage, especially for the initial starting and warmup when the aerobic aspect hasn't quiet caught up with the increased activity. Tyciol 16:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Adverse effects

You should note some of the adverse affects of creatine has been found and from the studies I've done there has been no true long term studies on creatine.It should be noted that Creatine is still controversial in many countries including the United States. -Unknown

Long-term studies are generally for new compounds like drugs. Since creatine is naturally created by the body and found within meat, that isn't really required, unless you're taking extreme doses. Like any food (for example, eating a lot of meat, drinking a lot of milk), people start off with little, and can then judge for themself the effects. There's no theory or evidence of creatine having any negative effects as far as I know. Tyciol 16:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Renal (kidney) failure

I just wanted to know if the article should include the affects that prolonged oral consumption of creatine has in kidney failure and renal disease. I know that it is considered dangerous for people already suffering from renal disease to take creatine, but I'm not sure if there were some studies that showed that prolonged use by athletes did show an adverse affect on their kidneys (prolonged meaning never stopping, day after day for years on end. [3] [4]


- I agree this whole article reads like a big Creatine ad. I took creative for 2 years and I started
to notice some problems such as extreme fatigue, constant thirst, and dimished libido. I stopped
taking the Creatine and within 2 months I was fine. Oh yeah, I lost like 15 pounds in just a few weeks, obviously Creatine makes you look and feel bigger then you really are
Look at your symptoms. Constant thirst? That's called dehydration - try drinking more water. Extreme fatigue? Overtraining - get some sleep. Dimished libido? Low testosterone - check out hormone replacement therapy. It's physiologically impossible for creatine to have caused those symptoms - you're acting like it's a steroid - check up the chemical make up of creatine and explain how it could possibly affect your libido. I'm interested in hearing your theory. Yankees76 14:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Whole heartedly agree with Yankees76 here. Creatine has never been shown to induce any of the effects you are describing. It "may" have contributed to dehydration (ever so slightly) due to intracellular retention of water but more likely you were just training harder and thus needed to drink more. Your experience is unique and could be easily attributed to other factors well before concluding creatine had anything to do with it. Glen Stollery (My contributions) 14:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

24.63.49.70's Edits from January 12

There was some good material in these edits, however I reverted them because 24.63.49.70 practically re-wrote the entire article, destroying hours of work by many individuals, without adding proper links, or citing studies or references etc. Properly added to the existing material, some of this new text could greatly enhance the article. I suggest that we slowly incorporate this text so as not to completely undo the work of others. Yankees76 14:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Cell-tech mania

If cell-tech is mentioned, can someone please make a compelling argument (rather than cite) why the company merits a mention? Why not just mention the better performing formulation, cite why it is better chemically, and mention cell-tech as one retailer? Otherwise move it to a cell-tech article.

Also, the synthesis section is weak. What enzymes catalyze the synthesis? Creatine kinase is mentioned and well linked but the whole synthesis pathway is one line.

So if we were creating an article on cars and someone posted that, for example, the Ford Thunderbird was the first car to include power steering and is the top selling car of all time, you would take exception to that as well? After all, we're mentioning product and company names. I don't see how this is still an issue, especially when you consider than another product is also mentioned (Phosphagen), and yet not one change or challenge has been made that particular product's inclusion. This leads me to believe that the deletions are due to biased opinions towards one particular company and/or product. This product mention appears only the 'history of creatine' section and I've even go so far as to include why creatine and alpha lipoic acid is an important discovery, and cited and linked to the study that shows this. Also to the best of my knowledge, the discovery of this combination has been patented and Cell-tech is the only "retailer" legally allowed to combine the two for sale. The fact that one product happens to be the first to include this discovery and also happens to have the most studies published on it, does not make it's inclusion an advertisement.

The article is on creatine - if it's not on creatine supplements or supplementation - then a new entry should be included for them with that information in those entries and the creatine article itself devoted to just talking about C4H9N3O2-H20. Once you include creatine supplementation, its inevitable that supplements (whether they are creatine variations, product names, or manufacturers) are going to come up.

I'm working on updating the creatine synthesis section - though in the meantime you could always take a stab at it. Yankees76 15:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving creatine supplements to their own article is a good idea. Creatine (the molecule) is a very static, well characterized entity with much clean biochemistry around it. Supplementation is still a matter for debate and such debate would better take place within the supplementation article, and matters such as supplement formulas and retailer differences could be explained in better detail -- the bodybuilding supplements page is a top-level overview that could link to the Creatine supplements page. Added some minor adds to the synthesis picture and linked out to KEGG and OMIM for biochemistry and mutation data, respectively.

Safety

Because of the potential for side effects and interactions with medications, dietary supplements should be taken only under the supervision of a knowledgeable healthcare provider.

Side effects of creatine include weight gain, muscle cramps, muscle strains and pulls, stomach upset, diarrhea, dizziness, high blood pressure, liver dysfunction, and kidney damage. The weight gain is thought to be due primarily to water retention. Creatine should not be used by anyone who already has problems kidney function, high blood pressure, or liver disease. Taking creatine supplements may prevent the body from making it's own natural stores. The long-term consequences of this are not known.

A 2001 report [citation needed] by the Food Safety Agency of France (AFSSA) raised questions about creatine supplements possibly putting users at greater risk for cancer, particularly if such supplements are taken for long periods of time. However, the European Commission and the Council for Responsible Nutrition in the United States both determined that AFSSA's claims are unsubstantiated and not based on any scientific evidence of a connection between creatine and cancer. All three organizations do agree, though, that risks of long-term use of creatine are not known at this time.

Creatine supplements containing contaminants from the production process have been reported. Be sure to buy products made by established companies with good reputations, and who distribute their products through trustworthy and knowledgeable establishments.Media:http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsSupplements/Creatinecs.html It seems the general consensus [citation needed] is that not enough research has been conducted.

I'm wondering what your point to posting this (outdated) information is? Consensus amongst whom? The media circa 2001? Actually I might take you seriously, but since you plagiarized your entire post from different sources, I can tell you're not actually knowledgable on the subject. There is absolutely no proof to support your contention that creatine is potentially harmful - only anecdotal reports that don't have a shred of scientific evidence to support them.
Why didn't you talk about the National Strength and Conditioning Association's annual conference report, where post-study questionnaires were filled out by 164 athletes who participated in creatine studies was presented? The data showed no reports of muscle cramping and no reports of muscle strains or pulls in subjects taking creatine-containing supplements. Further, a significantly greater increase of GI distress (stomach discomfort) was reported in subjects ingesting placebos compared to creatine-containing supplements! The cause of muscle cramps and dehydration are both due to inadequate water consumption, not creatine supplementation.
There are no studies that show liver dsyfunction or kidney damage as a result from using creatine. There have however, been studies that show that there are no detrimental effects on athletes' liver and kidney functions from short-, medium-, or long-term use of this supplement.
And as far as long term use goes, if creatine caused long-term side effects, there would be indicators in the shorter studies. There have been several studies conducted on creatine supplementation, which concluded that long term creatine use has no side effects. Yankees76 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the claims are a bit questionable, I'd like to see the scientific trials (and corresponding theories) to back these claims. I do agree with some though. Weight gain does happen due to more water weight in the muscles. I'm not sure why it says 'is thought to', since it's pretty evident. Muscle cramps make no sense at all. Stomach upset possibly, since we may not have adapted to digest raw creatine as well as say, from meat. I doubt diarreah, that just doesn't make much sense. If anything, due to the enhanced water absorption I think your stool would be a bit drier (so you need to compensate by drinking more water). High blood pressure doesn't really make any sense. Liver dysfunction perhaps if the creatine supplements have any toxic content (no evidence of this). Kidney damage for similar reasons, but again, no evidence for it. As for not letting the body make it's natural stores, that's similarly unfounded. This might be so for steroids or dopamine, but there's no evidence of it for stuff like creatine or CoQ10. REcommendations to find a good provider without contaminants make sense too. Tyciol 16:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Creatine Serum?

Creatine serum should be removed as one of the types of creatine forms as dozens of lab tests on the product have shown it to be "dubious" at best with only 10mg-30mg of creatine per serving (product claims 2000mg) and that it is ineffective in enhancing performance in any way[5] Glen Stollery (My contributions) 00:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a tough call - and numerous lawsuits have been fought in court regarding it. I'm personally for pulling it, however it is available for purchase. Perhaps we can pull it since only one company seems to still sell it? Thoughts? Yankees76 14:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This study was funded by Degussa BioActives (a maker of powdered creatine) which is a direct competitor to the makers of the creatine serum (Muscle Marketing). The section on creatine serum should be left as is since we only have this one extremely biased study claiming its ineffectiveness. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman 15:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're misinformed. There is more than one study. But first with the Degussa-funded study. Both researchers from Baylor University and the Neurology Unit at McMaster University conducted the study. They gave subjects doses of creatine serum that were eight times the recommended dosage, and it still failed to have any effect on muscle ATP. Degussa merely paid for the study and supplied the researchers with creatine monohydrate to give to the control group - the poor results that the creatine serum gave could not have been directly influenced by Degussa because it was double blinded and placebo controlled.
There was also an independant study peformed by by Harris et al. published in the Journal of Sports Sciences(Volume 22, Number 9/ September 2004) that found that "no increase in plasma or urinary creatine or creatinine was found on ingestion of Creatine Serum or water." They concluded that that "the trace amounts of creatine in the product would be too little to affect the muscle content even with multiple dosing."
It's obvious the product doesn't work, but that's not the issue. It is marketed and sold as a creatine supplement. Do we leave it in the article, even though it's well known not work? Even though the company that makes it lost a court case and is now forbidden to make statements comparing its creatine products, including creatine serum product(s), with any creatine powder products in it's advertising? I suggest we leave it but add a paragraph about the studies above and the court case. Yankees76 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This study is very misleading. The first group is given "four 5g supplements daily of creatine monohydrate powder supplied by Degussa Bioactives for five days. The second group is given "either 5ml of creatine serum daily for five days or a 5ml placebo". They are not even close to comparing the same amounts of creatine. A proper study would have been conducted as such, "The first group is given four 5g supplements daily in powdered form. The second group is given an equivalent amount of creatine in serum form". This study in no way shows that creatine serum is ineffective. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman 16:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the CM group was the control group. But how do you explain that there were no significant differences in results between the group that took Creatine Serum and the placebo group? Your argument is irrelevant. Creatine serum subjects took 5ml creatine serum eight times a each day, with a blinded group taking the placebo in equal high dosages. Surely if creatine serum actually contained creatine there would be a signficant difference between the placebo group and serum group - but there wasn't. Muscle biopsies on subjects taking creatine serum at a higher dose that directed on the label (8 servings a day purportedly providing 20 grams/day of creatine monohydrate equivalent for 5 days - supplementing more than one complete bottle [1 1/3 bottles]) resulted in no significant effect on muscle creatine or ATP levels. Please do yourself a favor and do some research before posting.Yankees76 17:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly my point. There was negligible creatine in the serum hence the similar results between the group taking the placebo and the serum. All this tells us is that this particular low concentration creatine serum does not work. This does not mean that ALL creatine serums are ineffective. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman 17:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
They used more than an entire bottle with no significant effect over 5 days - the equivalent of 20 grams a day. Not exactly a low concetration. What this study did was validate the numerous HPLC tests that showed that creatine serum supplements contain little or no creatine and high levels of creatinine. Creatine is not stable in liquid form. It's basic chemistry. There isn't a single peer-reviewed study that shows any brand of liquid creatine or creatine serum increase muscle creatine levels or ATP. Not one.Yankees76 17:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
A 5mL dose of ATP Advantage Creatine Serum contains 2500mg of powdered creatine. 2500mg = 2.5g. Where are you getting this 20 grams a day from? User:Yankees76 - "What this study did was validate the numerous HPLC tests that showed that creatine serum supplements contain little or no creatine and high levels of creatinine." That is not what this study showed. The only thing this study showed is that a very low does of creatine will have negligible effect on muscle ATP and/or creatine stores. It did not address the stability of creatine in a liquid medium. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman 17:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Do the math. Eight 5ml servings a day multiplied by 2.5 equals 20 grams. I think I've presented more than enough evidence to support my case. It's obivous you're having trouble interpreting the study results, and you're twisting what you do understand to meet your own agenda. Yankees76 18:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


As for safety you may want to check if the products mentioned by Yankees76 are in fact free of contaminants... Cell Tech was not... Olympian in court battle with supplement maker


BY WAYNE COFFEY New York Daily News October 23, 2005 Fragment


It wasn't even two months before the Salt Lake Olympics when Pavle Jovanovic walked into a GNC store in Park City, Utah on Dec. 21, 2001.


He says he purchased a product called Nitro-Tech, made by a Canadian company called MuscleTech. He says he read the label, talked to the salesperson and did additional research on-line, determining that the supplement - one of 11 he was taking at the time - would safely help him build strength and recover from intensive workouts. In a lawsuit his lawyers have filed against the manufacturer and GNC - it is scheduled to go to trial next April - Jovanovic alleges that it was a tainted tub of Nitro-Tech that caused him to test positive.


His complaint states that after his positive test he sent a sealed container of Nitro-Tech to Integrated Biomolecule Corp., a lab in Tucson, Ariz. and that it "was analyzed and reportedly contained norandrostenedione and androstenediol."


Lawyers for MuscleTech deny all allegations that the product was contaminated, and state in a counter-claim against Jovanovic, "Upon information and belief, Jovanovic knows that his alleged consumption of Nitro-Tech did not and could not have caused Jovanovic to fail his drug test and in particular, Jovanovic knows that the true cause of his positive drug test was a substance other than Nitro-Tech."


In its answer to the complaint, lawyers for GNC also deny the allegations, stating that "Jovanovic's failed test was caused by the actions of Jovanovic himself or the actions of third parties for whom GNC is not responsible."


In a separate and independent study undertaken in 2002 at the behest of the International Olympic Committee, 240 supplements that are sold in the U.S. were analyzed. The study found that almost 19% of the products tested contained substances that would produce a positive test.


Just two days ago, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, addressed this issue in a letter to the acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, asking what the agency is doing to safeguard the public from dietary supplements that may contain steroids and other impurities.


[Link]

What does an article on nitro tech have to do with creatine serum? Isn't nitro-tech a protein powder? And finally, didn't the judge dismiss this lawsuit? Oh, in fact U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball did dismiss the lawsuit. Thanks for the outdated article though. Yankees76 15:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Yankees76 You ask me what the relation is between Creatine Serum and NitroTech? It is a matter of two companies with questionable ethics. The one making claims it cannot sustain, the other not caring to much about a career of an athlete or even the personal health of a unaware consumer.

That's a pretty bold statement considering that none of the parties being sued were found guilty of any wrongdoing, nor was any proof shown that the product in question contained any illegal substances. You're jumping to conclusions based on the word of an athlete who failed a drug test. Not really solid evidence if you ask me - or in this case the judge. Yankees76 23:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote for deletion of serum component

Monkeyman I am afraid you are the one GROSSLY mislead on this issue. Yes stud(ies) have been funded by Degussa but as the FDA does not appove dietary supplements the industry must be self regulating. These studies were all done by reputable labs and performance studies all in double blind placebo conditions. There have been dozens of studies showing inder 1% of label claim some of which I will reference below. Aside from all this "creatine serum" is trademarked by MMUSA so at least make it 'liquid creatine' so as to be neutral in brand selection. But I VOTE delete to serum part all together

The following shows the different tests on three different batch numbers[6]

Compound---------Label Claim------Test 1--------Test 2--------Test 3
Creatine-----------500mg/1----------5.5mg/l--------2.1mg/l-----2.7mg/l
Creatinine--------0mg/1-------------12.1mg/l------11.7mg/l----13.9mg/l


and from my own countries local news:

Muscle Marketing USA fined $70000 for false claim Muscle Marketing USA fined $70,000 for false claims about sports performance product

Muscle Marketing USA Limited has been fined $70,000 in the Auckland District Court today for breaching the Fair Trading Act in relation to its sports performance enhancing product ATP Advantage Creatine Serum.

In sentencing, Judge Everitt said that Muscle Marketing's claims about its product were so far from actual reality that it was a very bad case of a misleading statement. "The company was highly culpable. On a scale of 1-10 it was 8."

The Commerce Commission investigated claims that Muscle Marketing USA was making false representations in promotional material and labelling regarding the quantity of creatine in its ATP Advantage Creatine Serum product and the benefits that people would get from using it.

Creatine is a nutrient that is synthesised from food by our bodies. It provides the energy muscles need to move and is often used by athletes to improve their sports performance.

Fair Trading Director Deborah Battell said that in the Commission's view, Muscle Marketing USA falsely represented that 5ml of its serum yielded the equivalent of 2500mg of creatine.

"Tests conducted on the serum showed that 5mls of the product contained only around 11.5mg of creatine. This means that on the basis of Muscle Marketing USA's recommended daily dose of 5mls a day, athletes would not be able to obtain the benefits as represented.

"A 150ml bottle of the serum retails for $119.95. This is a significant outlay, particularly when people are paying this price based on misleading representations" Ms Battell said.

"It's another example of a product where consumers are utterly reliant on claims being made by the company because they have no realistic means of checking the actual composition or effectiveness of the product," said Ms Battell.

In sentencing, Judge Everitt commented that people will always have pride in their appearance and are vulnerable to this kind of marketing. The Act is designed to create fair trading and to protect the public from "snake oil people and the like", he said. ---

I've been in this industry ten years and its certified cr@p. DELETE! Glen Stollery (My contributions) 18:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote to delete, or leave the creatine serum reference, with an added paragraph explaining the results of tests and studies on the supplement. Yankees76 19:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


Attention User: 208.9.198.146

Please note that your IP address is registered under AST Sport Science. Note that Wikipedia guidelines prohibite commercial linking. Please do not add commercial links or advertisements (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Yankees76 00:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

From dnsstuff.com:
IP: 208.9.198.146
Country: United States
City: Golden, Colorado
From AST's site:
AST Sports Science Corporate Headquarters
120 Capital Drive
Golden, Colorado 80401 USA
Hmmm.... coincidence? I think not! My guess? Paul Delia stop editing articles so they promote your company! Glen Stollery (My contributions) 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I checked the user page to make sure you did a vandal warning, you did, yay. Advertising is annoying, I agree. I think manufacturers should definately contribute to wikipedia, but only to provide statistics, and only under their own subjects, and without introducing misleading statements, lies, exclusions or biases. Tyciol 16:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Creatine Ban

The article mentions it being banned in France, does anyone know of any other country, state, or organization that it is banned in?

Actually the article should really define what banned means; Is it a scheduled drug? Banned for use by French sporting bodies? Banned actually tells us very little... You wouldn't say cocaine is banned so why say it about creatine? Can anyone elaborate on that definition some more? Image:glenstollery.gifPOW! 04:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Hey, I don't think Creatine is banned in France. Example: http://www.toutelanutrition.net/affiche_produit.php?sous_cat=Créatines%20pures&current=0&PHPSESSID=ed363642943c361b30de17aed5efbdf7

History and reorganization.

The part attempting to attribute creatine as an ancient Greek supplement is unsourced, contains weasel words, and is based on logical fallacy. I'm removing it. Also, as creatine is firstly a metabolic intermediate and secondly a supplement, some reorganization is due. The Crow 20:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Attention Anthony Katgert/Pasio Ingredients

Note that Wikipedia guidelines prohibite commercial linking. Please do not add commercial links or advertisements (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. There is undeniable evidence (i have your email address) that you are an employee of Pasio Ingredients, therefore your unverified edits about your company and it's products that were made on June 18, 2006 have been reverted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm or a new medium to advertise your products. Yankees76 22:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Attention Yankees76 (Personal attack removed)

Yankees76

Yes I have ties with pasio ingredients and perhaps that disqualifies me as an honest source for Wikipedia. I am sorry.

But I just stated facts. Facts you were to lazy to verify.

Check the facts and you will see that I stated nothing more than facts. Just like you did with EAS and Phosphagen.

You want facts? Before bashing learn your languages before commenting. English not the only language brother Yankees76.

This labresult will verify fact one that Creatyl is the first and no only batchtested CEE product that passed a drugscreeningtest.

This link to www.antidoping.nl/nzvt will verify the other.

Kind regards


Anthony Katgert

First, stop with the personal attacks (Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks) or I'll have you banned. You're doing a poor job representing your company in a public forum, and I can tell you right now that I'll be sending my friends at Exhale, B&K Sportsmag in Sweden and Tropicana in England a note regarding your poor business ethics.

Secondly I didn't add Phosphagen to the article. That was added by Stollery, and what was added are all facts that can be verfied through reputable sources. Thirdly, Wikipedia is neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view), meaning that there is a policy in place preventing corporations and thier represnetitives from advertising here. Fourthly, Wikipedia is not the place for original research - such as the two Certificates of Analysis you've just posted.

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. You've not done that with any of your claims. Wikipedia only publishes material that is verifiable by referring to reliable, published sources. Again something you haven't done.

Here's the policy in simple, easy to understand terms

The policy

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

See point number three specifically with regards to my "lazy editing".

I would suggest that before you come on here using Wikipedia as a medium to advertise your products you ensure you're familiar with our policies. Yankees76 13:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I do now understand the terms perfectly. I would like to get a chance to talk to you 1:1 by phone. Please give me chance to explaine Yankees76. You can verify everything I have said before. As for your remark: Quote "now that I'll be sending my friends at Exhale, B&K Sportsmag in Sweden and Tropicana in England a note regarding your poor business ethics."

I just stated that WADA does not yet recognizes labtest done by anyone else but a test done by them. Tropicana is, as far as I can tell a reputable brand but I have not seen labresults from them. But that does not mean their product is tainted. I have never said that.

As for your point on number 3... a reputable source: please define? Does a publication of a Dutch authority like the Dutch Olympic Committee not count as a reliable source of inpartial information? The NOC in your opinion is not a reliable, public source of information? The WADA lab in Cologn is selling hogwash? Is that what you are saying? Yankees76 I apologize for my perhaps rude behaviour but I can get so angry with people who state that I am anything but the truth. I have just provided statistics. I hope that in the future we can get along just fine. I sincerely want to make a positive non commercial contribution to Wiki but only if the facts are not ignored. Else Wiki has no value and Encarta may have.

Yours truly

Anthony Katgert

No thanks. I'll pass. I shouldn't have to explain anything. I'm following the policies and guidelines as a Wikipedia editor - something you should be doing yourself as a new editor to this encyclopedia. This wasn't personal until you decided to make it personal by resorting to name calling - something I refuse to take part in and will not tolerate.
You had the option of contributing to this article within the guidelines and chose not to. If I hadn't corrected/removed those edits, another editor would have. A phone conversation changes nothing, and quite frankly I don't believe you're someone that I care to correspond with outside of this medium.
That being said, you're more than welcome to contribute here as I'm sure you have valuable knowledge that could improve this and other articles. I don't want to discourage you from editing, I'm just asking that you follow the guidelines, don't get defensive if other people make changes to or remove your work, and avoid the personal attacks on other editors. Conduct yourself with some level of professionalism. That's all I'm going to say about it. If you want to continue this conversation, do so on your talk page - not here. Yankees76 22:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I will follow the guidelines as they are. But would surely hope that you do some checking in other publications than the English one as well. And be frank. I at least use my own name and not a nickname like yourself. I think that counts for something. At least for getting my butt kicked under my own name.

Anthony Signing off Goodnight and goodluck

Anthony, it's your responsibility to provide the references. The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. The rest of us should not have to perform extensive searches for obscure references and sources of your claims. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources might be able to help you, so might Wikipedia:Verifiability. Posting a certificate of analysis that your company paid for is a dubious attempt at a verfiable source. Are there peer-reviewed journals you can quote? Generally your edits might not have been removed so quickly had they not come from such a non-neutral point of view source. Corporate bias will be removed fairly quickly regardless of the topic. You're not the first 'company rep' to come on here and you won't be the last. Try re-inserting your information from a neutral persprective with references. We'll go from there, I'm sure other editors reading this will want to get involved and help make the information relevant and improve the article. And when time permits, I'm always willing to help. P.S. The fact that you choose to use your real name doesn't make much difference here. All editors, even those only posting with their IP are treated equally. Yankees76 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Celltech

The Celltech study was done on sedentary people and did not measure muscular performance. The study also did not show an increase in weight gain in Cell-Tech users over regular creatine users.

Here's a copy of the study summary:

"Department of Human Kinetics, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada B2G 2W5.

Alpha-lipoic acid has been found to enhance glucose uptake into skeletal muscle in animal models. Studies have also found that the co-ingestion of carbohydrate along with creatine increases muscle creatine uptake by a process related to insulin-stimulated glucose disposal. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of alpha-lipoic acid on human skeletal muscle creatine uptake by directly measuring intramuscular concentrations of creatine, phosphocreatine, and adenosine triphosphate when creatine monohydrate was co-ingested with alpha-lipoic acid. Muscle biopsies were acquired from the vastus lateralis m. of 16 male subjects (18-32 y) before and after the experimental intervention. After the initial biopsy, subjects ingested 20 g x d(-1) of creatine monohydrate, 20 g x d(-1) of creatine monohydrate + 100 g x d(-1) of sucrose, or 20 g x d(-1) of creatine monohydrate + 100 g x d(-1) of sucrose + 1000 mg x d(-1) of alpha-lipoic acid for 5 days. Subjects refrained from exercise and consumed the same balanced diet for 7 days. Body weight increased by 2.1% following the nutritional intervention, with no differences between the groups. There was a significant increase in total creatine concentration following creatine supplementation, with the group ingesting alpha-lipoic acid showing a significantly greater increase (p < .05) in phosphocreatine (87.6 --> 106.2 mmol x kg(-1) dry mass [dm]) and total creatine (137.8 --> 156.8 mmol x kg(-1) dm). These findings indicate that co-ingestion of alpha-lipoic acid with creatine and a small amount of sucrose can enhance muscle total creatine content as compared to the ingestion of creatine and sucrose or creatine alone.

PMID: 14669930 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] "

It can be found on Pubmed. As can be seen body weight was measured but no analysis of muscular performance was done. The only listed measurements were body weight and creatine muscle concentrations and body weight was not improved in the Celltech group. It is stated the subjects were sedentary. To access Pubmed Click here [7].

The purpose of citing the study was to show that alpha lipoic acid enhances muscle phosphocreatine levels and total muscle creatine concentrations (and if you see where I bolded above - I believe that was what the study was designed to determine. I don't beleive that putting a study summary about weight gain over regular creatine users fits into the context of why the study was quoted in the first place. And if I'm not mistaken that particular study was not even performed using Cell-tech - just creatine monohydrate and ALA. Even the Muscletech website lists that study as being performed on the ingredients in Cell-tech - not the actual formula. Yankees76 13:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What was the purpose of mentioning the study? The implicit statement is that because it does this it will increase muscular performance and muscular weight gain. If this wasn't the purpose of introducing it what was? I think it's important considering that to note that the study had limits as far as its correlation to bodybuilding and muscular performance.

A law of dimishing returns may set in after a while, (After a certain point consuming more protein does not increase muscular development) or some other factor may affect itself. This study only implies that there will be better performance since it is not actually a study of performance it is anecdotal and I think should either be removed or put in context. I am not stating this to argue or "win". As a matter of fact I'll just ask you plainly-don't you agree?

(sidenote: They did include 100 grams of sucrose if you examine the study. So this formula's layout is similar to Cell-Tech's profile but as far as I'm concerned it's creatine + ALA I'm concerned with not a brand name. )Quadzilla99 16:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Phosphagen HP

The statement was made by Bill Phillips in his Sports Supplement Review 3rd Issue (2000). It is common knowledge to anyone who is familiar with Creatine and it's published studies (See Pubmed [8]). The argument made against this is a common mistake and logically upside down. Let's just say for instance an entirely new animal is discovered in Colombia. The correct statement is made: Animal A only is known to exist in Colombia. This statement is not made false by someone stating that "the entire world has not been searched exhaustively, One could exist somewhere" but made false by someone presenting evidence that it does exist elsewhere. The studies at the University of Memphis and the University of Nebraska do exist and do show the results mentioned. Studies for other products showing the results in question have not been presented. Basically all that is required is to find one study of a creatine product that shows increases in muscular performance and weight gain over regular creatine and either a) does not contain the formula or b) does contains the formula but with additional ingredients and performs better than the original formula. Then it would be worthy of a new distinction. Giving the formula a different name or doubling the dose (10 grams of creatine and 70 grams of carbohydrates for example) does not change the formula. For instance 2 aspirin is not a different formula than 1 aspirin. Quadzilla99 09:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing the text to say, "The combination of creatine and carbohydrates is the only formula that has been proven in studies to improve muscular performance and weight gain over regular creatine." And please - don't quote Bill Phillips again. The Supplement Review is an advertisement. Yankees76 13:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That is an acceptable compromise although I believe the book, while obviously promoting EAS products, nowhere deliberately mistates facts.Quadzilla99 15:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)