Re: Dietary creatine utilization at all possible?

In article <o5c9h.86$UA5.16@newsfe09.lga>, "Proctologically Violated©®"
<entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:

> All,
>
> Some of you may be aware of creatine being a relative newcomer to the sports
> supplement field, and it seems to have garnered some credibility, among
> diehard weight lifters, at least, sort of like carb loading for marathoners.
>
> But here's the problem:
> I was looking at the Merck, and it states that in acid solution, conversion
> to creatinine is complete. And creatine ---> creatinine (cyclization) is
> irreversible.
> Even in neutral/alkaline solutions, creatine/creatinine equilibbriums are
> achieved, altho no K is specified.

Let's try this again. Here is some info from a recent report:

Creatine/ Creatinine

The speed of degradation is:
· not depending on the concentration
· depending on the pH (the lower the pH the faster the degradation)
· depending on the temperature (the higher the temperature the faster the
degradation)

Figure 1. Degradation of Creatine at 25°C, after 0.5h, 4h, 8h, 1d, 2d, 3d
at different pH values (7.5, 6.5, 5.5, 4.5, 3.5).

Creatine in aqueous solution is reasonably stable for up to 8h at 25°C, pH
7.5 or 6.5. Breakdown

after 3 days at pH 5.5, 4.5 and 3.5 was 4%, 12% and 21% respectively.

If Creatine is not used immediately after it is dissolved in water it
should be stored at a low temperature to slow down the degradation.

The solubility of Creatine Monohydrate is 14 g per liter
at 25°C (1.4%) and 8.5 g at 4°C.


>
> Creatine (open chain) is transported into the muscle, for phosphorylation.
> But, cyclized, it can only be excreted, and, being irreversible, cannot be
> re-opened for possible use.
>
> So how, then, is dietary creatine shown to be effective, and according to
> some citing studies, proven to increase muscle creatine/creatine phospate?

See above. Just because a reaction can take place, does not mean it's
spontaneous or instantaneous. Creatine does not undergo spontaneous
conversion to creatinine, thus why studies show ingestion of creatine
increases CP in tissues efficiently.

>
> It seems that the Merck is not prone to hyperbole,

It's not an issue of hyperbole, it's an issue of them simply stating that
creatine can undergo conversion to creatinine without actually giving the
time table and conditions needed for it to happen.

> so I am assuming the cite
> of complete conversion to be true--and am also assuming it to be fairly
> rapid, esp. in a pH 2 environment, like the stomach.

Yes on the first and no on the second. 3 days at PH 3.5 found a 21%
conversion. If the creatine sat in your stomach for days on end at body
temp and Ph of 2, you would see some conversion no doubt, but that is not
the case of course. For example:

1. Vanakoski J, Kosunen V, Meririnne E, Seppala T. Creatine
and caffeine in anaerobic and aerobic exercise: effects on
physical performance and pharmacokinetic considerations. Int
J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1998 May;36(5):258-62.

"Creatine was rapidly and efficiently absorbed, as reflected
by plasma concentrations."

2. M. Francaux, et.al. Effect of Exogenous Creatine
Supplementation on Muscle PCr Metabolism Int J Sports Med;
21:139-145

"Following a single dose of creatine (5g), plasma creatine
rises rapidly peaking one or two hours after the ingestion.
Then it decreases to return to basal values within 8 hours
after intake (unpublished data)."

>
> TIA for any ideas, leads, info.

See above. Take home from the above is, creatine should be ingested within
a few hours of mixing into liquids. If not ingested right away, put in the
fridg. Leaving for weeks on end is a no no.I hope that answers your
questions and or gets you headed in the right direction. Why didn't you
start with this perfectly reasonable post on MFW to begin with?

Will Brink reassures PV thusly:

> I hope that answers your
> questions and or gets you headed in the right direction. Why didn't you
> start with this perfectly reasonable post on MFW to begin with?

Let's see, uh, well, sumpn bout reading comprehension.......

On 11/23, I posted this *very Q* right here, under Creatine Notes--the same
thread in which you started your attacks on 11/24, and continued in that
same thread until yesterday!
The issue was resolved on 11/23.
Now, *today*, on 11/28, you choose to cross-post and answer a message I
already referenced on 11/23 which was already answered on 11/23, right here
on mfw.
And as of today, the attacks continue.

And then, after a week of attacks you ask me why I didn't post such a
"reasonable Q" on mfw.
<creepy>
I'm actually starting to get a little scared--now I'm going to be waking up
in the middle of the night, to check my property for lurkers'n'shit.....

And actually, it wasn't reasonable on mfw. It was a kinetics problem.
Strangely, tho, no one pissed on it over on the sci sites, and it *was*
answered here!

> Just because a reaction can take place, does not mean it's
> spontaneous or instantaneous. Creatine does not undergo spontaneous
> conversion to creatinine, thus why studies show ingestion of creatine
> increases CP in tissues efficiently.

Then why do you say not to leave it unrefridgerated in solution?
Because it DOES convert spontaneously! But not instantaneously.
--
------
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

"Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:willbrink-2811061127050001@192.168.2.156...
> In article <o5c9h.86$UA5.16@newsfe09.lga>, "Proctologically Violated©®"
> <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Some of you may be aware of creatine being a relative newcomer to the
>> sports
>> supplement field, and it seems to have garnered some credibility, among
>> diehard weight lifters, at least, sort of like carb loading for
>> marathoners.
>>
>> But here's the problem:
>> I was looking at the Merck, and it states that in acid solution,
>> conversion
>> to creatinine is complete. And creatine ---> creatinine (cyclization) is
>> irreversible.
>> Even in neutral/alkaline solutions, creatine/creatinine equilibbriums are
>> achieved, altho no K is specified.
>
> Let's try this again. Here is some info from a recent report:
>
> Creatine/ Creatinine
>
> The speed of degradation is:
> · not depending on the concentration
> · depending on the pH (the lower the pH the faster the degradation)
> · depending on the temperature (the higher the temperature the faster the
> degradation)
>
> Figure 1. Degradation of Creatine at 25°C, after 0.5h, 4h, 8h, 1d, 2d, 3d
> at different pH values (7.5, 6.5, 5.5, 4.5, 3.5).
>
> Creatine in aqueous solution is reasonably stable for up to 8h at 25°C, pH
> 7.5 or 6.5. Breakdown
>
> after 3 days at pH 5.5, 4.5 and 3.5 was 4%, 12% and 21% respectively.
>
> If Creatine is not used immediately after it is dissolved in water it
> should be stored at a low temperature to slow down the degradation.
>
> The solubility of Creatine Monohydrate is 14 g per liter
> at 25°C (1.4%) and 8.5 g at 4°C.
>
>
>>
>> Creatine (open chain) is transported into the muscle, for
>> phosphorylation.
>> But, cyclized, it can only be excreted, and, being irreversible, cannot
>> be
>> re-opened for possible use.
>>
>> So how, then, is dietary creatine shown to be effective, and according to
>> some citing studies, proven to increase muscle creatine/creatine
>> phospate?
>
> See above. Just because a reaction can take place, does not mean it's
> spontaneous or instantaneous. Creatine does not undergo spontaneous
> conversion to creatinine, thus why studies show ingestion of creatine
> increases CP in tissues efficiently.
>
>>
>> It seems that the Merck is not prone to hyperbole,
>
> It's not an issue of hyperbole, it's an issue of them simply stating that
> creatine can undergo conversion to creatinine without actually giving the
> time table and conditions needed for it to happen.
>
>> so I am assuming the cite
>> of complete conversion to be true--and am also assuming it to be fairly
>> rapid, esp. in a pH 2 environment, like the stomach.
>
> Yes on the first and no on the second. 3 days at PH 3.5 found a 21%
> conversion. If the creatine sat in your stomach for days on end at body
> temp and Ph of 2, you would see some conversion no doubt, but that is not
> the case of course. For example:
>
> 1. Vanakoski J, Kosunen V, Meririnne E, Seppala T. Creatine
> and caffeine in anaerobic and aerobic exercise: effects on
> physical performance and pharmacokinetic considerations. Int
> J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1998 May;36(5):258-62.
>
> "Creatine was rapidly and efficiently absorbed, as reflected
> by plasma concentrations."
>
> 2. M. Francaux, et.al. Effect of Exogenous Creatine
> Supplementation on Muscle PCr Metabolism Int J Sports Med;
> 21:139-145
>
> "Following a single dose of creatine (5g), plasma creatine
> rises rapidly peaking one or two hours after the ingestion.
> Then it decreases to return to basal values within 8 hours
> after intake (unpublished data)."
>
>>
>> TIA for any ideas, leads, info.
>
> See above. Take home from the above is, creatine should be ingested within
> a few hours of mixing into liquids. If not ingested right away, put in the
> fridg. Leaving for weeks on end is a no no.I hope that answers your
> questions and or gets you headed in the right direction. Why didn't you
> start with this perfectly reasonable post on MFW to begin with?
>

In article <wZ0bh.8$u36.6@newsfe11.lga>, "Proctologically Violated©®"
<entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:

> Will Brink reassures PV thusly:
>
> > I hope that answers your
> > questions and or gets you headed in the right direction. Why didn't you
> > start with this perfectly reasonable post on MFW to begin with?
>
> Let's see, uh, well, sumpn bout reading comprehension.......

Well I took a crack at treating you like an adult human being and answer
your questions, and you kept up the flames and trolling. No one can say I
didn't try. Carry on sparky.

> Well I took a crack at treating you like an adult human being and answer
> your questions, and you kept up the flames and trolling. No one can say I
> didn't try. Carry on sparky.

Yeah, but they were answered on 11/23. Where were you?? Oh, too busy
flaming me on 11/24.

And, are you still going to maintain that the creatine-creatinine conversion
is not spontaneous?

Answer this, then:
What type of kinetics does the conversion of creatine to creatinine display,
and why is this important?

And, what did you think of the nutritionsupplement site, on creatine?
Do you think the responses were genuine/valid, or were only the pro-creatine
responses genuine/valid?
--
------
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

"Will Brink" <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:willbrink-2811061714310001@192.168.2.156...
> In article <wZ0bh.8$u36.6@newsfe11.lga>, "Proctologically Violated©®"
> <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
>
>> Will Brink reassures PV thusly:
>>
>> > I hope that answers your
>> > questions and or gets you headed in the right direction. Why didn't you
>> > start with this perfectly reasonable post on MFW to begin with?
>>
>> Let's see, uh, well, sumpn bout reading comprehension.......
>
> Well I took a crack at treating you like an adult human being and answer
> your questions, and you kept up the flames and trolling. No one can say I
> didn't try. Carry on sparky.
>

"Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> schreef:

> Yeah, but they were answered on 11/23. Where were you?? Oh, too busy
> flaming me on 11/24.

You Americans do this wrong. Its 24/11/2006, NOT 11/24/2006!

That way, you get small/smaller/biggest instead of;

small/bigger/biggest. The way it should be.

Your way doesnt make any fucking sense...

----
Pete

Pete wrote:
> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net>
> schreef:
>> Yeah, but they were answered on 11/23. Where were you?? Oh, too
>> busy flaming me on 11/24.
>
> You Americans do this wrong. Its 24/11/2006, NOT 11/24/2006!
>
> That way, you get small/smaller/biggest instead of;
>
> small/bigger/biggest. The way it should be.
>
> Your way doesnt make any fucking sense...
>
> ----
> Pete

It should be 2006/11/24 so you can sort on date !!!

--
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

"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:456dbbd0$0$96572$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net>
> schreef:
>
>> Yeah, but they were answered on 11/23. Where were you?? Oh, too busy
>> flaming me on 11/24.
>
> You Americans do this wrong. Its 24/11/2006, NOT 11/24/2006!
>
> That way, you get small/smaller/biggest instead of;
>
> small/bigger/biggest. The way it should be.
>
> Your way doesnt make any fucking sense...
>
Lul. No, , it does make sense. Because it is common to say Nov 23. So it
follows then you would subsitute the nbr for Nov that makes it 11/23

"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:456dbbd0$0$96572$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net>
> schreef:
>
>> Yeah, but they were answered on 11/23. Where were you?? Oh, too busy
>> flaming me on 11/24.
>
> You Americans do this wrong. Its 24/11/2006, NOT 11/24/2006!
>
> That way, you get small/smaller/biggest instead of;
>
> small/bigger/biggest. The way it should be.
>
> Your way doesnt make any fucking sense...
>

Lul. No, , it does make sense. Because it is common to say Nov 23. So it
follows then you would subsitute the nbr for Nov that makes it 11/23

>

"Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:

>> Your way doesnt make any fucking sense...

> It should be 2006/11/24 so you can sort on date !!!

Big/smaller/smallest

Sounds good to me.

But the YanKees fuck it up!

----
Pete

"David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> schreef:

>> Your way doesnt make any fucking sense...

> Lul.

Klootzak.

> No, , it does make sense. Because it is common to say Nov 23.

Thats wrong.

Thats the same as saying "I am 10 inches and 5 feet tall."

> So it follows then you would subsitute the nbr for Nov that makes it
> 11/23

I dont weant to be nitpicky, but its wrong...

----
Pete

Pete wrote:
> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>
>>> Your way doesnt make any fucking sense...
>
>> It should be 2006/11/24 so you can sort on date !!!
>
> Big/smaller/smallest
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> But the YanKees fuck it up!
>
> ----
> Pete

A bit like they've done with the English language then?

--
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

"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:456dca62$0$7609$dbd4d001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> schreef:
>
>>> Your way doesnt make any fucking sense...
>
>> Lul.
>
> Klootzak.

Spast

>
>> No, , it does make sense. Because it is common to say Nov 23.
>
> Thats wrong.
>
> Thats the same as saying "I am 10 inches and 5 feet tall."

You see!! I told you that you were wrong - you are NOT 5'10" - right? You
are a Dutchman so taller than that/
I rest my case

>
>> So it follows then you would subsitute the nbr for Nov that makes it
>> 11/23
>
> I dont weant to be nitpicky, but its wrong...
>
> ----
> Pete
>

"Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:

>> But the YanKees fuck it up!

> A bit like they've done with the English language then?

To tell you the truth, i speak it more the American than the English way.

Has something to do with television, i guess...

----
Pete

"David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> schreef:

>>>> Your way doesnt make any fucking sense...

>>> Lul.

>> Klootzak.

> Spast

Debiel

>>> No, , it does make sense. Because it is common to say Nov 23.

>> Thats wrong.

>> Thats the same as saying "I am 10 inches and 5 feet tall."

> You see!! I told you that you were wrong - you are NOT 5'10" - right?

Thats right. I am precisely 1.83 meters, 6 feet.

I dont think you cant say that wrong...

> You are a Dutchman so taller than that/
> I rest my case

Eh... Okay!

----
Pete