Creatine notes.

There are some real questions concerning creatine, one of them addressed by
http://www.anabolicsecrets.com/hypergaincreatine.htm,

where they correctly point out (at least according to the Merck Index), that
dietary creatine (monhydrates, etc) cyclizes into creatinine, and is
therefore useless. Esp. in acidic environments, like the stomach.

Their solution is to "esterify" it, which in principle would solve the
problem, except that esters are readily cleaved in the stomach as well,
leaving free creatine, which is then free, once again, to cyclize.

They however and of course insist that their esterified creatine is da bomb.
And declare large doses of ordinary creatine to be toxic.

Dr. Kreider writes a very readable review article on creatine, citing both
the pro research and the con research, altho the pro seems to outweigh the
con by 3:1 in his cites.

He also makes a few errors, calling creatine an amino acid, which altho
technically correct, gives the misleading impression that it is similar to
dietary amino acids, which it is not.

He also asserts that "extra creatine" is eliminated in the urine as
creatine, w/ just a little creatinine. The opposite is much more likely the
case, as creatine cyclizes *for the purpose of excretion*.

sportsci.org/traintech/creatine/rbk.html

I posted some queries on sci.chem, smn, and wrote Kreider, as well as a
cupla other fellows who commented on his article. Will be interesting to
see who responds, and w/ what.

--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY


Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

In article <FRm9h.280$g25.116@newsfe12.lga>,
"Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net>
wrote:

> There are some real questions concerning creatine, one of them addressed by
> http://www.anabolicsecrets.com/hypergaincreatine.htm,
>
> where they correctly point out (at least according to the Merck Index), that
> dietary creatine (monhydrates, etc) cyclizes into creatinine, and is
> therefore useless. Esp. in acidic environments, like the stomach.
>
> Their solution is to "esterify" it, which in principle would solve the
> problem, except that esters are readily cleaved in the stomach as well,
> leaving free creatine, which is then free, once again, to cyclize.

Funny that. There have been a whole pile of studies on creatine by
universities with no vested interest in the product (or an alternative)
which both suggest it works and is non-toxic.

So why would I believe this article, where they have an obvious agenda?

--
Keith

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> There are some real questions concerning creatine, one of them
> addressed by http://www.anabolicsecrets.com/hypergaincreatine.htm,
>
> where they correctly point out (at least according to the Merck
> Index), that dietary creatine (monhydrates, etc) cyclizes into
> creatinine, and is therefore useless. Esp. in acidic environments,
> like the stomach.

Old marketing obviously travels slowly around your parts. Ester has been
touted here for the past 12 months or so.

>
> Their solution is to "esterify" it, which in principle would solve the
> problem, except that esters are readily cleaved in the stomach as
> well, leaving free creatine, which is then free, once again, to
> cyclize.
> They however and of course insist that their esterified creatine is
> da bomb. And declare large doses of ordinary creatine to be toxic.
>
> Dr. Kreider writes a very readable review article on creatine, citing
> both the pro research and the con research, altho the pro seems to
> outweigh the con by 3:1 in his cites.
>
> He also makes a few errors, calling creatine an amino acid, which
> altho technically correct, gives the misleading impression that it is
> similar to dietary amino acids, which it is not.
>
> He also asserts that "extra creatine" is eliminated in the urine as
> creatine, w/ just a little creatinine. The opposite is much more
> likely the case, as creatine cyclizes *for the purpose of excretion*.
>
> sportsci.org/traintech/creatine/rbk.html
>
> I posted some queries on sci.chem, smn, and wrote Kreider, as well as
> a cupla other fellows who commented on his article. Will be
> interesting to see who responds, and w/ what.



--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Proctologically Violated©® wrote:

> There are some real questions concerning creatine, one of them addressed by
> http://www.anabolicsecrets.com/hypergaincreatine.htm,
>
> where they correctly point out (at least according to the Merck Index),
> that dietary creatine (monhydrates, etc) cyclizes into creatinine, and
> is therefore useless. Esp. in acidic environments, like the stomach.

Heh! I saw this come up on sci.chem, but didn't notice your name on it.

> He also makes a few errors, calling creatine an amino acid, which altho
> technically correct,

Er, if it's correct, it's not an error. And creatine is indeed an amino
acid, so it's quite true.

> gives the misleading impression that it is similar to dietary amino
> acids,

You mean proteinogenic, rather than dietary; creatine *is* a dietary amino
acid.

> which it is not.

Only if the reader jumps to conclusions. There are many amino acids that
are not proteinogenic, and they're no less amino acids for it.

Anyway, it seems to me to be a matter of kinetics. Yes, under acid
conditions, creatine cyclises to creatinine. But how fast? According to:

http://www.marshall.edu/etd/masters/...an-2005-ma.pdf

From the table on page 42, at 40 celsius and pH 3 (worse conditions than
you'll find in the stomach), the rate of conversion is 1.9e-4 min^-1,
which according to my calculations is 1.1% per hour. Assuming your bolus
of creatine makes it through the stomach and into the nice, safely
alkaline duodenum in two hours, which is on the long side, that's less
than 3% of the total lost to cyclisation.

This presentation has been brought to you by science.

tom

--
roger and kay payne, symmetry, piercing, archaeology, position, in ,,

In article <FRm9h.280$g25.116@newsfe12.lga>, "Proctologically Violated©®"
<entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:

> There are some real questions concerning creatine, one of them addressed by
> http://www.anabolicsecrets.com/hypergaincreatine.htm,
>
> where they correctly point out (at least according to the Merck Index), that
> dietary creatine (monhydrates, etc) cyclizes into creatinine, and is
> therefore useless. Esp. in acidic environments, like the stomach.

Because something can happen does not mean it will, and if it can, does
not mean it will happen quickly. Even at low PH for hours, the conversion
to creatinine is slow. Two, if this was the case, then why does tissue
levels of creatine go up via ingestion of CM and why does strength and LBM
improve? Use your brain.

>
> Their solution is to "esterify" it, which in principle would solve the
> problem,

Bullshit. They simply want to sell another form of creatine as CM is dirt
cheap and the market saturated.


> except that esters are readily cleaved in the stomach as well,
> leaving free creatine, which is then free, once again, to cyclize.

Again, more BS.


>
> They however and of course insist that their esterified creatine is da bomb.
> And declare large doses of ordinary creatine to be toxic.

About 200 studies to date say other wise.

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0611232121570.16463@urchin.eart h.li...
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
>
>> There are some real questions concerning creatine, one of them addressed
>> by
>> http://www.anabolicsecrets.com/hypergaincreatine.htm,
>>
>> where they correctly point out (at least according to the Merck Index),
>> that dietary creatine (monhydrates, etc) cyclizes into creatinine, and
>> is therefore useless. Esp. in acidic environments, like the stomach.
>
> Heh! I saw this come up on sci.chem, but didn't notice your name on it.
>
>> He also makes a few errors, calling creatine an amino acid, which altho
>> technically correct,
>
> Er, if it's correct, it's not an error. And creatine is indeed an amino
> acid, so it's quite true.
>
>> gives the misleading impression that it is similar to dietary amino
>> acids,
>
> You mean proteinogenic, rather than dietary; creatine *is* a dietary amino
> acid.
>
>> which it is not.
>
> Only if the reader jumps to conclusions. There are many amino acids that
> are not proteinogenic, and they're no less amino acids for it.
>
> Anyway, it seems to me to be a matter of kinetics. Yes, under acid
> conditions, creatine cyclises to creatinine. But how fast? According to:
>
> http://www.marshall.edu/etd/masters/...an-2005-ma.pdf
>
> From the table on page 42, at 40 celsius and pH 3 (worse conditions than
> you'll find in the stomach), the rate of conversion is 1.9e-4 min^-1,
> which according to my calculations is 1.1% per hour. Assuming your bolus
> of creatine makes it through the stomach and into the nice, safely
> alkaline duodenum in two hours, which is on the long side, that's less
> than 3% of the total lost to cyclisation.
>
> This presentation has been brought to you by science.

So was Cold Fusion....

But excellent cite, and points.

The Merck shoulda included the word "slowly", because they indicate creatine
cyclyzes in alkaline solution as well, sort of leading one to believe that
in really acid environments it would happen quickly.
My bullshit "cite" was just as a point of interest, that others would latch
on to this issue, but be wrong anyway.
My stance was not that creatine didn't work, but the surprising number of
nay-saying studies, along w/ the merck point, and studies/reviews that cite
legions of ill-effects in what seems a large percentage of users.
If cyclization were a problem, there are other ways around this, which might
have explained the varying results. I have this cite of ill-effects
somewhere, which I'll dig up if you're interested.

Someone else characterized creatine as a kind of carb loading, but which
does not benefit aerobic acitivities.
Creatine is interesting in that its source is dietary *and* it is a
metabolite--a few but not a lot of examples of that.
A note on your cite:
I'm surprised they used mass spec for this. This type of kinetic study is
tailor made for optical spectrometry, at whatever wavelength is useful for
tracking the reactants/products. I didn't read it in detail, mebbe there was
a specific reason for using mass spec--other than perhaps that they just had
one to use.
Mass spec is, equipment-wise *much more* sophisticated than optical spec,
and structurally more revealing, but if optical spec was suitable, this
woulda literally been a 1-hour project. Not diminishing his paper, just
pointing out.....
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs



>
> tom
>
> --
> roger and kay payne, symmetry, piercing, archaeology, position, in ,,
>

In article <NPH9h.129$kz3.22@newsfe08.lga>, "Proctologically Violated©®"
<entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:

>
> The Merck shoulda included the word "slowly", because they indicate creatine
> cyclyzes in alkaline solution as well, sort of leading one to believe that
> in really acid environments it would happen quickly.
> My bullshit "cite" was just as a point of interest, that others would latch
> on to this issue, but be wrong anyway.
> My stance was not that creatine didn't work, but the surprising number of
> nay-saying studies,

List them.

> along w/ the merck point, and studies/reviews that cite
> legions of ill-effects in what seems a large percentage of users.

More BS. List them

> If cyclization were a problem,

It's not, thus it's a moot point.

> there are other ways around this, which might
> have explained the varying results. I have this cite of ill-effects
> somewhere, which I'll dig up if you're interested.

Post it, and make sure it's an actual published study, not the marketing
crap from some web site selling a creatine that competes with CM. You do
know the difference right? There is nothing on this earth, incuding water,
that does not come with the potential for "ill effects." What matters is
the risk to benefit, and the benafit(s) of creatine FAR outweigh the
proposed risks. I cover most of those benefits here:

www.creatine-report.com

Side effects, or lack there of, are also covered BTW.

Dnia 2006-11-24 Proctologically Violated©® napisa³(a):
>
>
> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0611232121570.16463@urchin.eart h.li...
>>
>> This presentation has been brought to you by science.
>
> So was Cold Fusion....

Cold fusion was a hypothesis based on "successful" experiment. This
hypothesis was very quickly refuted. It's not science's fault that it
happened to be a very hot topic, which created a lot of noise in the
media. Things like that happen all the time. Chief reason why one
shouldn't put too much stock in latest research.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

"Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:willbrink-2411061455540001@192.168.2.156...
> In article <NPH9h.129$kz3.22@newsfe08.lga>, "Proctologically Violated©®"
> <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> The Merck shoulda included the word "slowly", because they indicate
>> creatine
>> cyclyzes in alkaline solution as well, sort of leading one to believe
>> that
>> in really acid environments it would happen quickly.
>> My bullshit "cite" was just as a point of interest, that others would
>> latch
>> on to this issue, but be wrong anyway.
>> My stance was not that creatine didn't work, but the surprising number of
>> nay-saying studies,
>
> List them.
>
>> along w/ the merck point, and studies/reviews that cite
>> legions of ill-effects in what seems a large percentage of users.
>
> More BS. List them
>
>> If cyclization were a problem,
>
> It's not, thus it's a moot point.
>
>> there are other ways around this, which might
>> have explained the varying results. I have this cite of ill-effects
>> somewhere, which I'll dig up if you're interested.
>
> Post it, and make sure it's an actual published study, not the marketing
> crap from some web site selling a creatine that competes with CM. You do
> know the difference right? There is nothing on this earth, incuding water,
> that does not come with the potential for "ill effects." What matters is
> the risk to benefit, and the benafit(s) of creatine FAR outweigh the
> proposed risks. I cover most of those benefits here:
>
> www.creatine-report.com
>
> Side effects, or lack there of, are also covered BTW.

Gee, then I guess I have all I need in the world.
Well, almost.
When I finish your report, I can come over to your place, and you'll suck my
dick?

BTW, the water observation was fairly sage, tho. Given that water does have
an LD50, that suggests looking at all of this cautiously/critically.
I never said "don't do creatine". Never said the side effects were serious.
Never said the benefits (to some) don't outweigh the negatives.
But that they do exist, and what they may mean/imply, is interesting.

So when can I come over?
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs



>

Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Dnia 2006-11-24 Proctologically Violated©® napisa³(a):
>>
>>
>> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0611232121570.16463@urchin.eart h.li...
>>>
>>> This presentation has been brought to you by science.
>>
>> So was Cold Fusion....
>
>Cold fusion was a hypothesis based on "successful" experiment. This
>hypothesis was very quickly refuted. It's not science's fault that it
>happened to be a very hot topic, which created a lot of noise in the
>media. Things like that happen all the time. Chief reason why one
>shouldn't put too much stock in latest research.

Don't confuse the "latest research" with popular media reportage of
that research. There is a very obvious difference.

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ek7jjq$hsj$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Dnia 2006-11-24 Proctologically Violated©® napisa³(a):
>>
>>
>> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0611232121570.16463@urchin.eart h.li...
>>>
>>> This presentation has been brought to you by science.
>>
>> So was Cold Fusion....
>
> Cold fusion was a hypothesis based on "successful" experiment. This
> hypothesis was very quickly refuted. It's not science's fault that it
> happened to be a very hot topic, which created a lot of noise in the
> media. Things like that happen all the time. Chief reason why one
> shouldn't put too much stock in latest research.

Amen. Or put out premature press releases.
Science is like Congress--you gotta vote. Amongst peers, of course.
But it wasn't just the media, and it wasn't so quickly refuted.
Cold Fusion dominated science for *at least* a year or so afterwards, w/ the
whole spectrum of results, from *many* confirmations(!!!!), to ultimately
the many more refutations.
It was hilarious.
I would argue w/ the pro-cold fusionists:
Dewd, it takes a trillion-watt laser just to fuknIGNITE a cold fusion
reaction.
HTF are you gonna just mix shit together in a flask, and get it? And
*controlled*, no less.
Oh but this shows this, and that shows that, blah blah
Please..........
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs


>
> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R
>

Dnia 2006-11-24 JMW napisa³(a):
> Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Dnia 2006-11-24 Proctologically Violated©® napisa³(a):
>>>
>>>
>>> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
>>> news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0611232121570.16463@urchin.eart h.li...
>>>>
>>>> This presentation has been brought to you by science.
>>>
>>> So was Cold Fusion....
>>
>>Cold fusion was a hypothesis based on "successful" experiment. This
>>hypothesis was very quickly refuted. It's not science's fault that it
>>happened to be a very hot topic, which created a lot of noise in the
>>media. Things like that happen all the time. Chief reason why one
>>shouldn't put too much stock in latest research.
>
> Don't confuse the "latest research" with popular media reportage of
> that research. There is a very obvious difference.

As far as Cold Fusion is regarded, it wasn't much of a difference.
Plenty of trained scientists read the paper and they all rushed into
verifying its claims. They didn't believe it blindly, but they hoped
like hell it was true. A lot of institutes managed to repeat the
"success" of the first experiment. It only later started to look
strange, when all positives came from less prestigious institutes and
generally better ones gave mostly negatives.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ek7kn4$mar$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Dnia 2006-11-24 JMW napisa³(a):
>> Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Dnia 2006-11-24 Proctologically Violated©® napisa³(a):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
>>>> news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0611232121570.16463@urchin.eart h.li...
>>>>>
>>>>> This presentation has been brought to you by science.
>>>>
>>>> So was Cold Fusion....
>>>
>>>Cold fusion was a hypothesis based on "successful" experiment. This
>>>hypothesis was very quickly refuted. It's not science's fault that it
>>>happened to be a very hot topic, which created a lot of noise in the
>>>media. Things like that happen all the time. Chief reason why one
>>>shouldn't put too much stock in latest research.
>>
>> Don't confuse the "latest research" with popular media reportage of
>> that research. There is a very obvious difference.
>
> As far as Cold Fusion is regarded, it wasn't much of a difference.
> Plenty of trained scientists read the paper and they all rushed into
> verifying its claims. They didn't believe it blindly, but they hoped
> like hell it was true. A lot of institutes managed to repeat the
> "success" of the first experiment. It only later started to look
> strange, when all positives came from less prestigious institutes and
> generally better ones gave mostly negatives.

Aww, say it ain't so!!!
I was hoping it woulda been the other way around!
"Mostly negatives"? I seem to recall some hotshots confirming CF.
I know a lot of assholes hedged, saying, well, uh, yeah, uh, sorta, well,
uh, maybe....
What a howl....
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs


>
> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R
>

Dnia 2006-11-24 Proctologically ViolatedCR napisa³(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ek7jjq$hsj$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> Dnia 2006-11-24 Proctologically Violated©® napisa³(a):
>>>
>>>
>>> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
>>> news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0611232121570.16463@urchin.eart h.li...
>>>>
>>>> This presentation has been brought to you by science.
>>>
>>> So was Cold Fusion....
>>
>> Cold fusion was a hypothesis based on "successful" experiment. This
>> hypothesis was very quickly refuted. It's not science's fault that it
>> happened to be a very hot topic, which created a lot of noise in the
>> media. Things like that happen all the time. Chief reason why one
>> shouldn't put too much stock in latest research.
>
> Amen. Or put out premature press releases.
> Science is like Congress--you gotta vote. Amongst peers, of course.
> But it wasn't just the media, and it wasn't so quickly refuted.
> Cold Fusion dominated science for *at least* a year

*Only* a year. It took so fast mainly due to Internet. E-mail is way
faster than snail mail.

> or so afterwards, w/ the
> whole spectrum of results, from *many* confirmations(!!!!), to ultimately
> the many more refutations.
> It was hilarious.

Similar craze happened when they discovered fullerenes. Unfortunately,
fullerenes managed to withstood all this combined forces attack on them
and made it into chemistry handbooks. Bad luck with that. You'd have
so much laugh one more time.

> I would argue w/ the pro-cold fusionists:
> Dewd, it takes a trillion-watt laser just to fuknIGNITE a cold fusion
> reaction.
> HTF are you gonna just mix shit together in a flask, and get it? And
> *controlled*, no less.
> Oh but this shows this, and that shows that, blah blah
> Please..........

It was really unfortunate that they didn't ask you for an opinion.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia 2006-11-24 Proctologically ViolatedCR napisa³(a):
>
>
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ek7kn4$mar$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> Dnia 2006-11-24 JMW napisa³(a):
>>> Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dnia 2006-11-24 Proctologically Violated©® napisa³(a):
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0611232121570.16463@urchin.eart h.li...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This presentation has been brought to you by science.
>>>>>
>>>>> So was Cold Fusion....
>>>>
>>>>Cold fusion was a hypothesis based on "successful" experiment. This
>>>>hypothesis was very quickly refuted. It's not science's fault that it
>>>>happened to be a very hot topic, which created a lot of noise in the
>>>>media. Things like that happen all the time. Chief reason why one
>>>>shouldn't put too much stock in latest research.
>>>
>>> Don't confuse the "latest research" with popular media reportage of
>>> that research. There is a very obvious difference.
>>
>> As far as Cold Fusion is regarded, it wasn't much of a difference.
>> Plenty of trained scientists read the paper and they all rushed into
>> verifying its claims. They didn't believe it blindly, but they hoped
>> like hell it was true. A lot of institutes managed to repeat the
>> "success" of the first experiment. It only later started to look
>> strange, when all positives came from less prestigious institutes and
>> generally better ones gave mostly negatives.
>
> Aww, say it ain't so!!!
> I was hoping it woulda been the other way around!
> "Mostly negatives"? I seem to recall some hotshots confirming CF.
> I know a lot of assholes hedged, saying, well, uh, yeah, uh, sorta, well,
> uh, maybe....
> What a howl....

And to think you knew the right answer from the very start! What a man!

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Proctologically Violated©® wrote:

> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0611232121570.16463@urchin.eart h.li...
>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
>>
>>> There are some real questions concerning creatine, one of them
>>> addressed by
>>>
>>> http://www.anabolicsecrets.com/hypergaincreatine.htm,
>>>
>>> where they correctly point out (at least according to the Merck
>>> Index), that dietary creatine (monhydrates, etc) cyclizes into
>>> creatinine, and is therefore useless. Esp. in acidic environments,
>>> like the stomach.
>>
>> Anyway, it seems to me to be a matter of kinetics. Yes, under acid
>> conditions, creatine cyclises to creatinine. But how fast? According to:
>>
>> http://www.marshall.edu/etd/masters/...an-2005-ma.pdf
>>
>> From the table on page 42, at 40 celsius and pH 3 (worse conditions than
>> you'll find in the stomach), the rate of conversion is 1.9e-4 min^-1,
>> which according to my calculations is 1.1% per hour. Assuming your bolus
>> of creatine makes it through the stomach and into the nice, safely
>> alkaline duodenum in two hours, which is on the long side, that's less
>> than 3% of the total lost to cyclisation.
>>
>> This presentation has been brought to you by science.
>
> So was Cold Fusion....
>
> But excellent cite, and points.
>
> The Merck shoulda included the word "slowly", because they indicate
> creatine cyclyzes in alkaline solution as well, sort of leading one to
> believe that in really acid environments it would happen quickly.

Agreed. One of the perils of being an encyclopedia of chemicals is that
you're never going to give enough details for everyone.

> My bullshit "cite" was just as a point of interest, that others would
> latch on to this issue, but be wrong anyway. My stance was not that
> creatine didn't work, but the surprising number of nay-saying studies,
> along w/ the merck point, and studies/reviews that cite legions of
> ill-effects in what seems a large percentage of users.

Sure, i wasn't knocking you.

> Creatine is interesting in that its source is dietary *and* it is a
> metabolite--a few but not a lot of examples of that.

Er, fats, and most of the amino acids!

> I'm surprised they used mass spec for this. This type of kinetic study
> is tailor made for optical spectrometry, at whatever wavelength is
> useful for tracking the reactants/products. I didn't read it in detail,
> mebbe there was a specific reason for using mass spec--other than
> perhaps that they just had one to use. Mass spec is, equipment-wise
> *much more* sophisticated than optical spec, and structurally more
> revealing, but if optical spec was suitable, this woulda literally been
> a 1-hour project. Not diminishing his paper, just pointing out.....

I get the impression it was basically an undergrad or masters' student who
needed a project, and wanted to do MS, so basically picked some chemistry
he was interested in to apply it to.

You're right that UV/visible spectroscopy would be the way to do this, but
that's only possible if there's something that changes colour you can look
at, and i think creatine and creatinine are both colourless. You could
probably set up some sort of reporter system to make some colour - in
fact, i think one's mentioned in the introduction in that report - but i
always worry about how that's going to interfere with the reaction itself.
I guess you could do it directly with IR spectroscopy, though.

tom

--
Vive la chimie, en particulier, et la connaissance en general. --
Herve This

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> "Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:willbrink-2411061455540001@192.168.2.156...
> > In article <NPH9h.129$kz3.22@newsfe08.lga>, "Proctologically Violated©®"
> > <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The Merck shoulda included the word "slowly", because they indicate
> >> creatine
> >> cyclyzes in alkaline solution as well, sort of leading one to believe
> >> that
> >> in really acid environments it would happen quickly.
> >> My bullshit "cite" was just as a point of interest, that others would
> >> latch
> >> on to this issue, but be wrong anyway.
> >> My stance was not that creatine didn't work, but the surprising numberof
> >> nay-saying studies,
> >
> > List them.
> >
> >> along w/ the merck point, and studies/reviews that cite
> >> legions of ill-effects in what seems a large percentage of users.
> >
> > More BS. List them
> >
> >> If cyclization were a problem,
> >
> > It's not, thus it's a moot point.
> >
> >> there are other ways around this, which might
> >> have explained the varying results. I have this cite of ill-effects
> >> somewhere, which I'll dig up if you're interested.
> >
> > Post it, and make sure it's an actual published study, not the marketing
> > crap from some web site selling a creatine that competes with CM. You do
> > know the difference right? There is nothing on this earth, incuding water,
> > that does not come with the potential for "ill effects." What matters is
> > the risk to benefit, and the benafit(s) of creatine FAR outweigh the
> > proposed risks. I cover most of those benefits here:
> >
> > www.creatine-report.com
> >
> > Side effects, or lack there of, are also covered BTW.
>
> Gee, then I guess I have all I need in the world.
> Well, almost.
> When I finish your report, I can come over to your place, and you'll suckmy
> dick?

This must be your deepest and darkest fantasy. I've noticed you
mention it a LOT.
It's quite legal if you're both of consenting age, I suggest you just
go for it and get it over with already?

You wouldn't happen to be British, would you? Just a theory I'm
working on, what with that whole 'Queen' thing and all...

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:55:54 -0500, willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink)
wrote:

>Post it, and make sure it's an actual published study, not the marketing
>crap from some web site selling a creatine that competes with CM. You do
>know the difference right? There is nothing on this earth, incuding water,
>that does not come with the potential for "ill effects." What matters is
>the risk to benefit, and the benafit(s) of creatine FAR outweigh the
>proposed risks. I cover most of those benefits here:
>
>www.creatine-report.com
>
>Side effects, or lack there of, are also covered BTW.

Lets see I just need to give out me name and email address to get your
report. How convenient for you.

How do you figure the benefits FAR outweigh the risks? Funny how
people say there are no side effects. Others say there are no serious
side effects. Others say there are few potential risks. Seems like a
lot of variation.

So what are the benefits? Well you can lift more weight. Except if
you don't take it you can lift more weight with a little more time.
And if you stop taking it you lose much of what you gained. You
natural production of it may shutdown and you are at higher risk of
injury.

Funny I don't come to the same conclusion. There are way too many
contradictions in the reported results. And way too much hype.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:43:47 -0500, "Proctologically Violated©®"
<entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:

>There are some real questions concerning creatine, one of them addressed by
>http://www.anabolicsecrets.com/hypergaincreatine.htm,
>
>where they correctly point out (at least according to the Merck Index), that
>dietary creatine (monhydrates, etc) cyclizes into creatinine, and is
>therefore useless. Esp. in acidic environments, like the stomach.
>
>Their solution is to "esterify" it, which in principle would solve the
>problem, except that esters are readily cleaved in the stomach as well,
>leaving free creatine, which is then free, once again, to cyclize.
>
>They however and of course insist that their esterified creatine is da bomb.
>And declare large doses of ordinary creatine to be toxic.
>
>Dr. Kreider writes a very readable review article on creatine, citing both
>the pro research and the con research, altho the pro seems to outweigh the
>con by 3:1 in his cites.
>
>He also makes a few errors, calling creatine an amino acid, which altho
>technically correct, gives the misleading impression that it is similar to
>dietary amino acids, which it is not.
>
>He also asserts that "extra creatine" is eliminated in the urine as
>creatine, w/ just a little creatinine. The opposite is much more likely the
>case, as creatine cyclizes *for the purpose of excretion*.
>
>sportsci.org/traintech/creatine/rbk.html
>
>I posted some queries on sci.chem, smn, and wrote Kreider, as well as a
>cupla other fellows who commented on his article. Will be interesting to
>see who responds, and w/ what.

Interesting the increased benefits with sugar. Maybe this is what
screws up John's proof that whey is helped by it.

In article <4pI9h.558$g25.214@newsfe12.lga>, "Proctologically Violated©®"
<entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:


>
> Gee, then I guess I have all I need in the world.

Yup.

> Well, almost.
> When I finish your report, I can come over to your place, and you'll suck my
> dick?

If you had one I would consider it, being "gay friendly" and all, but as
you don't, it's a moot like all your stupid ass posts here.

>
> BTW, the water observation was fairly sage, tho. Given that water does have
> an LD50,

Everything has an LD50.

> that suggests looking at all of this cautiously/critically.

Yes, please try it some time. That would be most helpful


> I never said "don't do creatine". Never said the side effects were serious.
> Never said the benefits (to some) don't outweigh the negatives.

You made yet more stupid cliams of studies showing X side effects, etc.
Post them or stop running your pie hole.

> But that they do exist, and what they may mean/imply, is interesting.

What part of "post the studies" don't you understand? Stick to news groups
where your goofy posts impress people.

Yo, a trillion watts is a trillion watts. Perty hard to misinterpret DAT!
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ek7lfd$omr$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Dnia 2006-11-24 Proctologically ViolatedCR napisa³(a):
>>
>>
>> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ek7kn4$mar$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>>> Dnia 2006-11-24 JMW napisa³(a):
>>>> Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Dnia 2006-11-24 Proctologically Violated©® napisa³(a):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0611232121570.16463@urchin.eart h.li...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This presentation has been brought to you by science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So was Cold Fusion....
>>>>>
>>>>>Cold fusion was a hypothesis based on "successful" experiment. This
>>>>>hypothesis was very quickly refuted. It's not science's fault that it
>>>>>happened to be a very hot topic, which created a lot of noise in the
>>>>>media. Things like that happen all the time. Chief reason why one
>>>>>shouldn't put too much stock in latest research.
>>>>
>>>> Don't confuse the "latest research" with popular media reportage of
>>>> that research. There is a very obvious difference.
>>>
>>> As far as Cold Fusion is regarded, it wasn't much of a difference.
>>> Plenty of trained scientists read the paper and they all rushed into
>>> verifying its claims. They didn't believe it blindly, but they hoped
>>> like hell it was true. A lot of institutes managed to repeat the
>>> "success" of the first experiment. It only later started to look
>>> strange, when all positives came from less prestigious institutes and
>>> generally better ones gave mostly negatives.
>>
>> Aww, say it ain't so!!!
>> I was hoping it woulda been the other way around!
>> "Mostly negatives"? I seem to recall some hotshots confirming CF.
>> I know a lot of assholes hedged, saying, well, uh, yeah, uh, sorta, well,
>> uh, maybe....
>> What a howl....
>
> And to think you knew the right answer from the very start! What a man!
>
> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R
>

I pretend to be a brit, sometimes, usually running around in my machine
shop, in diapers and bunny slippers, bellowing, Mummy, Mummy, oim so
Bri'ish, oim so Bri'ish.... Perty therapeutic.
Which is good, cuz I cain't afford therapy anymore.... not even group
therapy.
Which, speaking of getting blown, is a great place for that.
Oh yeah, I feel yer pain....
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

<howard.aubrey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164402115.470129.9650@h54g2000cwb.googlegrou ps.com...

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> "Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:willbrink-2411061455540001@192.168.2.156...
> > In article <NPH9h.129$kz3.22@newsfe08.lga>, "Proctologically Violated©®"
> > <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The Merck shoulda included the word "slowly", because they indicate
> >> creatine
> >> cyclyzes in alkaline solution as well, sort of leading one to believe
> >> that
> >> in really acid environments it would happen quickly.
> >> My bullshit "cite" was just as a point of interest, that others would
> >> latch
> >> on to this issue, but be wrong anyway.
> >> My stance was not that creatine didn't work, but the surprising number
> >> of
> >> nay-saying studies,
> >
> > List them.
> >
> >> along w/ the merck point, and studies/reviews that cite
> >> legions of ill-effects in what seems a large percentage of users.
> >
> > More BS. List them
> >
> >> If cyclization were a problem,
> >
> > It's not, thus it's a moot point.
> >
> >> there are other ways around this, which might
> >> have explained the varying results. I have this cite of ill-effects
> >> somewhere, which I'll dig up if you're interested.
> >
> > Post it, and make sure it's an actual published study, not the marketing
> > crap from some web site selling a creatine that competes with CM. You do
> > know the difference right? There is nothing on this earth, incuding
> > water,
> > that does not come with the potential for "ill effects." What matters is
> > the risk to benefit, and the benafit(s) of creatine FAR outweigh the
> > proposed risks. I cover most of those benefits here:
> >
> > www.creatine-report.com
> >
> > Side effects, or lack there of, are also covered BTW.
>
> Gee, then I guess I have all I need in the world.
> Well, almost.
> When I finish your report, I can come over to your place, and you'll suck
> my
> dick?

This must be your deepest and darkest fantasy. I've noticed you
mention it a LOT.
It's quite legal if you're both of consenting age, I suggest you just
go for it and get it over with already?

You wouldn't happen to be British, would you? Just a theory I'm
working on, what with that whole 'Queen' thing and all...

"Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote
> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net>
> wrote:
>> Gee, then I guess I have all I need in the world.
>
> Yup.
>
>> Well, almost.
>> When I finish your report, I can come over to your place, and you'll suck
>> my
>> dick?
>
> If you had one I would consider it, being "gay friendly" and all, but as
> you don't, it's a moot like all your stupid ass posts here.
>
>>
>> BTW, the water observation was fairly sage, tho. Given that water does
>> have
>> an LD50,
>
> Everything has an LD50.
>
>> that suggests looking at all of this cautiously/critically.
>
> Yes, please try it some time. That would be most helpful
>
>
>> I never said "don't do creatine". Never said the side effects were
>> serious.
>> Never said the benefits (to some) don't outweigh the negatives.
>
> You made yet more stupid cliams of studies showing X side effects, etc.
> Post them or stop running your pie hole.
>
>> But that they do exist, and what they may mean/imply, is interesting.
>
> What part of "post the studies" don't you understand? Stick to news groups
> where your goofy posts impress people.

There's a alt.sex.boringdouchebagtroll newsgroup?

I did not know that.

David

"Shute" <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote
> willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink) wrote:
>
>>Post it, and make sure it's an actual published study, not the marketing
>>crap from some web site selling a creatine that competes with CM. You do
>>know the difference right? There is nothing on this earth, incuding water,
>>that does not come with the potential for "ill effects." What matters is
>>the risk to benefit, and the benafit(s) of creatine FAR outweigh the
>>proposed risks. I cover most of those benefits here:
>>
>>www.creatine-report.com
>>
>>Side effects, or lack there of, are also covered BTW.
>
> Lets see I just need to give out me name and email address to get your
> report. How convenient for you.
>
> How do you figure the benefits FAR outweigh the risks? Funny how
> people say there are no side effects. Others say there are no serious
> side effects. Others say there are few potential risks. Seems like a
> lot of variation.
>
> So what are the benefits? Well you can lift more weight. Except if
> you don't take it you can lift more weight with a little more time.
> And if you stop taking it you lose much of what you gained. You
> natural production of it may shutdown and you are at higher risk of
> injury.
>
> Funny I don't come to the same conclusion. There are way too many
> contradictions in the reported results. And way too much hype.

Hehehehe...WILL! The idiota di tutti idiota and the boring douchebag troll
both disagree with you. Keep up the good work.

David

Well said.
Someone hinted at even heart attacks, which is proly a stretch, but who
knows?
And you have correctly assessed the problem w/ supplementing w/ ALL
intermediary metabolites: you bypass the body's regulatory mechanisms for
producing those metabolites, and are then in official Unknown Land.
Brinks is like halfway between jmw and lyle. Always nasty and uppity,
bright enough to be correct occasionally, but not brite enough to really do
anything.
Which is true with most people who issue edicts and blanket statements.
Ceptin for my edict above.
And having him suck my dick is just a shorthand for the above.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"Shute" <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:m1pem2198ri9ni7q4ba2055fqa8knmldbb@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:55:54 -0500, willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink)
> wrote:
>
>>Post it, and make sure it's an actual published study, not the marketing
>>crap from some web site selling a creatine that competes with CM. You do
>>know the difference right? There is nothing on this earth, incuding water,
>>that does not come with the potential for "ill effects." What matters is
>>the risk to benefit, and the benafit(s) of creatine FAR outweigh the
>>proposed risks. I cover most of those benefits here:
>>
>>www.creatine-report.com
>>
>>Side effects, or lack there of, are also covered BTW.
>
> Lets see I just need to give out me name and email address to get your
> report. How convenient for you.
>
> How do you figure the benefits FAR outweigh the risks? Funny how
> people say there are no side effects. Others say there are no serious
> side effects. Others say there are few potential risks. Seems like a
> lot of variation.
>
> So what are the benefits? Well you can lift more weight. Except if
> you don't take it you can lift more weight with a little more time.
> And if you stop taking it you lose much of what you gained. You
> natural production of it may shutdown and you are at higher risk of
> injury.
>
> Funny I don't come to the same conclusion. There are way too many
> contradictions in the reported results. And way too much hype.
>
>

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:01:08 -0500, "Proctologically Violated©®"
<entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:

>I pretend to be a brit, sometimes, usually running around in my machine
>shop, in diapers and bunny slippers, bellowing, Mummy, Mummy, oim so
>Bri'ish, oim so Bri'ish.... Perty therapeutic.
>Which is good, cuz I cain't afford therapy anymore.... not even group
>therapy.
>Which, speaking of getting blown, is a great place for that.
>Oh yeah, I feel yer pain....

Sounds like the therapy went well.

In article <m1pem2198ri9ni7q4ba2055fqa8knmldbb@4ax.com>, Shute
<Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:55:54 -0500, willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink)
> wrote:
>
> >Post it, and make sure it's an actual published study, not the marketing
> >crap from some web site selling a creatine that competes with CM. You do
> >know the difference right? There is nothing on this earth, incuding water,
> >that does not come with the potential for "ill effects." What matters is
> >the risk to benefit, and the benafit(s) of creatine FAR outweigh the
> >proposed risks. I cover most of those benefits here:
> >
> >www.creatine-report.com
> >
> >Side effects, or lack there of, are also covered BTW.
>
> Lets see I just need to give out me name and email address to get your
> report. How convenient for you.

Why yes, yes it is.

>
> How do you figure the benefits FAR outweigh the risks?

How does anyone figure that out? Do you understand the concept of risk to
benefit ratio?

> Funny how
> people say there are no side effects. Others say there are no serious
> side effects. Others say there are few potential risks. Seems like a
> lot of variation.

There is no variation. Post the studies or shut up. People that do their
homework (read the actual studies) are in t