Shilling for the Creatine Cartel

Will Hopkins, in Sportssci.org, and others, referred to or implied a
"creatine cartel".
IOW, a group of highly vested interests in promoting this supplement.
The problem is, they border on religious fanaticism (well, you would too, if
yer bucks were at stake), to the point where Kreider states that creatine is
safer than carbohydrate. goodgawd....
http://sportsci.org/jour/0001/opinions.html debate onliability


As I play the cite-the-abstracts-without-understandin-a-fukn-thing game, one
thing is becoming evident:
Straightout medical, physiology, and nutritional journals are far more
critical of the health prospects of creatine than the sports/exercise
physiology journals are. Hmmmmmmmm.........
Interestingly, 1998,1999 seem to be the "hot years" for creatine research,
and most stuff since seems to be put out by the creatine cartel. They seem
to dominate google.

Brinks, the apparently drooling boy-toy of this cartel, tips his own hand w/
his incessant (and humorless) name-calling hysteria, and is laughable when
he says, or implies, creatine is *absolutely* safe, by simply ignoring stuff
that would suggest otherwise. He refuses to discuss mechanisms,
explanations, anything that detracts from creatine efficacy?

A few minutes, by yours truly who is the computer moron of the tri-state
area here, showed the following, which brinks will no doubt lambast as being
shit cites. And mebbe they are, just like his cites.
But just how would he know? What is his own scientific authority on which
to judge these, or even his own cites?
Apparently by whether or not they support his pre-existing stance and vested
interests.

Here's the stuff our shilling boy-toy brinks and his cartel don't want to
acknowledge.

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003 Mar;89(1):26-33. Epub 2002 Dec 24
Potential cytotoxic effect of chronic administration of creatine, a
nutrition supplement to augment athletic performance.

Neuropsychiatry Research Unit, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan, Canada. Yup@sask.usask.ca

Creatine is alleged to be an ergogenic aid to enhance sports performance and
recently became a popular sports nutrition supplement. Although short-term
supplementation of creatine has not been associated with major health risks,
the safety of prolonged use has caused some concern.

******* The present study demonstrates that creatine is metabolized to
methylamine, which is further converted to formaldehyde by
semicarbazide-sensitive amine oxidase (SSAO). Formaldehyde is well known to
cross-link proteins and DNAs, and known to be a major environmental risk
factor. *******

SSAO-mediated production of toxic aldehydes has been recently proposed to be
related to pathological conditions such as vascular damage, diabetic
complications, nephropathy, etc.

*********Chronic administration of a large quantity of creatine can increase
the production of formaldehyde, which may potentially cause serious unwanted
side-effects. *********

Now, just how long do you think it will take to assess this type of
long-term effect?

Just to give you an indication of how dicey supplementation w/ ANYTHING can
be, it is now known that Vit B6 can cause irreversible peripheral
neuropathy, because it is an active inhibitor of DNA repair enzymes, in
doses as low as 25 mgs. I was asleep in class that day, but woke up like a
shot when I heard DAT!



Physiol Genomics. 2003 Jan 15;12(2):163-74

(edited for your reading pleasure)

......... the validity of using some of these genes as endogenous controls
(i.e., housekeeping genes) when human skeletal muscle was exposed to
elevated total creatine levels and exercise was also examined. ......

.. We conclude that, using real-time RT-PCR, beta-actin or CYC may be used as
housekeeping genes to study gene expression in human muscle in experiments
employing short-term creatine supplementation combined with high-intensity
exercise.

IOW, creatine affects gene expression. See the previous cite.



Next, from Kreider hisself.....

Greenwood M, Farris J, Kreider R, Greenwood L, Byars A.

Clin J Sport Med. 2000 Jul;10(3):191-4.

OBJECTIVE: To describe patterns of creatine use in select Division I
collegiate athletes based on recommended dosages according to body weight.
Further, to report the perceived effects noted with creatine
supplementation. ...... . PARTICIPANTS: Two-hundred and nineteen male and
female collegiate athletes representing eight varsity sports. .......
RESULTS: . Creatine users (34 athletes, 38%) reporting perceived negative
effects were primarily at or below recommended dosages in the loading phase
but noticeably above recommended dosages in the maintenance phase.
.........CONCLUSIONS: The perceived positive effects noted support current
research (strength/weight gains), while the perceived negative effects
(cramping/gastrointestinal distress) were consistent with anecdotal reports
surrounding creatine supplementation.

Golly, Brinks!!! Looks like you're going to have to be someone else's
bitch, now.



Next, is admittedly a little alarmist, but it alarms me. Just how does one
know what state one's kidneys are in? Ever see anyone on dialysis? High
incidence of suicide in dialysis.

Am J Kidney Dis. 2001 Jan;37(1):73-78.

The growing use of creatine as a potential ergogenic aid among active
individuals has raised concern regarding its effects on the kidney,
particularly among those individuals with compromised renal function.......
....... These results indicate that creatine supplements may exacerbate
disease progression in an animal model of cystic renal disease. Although
systematic research of the effects of creatine supplementation in humans
with compromised renal function is awaited, it follows that creatine should
be used with particular caution in individuals with or at risk for renal
disease



J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash). 1999 Nov-Dec;39(6):803-10; quiz 875-7.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the data on the efficacy and safety of
the nutritional supplement creatine. ..........

Laboratory investigations of endurance isotonic exercises, strength and
endurance during isotonic exercises, isokinetic torque, isometric force, and
ergometer performance have yielded roughly an equal number of published
studies showing a positive effect or lack of effect. Field studies (i.e., on
subjects participating in sports activities) are less impressive than
laboratory studies. ......

....... Reports have linked creatine to weight gain, cramping, dehydration,
diarrhea, and dizziness. Creatine may decrease renal function, but only two
case reports of this effect have been published. Creatine appears to be well
tolerated in short-term trials. .....

.......CONCLUSION: While creatine may enhance the performance of
high-intensity, short-duration exercise, it is not useful in endurance
sports. Because commercially marketed creatine products do not meet the same
quality control standards of pharmaceuticals, there is always a concern of
impurities or doses higher or lower than those on the labeling. Consumers
should balance the quality of information supporting the use of creatine
with the known and theoretical risks of using the product, including
possible renal dysfunction

Oh, but this was one of them crappy 1999 studies.....



CANCER, anyone?

Prescrire Int. 2002 Jun;11(59):88-90.

(1) Creatine occurs naturally in the body. Some is derived from dietary
sources, but endogenous synthesis covers individual requirements. Creatine
deficiency occurs only in subjects with genetic disorders. (2) Oral creatine
supplementation at supraphysiological doses seems to slightly improve the
performance of some types of muscle exercise, but only those lasting less
than 30 seconds; even this small effect is inconsistent. (3) The vague
regulatory status of creatine supplements hinders effective monitoring of
adverse events. Serious adverse events have been reported in people taking
creatine supplements, but it's still unclear whether or not the creatine is
responsible.

******Animal data suggest a link with cancer after long term exposure.
******

(4) The precise composition of creatine supplements is unclear:
contamination is possible, and other substances, especially doping agents,
are sometimes added. (5) Taking creatine supplements is inadvisable


Yoshizumi WM, Tsourounis C.

Creatine is a popular supplement used by athletes in an effort to increase
muscle performance. The purpose of this review was to assess the literature
evaluating the effects of creatine supplementation on renal function.
......... In people with a history of renal disease or those taking
nephrotoxic medications, creatine may be associated with an increased risk
of renal dysfunction. One case report of acute renal failure was reported in
a 20-year-old man taking 20 gm/day of creatine for a period of four weeks.
........... Future studies should include renal function markers other than
serum creatinine and creatinine clearance.



Shill Brinks and his Cartel choose to ignore the most elementary prima facie
evidence that sumpn is wrong w/ taking 20 grams of creatine: The kidney
dumps it forthwith, as creatine. Which is the kidney's way of saying
WTF??????

Now, do I think most people will keel over dead from creatine? No.

Is it clear that Brinks is a blustering disingenuous asshole? Yes.

Would I use it for competition? Yes.

Would I pray afterwards? Yes.

--
------
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

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:

[..."...doping agents, are sometimes added..."...]

Are you actually interested in getting some value out of this discussion or
are you just out to shaft Will Brinks? What are these doping agents?

--
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

"Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote in message
news:4t0vo1F11rq0uU1@mid.individual.net...
> Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
>
> [..."...doping agents, are sometimes added..."...]
>
> Are you actually interested in getting some value out of this discussion
> or are you just out to shaft Will Brinks?

Let's see here....
I finally conquer my chronic pyooter phobia, post some cites, and now I'm
just tryna "shaft Brinks"???
Please...........
Sounds familiar, tho: no doubt any cite I provide will be dismissed by
brinks as a shit cite.
But it seems to me like he's doing a pretty good job of shafting himself.
It just becomes particularly glaring when someone takes his shilling ass to
task.

> What are these doping agents?
I have no idea.
Ahm just postin fukn abstracts here, like all these other assholes. Make of
it what you will.

The really relevant issue, that brinks pooh-poohs, is the dumping of raw
creatine by the kidney, upon supplementation, which it *normally does not
do."
Clearly this is the body *giving you* a fukn clue, jack, free of charge.
And mebbe it's harmless, too. Mebbe brink will tell us.

Imagine if your car all of a sudden started spewing green smoke.
What would you do?
Now, mebbe, concommitant w/ this green smoke, you'll start getting 100
mpg's.
Or mebbe you'll lose your engine in a week.
Or mebbe both!
But you *would* try to assess what's goin on, right?

And so far, so good--there does not seem to be an epidemic of athletes in
dialysis.
But why even *slightly mess* w/ something as touch-and-go as your kidneys?
Why would any responsible pundit *dismiss this out of hand*?
Well, the answer is, because they are shills.

Wasn't brinks one of the ain't-no-adverse-effects-from-steroids peeple, in
the "old" mfw??
--
------
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





>
> --
> 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 Mon, 27 Nov 2006, Proctologically Violated©® wrote:

> Will Hopkins, in Sportssci.org, and others, referred to or implied a
> "creatine cartel".

Implications are easy to make.

> IOW, a group of highly vested interests in promoting this supplement.
> The problem is, they border on religious fanaticism (well, you would
> too, if yer bucks were at stake), to the point where Kreider states that
> creatine is safer than carbohydrate. goodgawd....
> http://sportsci.org/jour/0001/opinions.html debate onliability

That's not what he says. He says there's more data on creatine than
carbohydrate. That's not entirely surprising, given that creatine is kind
of new, whereas carbohydrate has been in use for a while.

Anyway, apparently, now it's time for mfw journal club ...

> Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003 Mar;89(1):26-33. Epub 2002 Dec 24
> Potential cytotoxic effect of chronic administration of creatine, a
> nutrition supplement to augment athletic performance.

You've got your citations mixed up there - the Eur J Appl Physiol paper is
something called "Effect of creatine supplementation on cardiac muscle of
exercise-stressed rats", and the "Potential cytotoxic effect ..." one is
Med Hypotheses 54(5):726:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=10859677

> Creatine is alleged to be an ergogenic aid to enhance sports performance and
> recently became a popular sports nutrition supplement. Although short-term
> supplementation of creatine has not been associated with major health risks,
> the safety of prolonged use has caused some concern.
>
> ******* The present study demonstrates that creatine is metabolized to
> methylamine, which is further converted to formaldehyde by
> semicarbazide-sensitive amine oxidase (SSAO). Formaldehyde is well known to
> cross-link proteins and DNAs, and known to be a major environmental risk
> factor. *******
>
> SSAO-mediated production of toxic aldehydes has been recently proposed to be
> related to pathological conditions such as vascular damage, diabetic
> complications, nephropathy, etc.
>
> *********Chronic administration of a large quantity of creatine can increase
> the production of formaldehyde, which may potentially cause serious unwanted
> side-effects. *********

That's an interesting one. They basically have one actual experiment, and
pad the paper out by invoking other research to argue that it's important.
I guess this is why it's in a journal called Medical Hypotheses rather
than Medical Facts .

What they show fairly convincingly is that, in rats, creatine gets
metabolised to formaldehyde: they block an enzyme called SSAO and feed
them creatine, and find that the level of a metabolite called methylamine
goes up, and that when they don't inhibit SSAO, it doesn't. Since what
SSAO does (in this situation) is break down methylamine to formaldehyde,
they, quite reasonably, conclude that creatine is being turned into
methylamine, and then, by SSAO, into formaldehyde. They also saw elevated
formaldehyde in the urine of creatine-fed rats. Something to note is that
they didn't see a creatine-dependent increase in methylamine in rats where
SSAO wasn't inhibited.

So, that's rats. They then have one bit of data about humans: an almost
throwaway remark that in "a young female athlete, who has taken creatine
as a nutrition supplementation", urinary methylamine went up a lot. Now,
this is a bit weird: in rats, creatine had no effect on methylamine,
because all the methylamine was being turned into formaldehyde. But in
this girl, there is an effect. That sort of suggests that in her, and
perhaps in humans generally, methylamine is not being converted into
formaldehyde. They don't seem to have measured urinary formaldehyde in the
girl's urine, which seems a bit of an oversight, since it would directly
address their hypothesis.

On top of all that, there's nothing quantitative about the pathological
effects in humans. Yes, formaldehyde is bad for you, really bad for you,
but how much is being made here, relative to how much there would be
anyway? If it's a tenfold increase, that might be worth worrying about; if
it's one percent, it's not.

So, interesting, but more of a pointer for future work than anything
conclusive.

> Physiol Genomics. 2003 Jan 15;12(2):163-74

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12419855

> ........ the validity of using some of these genes as endogenous controls
> (i.e., housekeeping genes) when human skeletal muscle was exposed to
> elevated total creatine levels and exercise was also examined. ......
>
> . We conclude that, using real-time RT-PCR, beta-actin or CYC may be used as
> housekeeping genes to study gene expression in human muscle in experiments
> employing short-term creatine supplementation combined with high-intensity
> exercise.
>
> IOW, creatine affects gene expression. See the previous cite.

Er, no. I think you've completely misunderstood this paper. The bit of the
abstract you cite absolutely does not say that. All it says is that
they've validated a method for measuring changes in gene expression if
they exist - not that they've measured any such changes.

Indeed, a little further up, they say "Creatine supplementation increased
(P < 0.05) muscle total creatine content above placebo levels; however,
there were no changes (P > 0.05) in C(T) values across the supplementation
periods for any of the genes.", ie, it *doesn't* change gene expression.

Which is not all that surprising, as the genes they looked at are nothing
to do with muscle anabolism: they deliberately picked genes which are
irrelevant, to use as reference points for measurements of muscle-specific
genes. The purpose of this work was to establish that they were valid
reference points, presumably so they could use them as such in future
work.

To wit: beta-actin is the nonmuscle form of the major structural
protein actin, not involved in the muscle's contractile machinery itself
but playing a supporting structural role; beta-2 microglobulin is involved
in immune recognition - it's part of the way the cell allows itself to be
audited by immune cells to make sure it's not cancerous or harbouring
viruses; cyclophilin is an enzyme involved in protein synthesis; GAPDH is
an enzyme involved in glycolysis, ie production of energy from
carbohydrates.

Now, you seem to be saying that creatine causing changes in gene
expression is a bad thing. I couldn't disagree more. Such changes are the
basis of anabolism, so if creatine is causing anabolism, it must be
causing changes in gene expression, which in this case would be a good
thing! Which said, i'm slightly surprised that cyclophilin and GAPDH
didn't change; they should both go up if there's significant anabolism, i
would have thought. Perhaps not.

> Greenwood M, Farris J, Kreider R, Greenwood L, Byars A.
>
> Clin J Sport Med. 2000 Jul;10(3):191-4.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=10959929

> OBJECTIVE: To describe patterns of creatine use in select Division I
> collegiate athletes based on recommended dosages according to body weight.
> Further, to report the perceived effects noted with creatine
> supplementation. ...... . PARTICIPANTS: Two-hundred and nineteen male and
> female collegiate athletes representing eight varsity sports. .......
> RESULTS: . Creatine users (34 athletes, 38%) reporting perceived negative
> effects were primarily at or below recommended dosages in the loading phase
> but noticeably above recommended dosages in the maintenance phase.
> ........CONCLUSIONS: The perceived positive effects noted support current
> research (strength/weight gains), while the perceived negative effects
> (cramping/gastrointestinal distress) were consistent with anecdotal reports
> surrounding creatine supplementation.

Kinda a large-scale exercise in anecdotal evidence. With no placebo
control. I'm not saying it's wrong, though - just that it's not
convincing. I can't get the full text, though, so i'm basically in the
dark.

> Am J Kidney Dis. 2001 Jan;37(1):73-78.

This one is called "Creatine supplementation increases renal disease
progression in Han:SPRD-cy rats", and is by Edmunds, Jayapalan, DiMarco,
Saboorian and Aukema, at Texas Woman's University.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=11136170

> The growing use of creatine as a potential ergogenic aid among active
> individuals has raised concern regarding its effects on the kidney,
> particularly among those individuals with compromised renal
> function....... ...... These results indicate that creatine supplements
> may exacerbate disease progression in an animal model of cystic renal
> disease. Although systematic research of the effects of creatine
> supplementation in humans with compromised renal function is awaited, it
> follows that creatine should be used with particular caution in
> individuals with or at risk for renal disease

Yeah. So, what they did here is feed creatine to mutant rats with cystic
kidney disease, and they found that it made them worse. This is an
important finding if you are a mutant rat with cystic kidney disease. It
is a finding to think about if you're a human with kidney disease of some
sort. I'm not sure what it means for those of us with healthy kidneys; it
does indicate that creatine increases renal stress, but if you have
healthy kidneys, you can deal with increased renal stress quite happily up
to a point (if not, time to quit drinking beer). Again, what's missing is
quantitation related to healthy individuals; it would be really nice to
feed creatine to healthy humans and then measure some kidney function
parameters.

> J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash). 1999 Nov-Dec;39(6):803-10; quiz 875-7.

Creatine: a review of efficacy and safety - A. S. Graham & R. C. Hatton

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=10609446

> OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the data on the efficacy and safety of
> the nutritional supplement creatine. ..........
>
> Laboratory investigations of endurance isotonic exercises, strength and
> endurance during isotonic exercises, isokinetic torque, isometric force, and
> ergometer performance have yielded roughly an equal number of published
> studies showing a positive effect or lack of effect. Field studies (i.e., on
> subjects participating in sports activities) are less impressive than
> laboratory studies. ......
>
> ...... Reports have linked creatine to weight gain, cramping, dehydration,
> diarrhea, and dizziness. Creatine may decrease renal function, but only two
> case reports of this effect have been published. Creatine appears to be well
> tolerated in short-term trials. .....
>
> ......CONCLUSION: While creatine may enhance the performance of
> high-intensity, short-duration exercise, it is not useful in endurance
> sports. Because commercially marketed creatine products do not meet the same
> quality control standards of pharmaceuticals, there is always a concern of
> impurities or doses higher or lower than those on the labeling. Consumers
> should balance the quality of information supporting the use of creatine
> with the known and theoretical risks of using the product, including
> possible renal dysfunction

The take-home sentence is "despite the many clinical trials, high-quality
research is lacking". These guys come to quite a reasonable conclusion -
that we really can't be sure one way or the other, at least on the basis
of data up to 1999.

> CANCER, anyone?
>
> Prescrire Int. 2002 Jun;11(59):88-90.

"Creatine: little impact on athletic performance, but a risk of adverse
effects." - no authors listed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

I can't get full text for this one, and its abstract is all claims and no
evidence. How much do i trust some anonymous French doctors? Not so much.
A look at the usual output of Prescrire:

http://www.prescrire.org/signature/p...ernational.php

Suggests that their business is rubbishing things. Which is not to say
they're wrong - but i suspect they have an editorial bias in favour of
articles which knock something. As long as you bear that in mind, probably
quite a useful periodical! Perhaps they're just working under Voltaire's
apocryphal maxim "the art of medicine consists in amusing the patient
while nature cures the disease"!

> Yoshizumi WM, Tsourounis C.

Effects of creatine supplementation on renal function - W. M. Yoshizumi,
C. Tsourounis (2004); J Herb Pharmacother 4(1):1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15273072

I believe that that in terms of scraping barrels, the Journal of Herbal
Pharmacotherapy could well be described as the bottom. Although having
said that, this paper does seem quite sound.

> Creatine is a popular supplement used by athletes in an effort to
> increase muscle performance. The purpose of this review was to assess
> the literature evaluating the effects of creatine supplementation on
> renal function. ........ In people with a history of renal disease or
> those taking nephrotoxic medications, creatine may be associated with an
> increased risk of renal dysfunction. One case report of acute renal
> failure was reported in a 20-year-old man taking 20 gm/day of creatine
> for a period of four weeks. .......... Future studies should include
> renal function markers other than serum creatinine and creatinine
> clearance.

Two interesting things here. Firstly, "according to the existing
literature, creatine supplementation appears safe when used by healthy
adults at the recommended loading", whilst "in people with a history of
renal disease or those taking nephrotoxic medications, creatine may be
associated with an increased risk of renal dysfunction". Sounds right to
me - if your kidneys work, fine, if not, avoid. Secondly, "since creatine
supplementation may increase creatinine levels, it may act as a false
indicator of renal dysfunction"; ie perfectly healthy people might seem
ill if they take lots of creatine, which is an interesting point. A bit
like how eating a load of kidney beans can make your doctor think you have
a bleeding bladder .

> Shill Brinks and his Cartel choose to ignore the most elementary prima facie
> evidence that sumpn is wrong w/ taking 20 grams of creatine: The kidney
> dumps it forthwith, as creatine. Which is the kidney's way of saying
> WTF??????

More its way of saying "this is not needed", which, if you look at it
another way, is saying "we've got enough now". Which is a good thing to
hear!

Anyway, this 20 g/day business - this is the alleged loading phase, rather
than maintenance, and i thought the latest thinking was that that wasn't
necessary. I would certainly agree that it's silly to gorge yourself with
that amount of creatine if it's all going to get excreted.

I'll throw in one of my own:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=16260971

"Effect of oral creatine supplementation on urinary methylamine,
formaldehyde, and formate", from some chaps at the Higher Institute of
Physical Education and Physical Therapy, Free University of Brussels, in
Med Sci Sports Exerc. These guys should be part of the creatine mafia, if
i understood you right.

Anyway, they did exactly what i said! They fed 20 healthy young men 21 g
each (grumble as above) of creatine daily for two weeks and measured the
hell out of them. The result: "urine excretion of methylamine and
formaldehyde increased, respectively, 9.2-fold (P = 0.001) and 4.5-fold (P
= 0.002) after creatine feeding". So, creatine *does* lead to increased
formaldehyde excretion in healthy humans; presumably, that means it's also
elevated in blood. As to kidney damage: these changes happened "with no
increase in urinary albumin output", ie without loss of kidney barrier
function, at least.

So, no evidence for the much-discussed renal damage, but that
significantly elevated urine formaldehyde is a worry. I'm not saying it's
yellow liquid death, but i would like to know what the blood level is, and
what the known toxicology of formaldehyde says that level means. It might
still be harmless, no worse than eating a foie gras sandwich or something,
but it might not. I'd like to see a followup study with (a) 5 g/day
dosage, (b) measurement of blood formaldehyde before and after, (c)
measurement of DNA damage in white blood cells, as a reporter of damage
done by formaldehyde, (d) measurement of blood pH, since formaldehyde can
cause acidosis via metabolism to formic acid, although i think this is
highly unlikely at the levels seen here. This would be incredibly easy to
do.

> Is it clear that Brinks is a blustering disingenuous asshole? Yes.

You did quite a bit of selective quotation in the abstracts above, my dear
chap, so perhaps the beam that is in thine own eye requires a little
attention before you start on Brinksy in earnest.

Anyway, to the bullet points, i'll add:

Is it clear that we need to keep looking at creatine, specifically for
pathological effects in healthy people at realistic doses, and over longer
timescales? Yes.

Is it clear that creatine has definite pathological effects? No.

I don't think either of you could disagree with those. Now fucking shut up
and go and lift some weights.

tom

--
The sun just came out, I can't believe it

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:20:55 -0500, "Proctologically Violated©®"
<entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:

>"Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote in message
>news:4t0vo1F11rq0uU1@mid.individual.net...

>> What are these doping agents?
>I have no idea.

The claim stems from manufacturing laws here in the US. Any drugs or
medical device entered into the body falls under GMP(Good
Manufacturing Practices). The GMP laws allow the federal government
to monitor manufacturing processes and to give final approval of their
release. The law helps prevent shady manufacturing process which may
introduce contaminants into the product. They also prevent false
claims made about the product.

Nutritional supplements are not regulated by GMP. Therefore companies
can may not have very good manufacturing practices. There may be
contaminants in there. Or they could make false claims. They are
still held accountable for their actions though. There are a few diet
drug companies being investigated for using alternate ingredients from
what they claim.

Anyway someone must of either found or assumed companies where adding
alternate ingredients to their product.

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:

> Will Hopkins, in Sportssci.org, and others, referred
> to or implied a "creatine cartel".
> IOW, a group of highly vested interests in promoting
> this supplement. The problem is, they border on
> religious fanaticism (well, you would too, if yer bucks
> were at stake), to the point where Kreider states that
> creatine is safer than carbohydrate. goodgawd....
> http://sportsci.org/jour/0001/opinions.html debate <snip>

Maaaan, PV, that's all from Y2K! )

I'll believe you as soon as I finish the three pounds of Body Fortress
creatine monohydrate powder, the maybe two pounds of Body Fortress
creatine drink mix, and the 3.3 pounds of Anator P70 (but that's only
got about 80 grams of creatine in the whole tub) that're currently
waiting on my shelf.

> Brinks,

It's BrinK, fwiw. Perhaps a useful mnemonic would be to remember that
since Brink is SHORT you should immediately SHORTEN his name (by
subtracting that s).

[...]

> Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003 Mar;89(1):<snip>
> Neuropsychiatry Research Unit, Uni<snip>

Sweet, sweet journals. I'll bet you're givin' J Dub a certifiable
woo... never mind.

> Formaldehyde

Hey, does MuscleTech make that?

[...]

> Physiol Genomics. 2003 Jan <snip>

Buurrrp! Excuse me.

> Next, from Kreider hisself.....

My golf buddy!

> Clin J Sport Med. 2000 Jul;<snip>
> Am J Kidney Dis. 2001 Jan<snip>
> J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash)<snip>
> Prescrire Int. 2002 Jun;11(5<snip>

Anything in any of those journals about PLACEBO® Brand supplements?

> Serious adverse events have been reported in
> people taking creatine supplements, but it's still
> unclear whether or not the creatine is responsible.

Yeah, but is it, "Ma'am, your son did blow his head off with a shotgun"
unclear or is it, "Ma'am, your son's car left the road and hit a tree"
unclear?

[...]

> Is it clear that Brinks is a blustering disingenuous
> asshole? Yes.

But is that how you spell disingenuous?

(Googles)

It IS!

And just WHAT is this newsgroup coming to??? Tautology, apropos, and
now disingenuous! Akeelah and the Newsgroup continues! Sweet. Eggheads
with muscles rock. I wonder what Lenda Murray's IQ is. From her one
(only?) DVD it's obvious that she's intelligent and can think on her
feet. And few would dare fault her physique.

Anyway, a word to the wise from the UNwise:

PV, just present the facts without the flames. Trust me. Banging away
at JMW-"perceived" idiocy is simply not worth it. And even those who
agree, well, what good is preaching to the choir? Post a jpeg of an
anti-Brink (or Brinks) billboard with a newsclipping of a creatine
overdose and THEN you'll be onto something!

Just sayin'.

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

--
The preceding post brought to you by PLACEBO® Brand supplements. Piss
green and gain! Utilizing the ultimate in Reverse Psychology
Technology™. If you think it's not working then it must REALLY be
working! Embracing the philosophy that money wasted is actually money
well spent. Buy it NOW, TODAY! Look for PLACREABO® coming soon!

In article <%hHah.35$Gk5.9@newsfe12.lga>, "Proctologically Violated©®"
<entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:



> Kreider states that creatine is
> safer than carbohydrate. goodgawd....

So Kreider is good guy when he writes of side effects but a bad guy when
he says there are no side effects. More proof you have the reasoning of a
house cat. The rest of your post is typical babblr of yours. Refs that
actually tell us something:


Is the use of oral creatine supplementation safe?J Sports Med Phys
Fitness. 2004 Dec;44(4):411-6.

"The only documented side effect is an increase in body mass."

and

Sports Med. 2000 Sep;30(3):155-70. Adverse effects of creatine
supplementation: fact or fiction?

"Short term (5 days), medium term (9 weeks) and long term (up to 5 years)
oral creatine supplementation has been studied in small cohorts of
athletes whose kidney function was monitored by clearance methods and
urine protein excretion rate. We did not find any adverse effects on renal
function"

and

Int J Sports Med. 2005 May;26(4):307-13. Few adverse effects of long-term
creatine supplementation in a placebo-controlled trial.

"No significant differences in the occurrence at any time of adverse
effects due to creatine supplementation were found"

Tip of the iceberg you moron of studies, long term studies, that find no
side effects. Your sad little attempt at a comeback with "creatine
cartels" shows how small brained you are, but wait, these researchers are
all part of the cartel! You must now ask them for homosexual favors as you
have me!

What is really sad is it's clear you didn't understand half of what you
posted by your retarded comments. Bwah ha ha ha.

In article <DEIah.49$Gk5.20@newsfe12.lga>, "Proctologically Violated©®"
<entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:

> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote in message
> news:4t0vo1F11rq0uU1@mid.individual.net...
> > Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> >
> > [..."...doping agents, are sometimes added..."...]
> >
> > Are you actually interested in getting some value out of this discussion
> > or are you just out to shaft Will Brinks?
>
> Let's see here....
> I finally conquer my chronic pyooter phobia, post some cites, and now I'm
> just tryna "shaft Brinks"???
> Please...........
> Sounds familiar, tho: no doubt any cite I provide will be dismissed by
> brinks as a shit cite.

Bingo pussy face. If you could actually read even basic research, we might
be able to get some place. That you posted what you did just confirms you
need to go take Bio 101, stats 101, epi 101, etc, and get back to us.
Carry on retard.

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:32:24 -0500, willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink)
wrote:

>Bingo pussy face. If you could actually read even basic research, we might
>be able to get some place. That you posted what you did just confirms you
>need to go take Bio 101, stats 101, epi 101, etc, and get back to us.
>Carry on retard.

And why should anyone need to do all that just to find out if a
supplement is safe and effective?

from the Kreider art:
CONCLUSIONS: The perceived positive effects noted support current
research (strength/weight gains), while the perceived negative effects
(cramping/gastrointestinal distress) were consistent with anecdotal reports
surrounding creatine supplementation.

What part of that don't you understand? Doesn't make Kreider a good guy or
a bad guy. It makes you a disingenuous, untrustworthy asshole.

Read Toms post.
I can take his criticism/corrections. Can you?
Homosexual favors? It'd proly be providing you with a much needed
*service*.
--
------
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-2711061725170001@192.168.2.156...
> In article <%hHah.35$Gk5.9@newsfe12.lga>, "Proctologically Violated©®"
> <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Kreider states that creatine is
>> safer than carbohydrate. goodgawd....
>
> So Kreider is good guy when he writes of side effects but a bad guy when
> he says there are no side effects. More proof you have the reasoning of a
> house cat. The rest of your post is typical babblr of yours. Refs that
> actually tell us something:
>
>
> Is the use of oral creatine supplementation safe?J Sports Med Phys
> Fitness. 2004 Dec;44(4):411-6.
>
> "The only documented side effect is an increase in body mass."
>
> and
>
> Sports Med. 2000 Sep;30(3):155-70. Adverse effects of creatine
> supplementation: fact or fiction?
>
> "Short term (5 days), medium term (9 weeks) and long term (up to 5 years)
> oral creatine supplementation has been studied in small cohorts of
> athletes whose kidney function was monitored by clearance methods and
> urine protein excretion rate. We did not find any adverse effects on renal
> function"
>
> and
>
> Int J Sports Med. 2005 May;26(4):307-13. Few adverse effects of long-term
> creatine supplementation in a placebo-controlled trial.
>
> "No significant differences in the occurrence at any time of adverse
> effects due to creatine supplementation were found"
>
> Tip of the iceberg you moron of studies, long term studies, that find no
> side effects. Your sad little attempt at a comeback with "creatine
> cartels" shows how small brained you are, but wait, these researchers are
> all part of the cartel! You must now ask them for homosexual favors as you
> have me!
>
> What is really sad is it's clear you didn't understand half of what you
> posted by your retarded comments. Bwah ha ha ha.
>

Excellent post.

I made no assertion as to the quality of these cites, only that they exist.
One of the ones you couldn't retrieve was Kreider. He cites the adverse
effects right in the abstract. Brinks not only says there are none, but
also that Kreider says there are none. Kreider just said there were.

Cupla Qs (altho it *is* time to lift weights):

How can they assert that a gene (housekeeping or otherwise) can be used to
track an effect if said gene was not affected?

And, true about affecting gene expression not being a bad thing.
But no one ever mentioned this about creatine--only been transport into the
muscle, more ATP, ergo more strength, etc.
That it now seems to affect stuff at the DNA level would give me *further*
pause about using it as a supplement. More unchartered territory.

Formaldehyde, formate: part of some of the putative effects of aspartame,
as well.

Yes, the kidney *is* doing its job. But is it doing a job it should *have*
to do??

Finally, Do you use creatine? Why/why not?

Excellent post.
Yeah, I was doin a little Brinksmanship... didn't think anyone was going
fukn READ all the articles!!
Except for mebbe fuknBrink, who wouldn't understand them anyway.

But my point was not proving creatine is good or bad.
Point was that creatine is pushing a bit of the metabolic envelope, but not
tearing it open.
And that Brink is incapable of a neutral assessment.
--
------
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 Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0611272000040.22869@urchin.eart h.li...
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006, Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
>
>> Will Hopkins, in Sportssci.org, and others, referred to or implied a
>> "creatine cartel".
>
> Implications are easy to make.
>
>> IOW, a group of highly vested interests in promoting this supplement.
>> The problem is, they border on religious fanaticism (well, you would
>> too, if yer bucks were at stake), to the point where Kreider states that
>> creatine is safer than carbohydrate. goodgawd....
>> http://sportsci.org/jour/0001/opinions.html debate onliability
>
> That's not what he says. He says there's more data on creatine than
> carbohydrate. That's not entirely surprising, given that creatine is kind
> of new, whereas carbohydrate has been in use for a while.
>
> Anyway, apparently, now it's time for mfw journal club ...
>
>> Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003 Mar;89(1):26-33. Epub 2002 Dec 24
>> Potential cytotoxic effect of chronic administration of creatine, a
>> nutrition supplement to augment athletic performance.
>
> You've got your citations mixed up there - the Eur J Appl Physiol paper is
> something called "Effect of creatine supplementation on cardiac muscle of
> exercise-stressed rats", and the "Potential cytotoxic effect ..." one is
> Med Hypotheses 54(5):726:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=10859677
>
>> Creatine is alleged to be an ergogenic aid to enhance sports performance
>> and
>> recently became a popular sports nutrition supplement. Although
>> short-term
>> supplementation of creatine has not been associated with major health
>> risks,
>> the safety of prolonged use has caused some concern.
>>
>> ******* The present study demonstrates that creatine is metabolized to
>> methylamine, which is further converted to formaldehyde by
>> semicarbazide-sensitive amine oxidase (SSAO). Formaldehyde is well known
>> to
>> cross-link proteins and DNAs, and known to be a major environmental risk
>> factor. *******
>>
>> SSAO-mediated production of toxic aldehydes has been recently proposed to
>> be
>> related to pathological conditions such as vascular damage, diabetic
>> complications, nephropathy, etc.
>>
>> *********Chronic administration of a large quantity of creatine can
>> increase
>> the production of formaldehyde, which may potentially cause serious
>> unwanted
>> side-effects. *********
>
> That's an interesting one. They basically have one actual experiment, and
> pad the paper out by invoking other research to argue that it's important.
> I guess this is why it's in a journal called Medical Hypotheses rather
> than Medical Facts .
>
> What they show fairly convincingly is that, in rats, creatine gets
> metabolised to formaldehyde: they block an enzyme called SSAO and feed
> them creatine, and find that the level of a metabolite called methylamine
> goes up, and that when they don't inhibit SSAO, it doesn't. Since what
> SSAO does (in this situation) is break down methylamine to formaldehyde,
> they, quite reasonably, conclude that creatine is being turned into
> methylamine, and then, by SSAO, into formaldehyde. They also saw elevated
> formaldehyde in the urine of creatine-fed rats. Something to note is that
> they didn't see a creatine-dependent increase in methylamine in rats where
> SSAO wasn't inhibited.
>
> So, that's rats. They then have one bit of data about humans: an almost
> throwaway remark that in "a young female athlete, who has taken creatine
> as a nutrition supplementation", urinary methylamine went up a lot. Now,
> this is a bit weird: in rats, creatine had no effect on methylamine,
> because all the methylamine was being turned into formaldehyde. But in
> this girl, there is an effect. That sort of suggests that in her, and
> perhaps in humans generally, methylamine is not being converted into
> formaldehyde. They don't seem to have measured urinary formaldehyde in the
> girl's urine, which seems a bit of an oversight, since it would directly
> address their hypothesis.
>
> On top of all that, there's nothing quantitative about the pathological
> effects in humans. Yes, formaldehyde is bad for you, really bad for you,
> but how much is being made here, relative to how much there would be
> anyway? If it's a tenfold increase, that might be worth worrying about; if
> it's one percent, it's not.
>
> So, interesting, but more of a pointer for future work than anything
> conclusive.
>
>> Physiol Genomics. 2003 Jan 15;12(2):163-74
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12419855
>
>> ........ the validity of using some of these genes as endogenous controls
>> (i.e., housekeeping genes) when human skeletal muscle was exposed to
>> elevated total creatine levels and exercise was also examined. ......
>>
>> . We conclude that, using real-time RT-PCR, beta-actin or CYC may be used
>> as
>> housekeeping genes to study gene expression in human muscle in
>> experiments
>> employing short-term creatine supplementation combined with
>> high-intensity
>> exercise.
>>
>> IOW, creatine affects gene expression. See the previous cite.
>
> Er, no. I think you've completely misunderstood this paper. The bit of the
> abstract you cite absolutely does not say that. All it says is that
> they've validated a method for measuring changes in gene expression if
> they exist - not that they've measured any such changes.
>
> Indeed, a little further up, they say "Creatine supplementation increased
> (P < 0.05) muscle total creatine content above placebo levels; however,
> there were no changes (P > 0.05) in C(T) values across the supplementation
> periods for any of the genes.", ie, it *doesn't* change gene expression.
>
> Which is not all that surprising, as the genes they looked at are nothing
> to do with muscle anabolism: they deliberately picked genes which are
> irrelevant, to use as reference points for measurements of muscle-specific
> genes. The purpose of this work was to establish that they were valid
> reference points, presumably so they could use them as such in future
> work.
>
> To wit: beta-actin is the nonmuscle form of the major structural
> protein actin, not involved in the muscle's contractile machinery itself
> but playing a supporting structural role; beta-2 microglobulin is involved
> in immune recognition - it's part of the way the cell allows itself to be
> audited by immune cells to make sure it's not cancerous or harbouring
> viruses; cyclophilin is an enzyme involved in protein synthesis; GAPDH is
> an enzyme involved in glycolysis, ie production of energy from
> carbohydrates.
>
> Now, you seem to be saying that creatine causing changes in gene
> expression is a bad thing. I couldn't disagree more. Such changes are the
> basis of anabolism, so if creatine is causing anabolism, it must be
> causing changes in gene expression, which in this case would be a good
> thing! Which said, i'm slightly surprised that cyclophilin and GAPDH
> didn't change; they should both go up if there's significant anabolism, i
> would have thought. Perhaps not.
>
>> Greenwood M, Farris J, Kreider R, Greenwood L, Byars A.
>>
>> Clin J Sport Med. 2000 Jul;10(3):191-4.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=10959929
>
>> OBJECTIVE: To describe patterns of creatine use in select Division I
>> collegiate athletes based on recommended dosages according to body
>> weight.
>> Further, to report the perceived effects noted with creatine
>> supplementation. ...... . PARTICIPANTS: Two-hundred and nineteen male
>> and
>> female collegiate athletes representing eight varsity sports. .......
>> RESULTS: . Creatine users (34 athletes, 38%) reporting perceived negative
>> effects were primarily at or below recommended dosages in the loading
>> phase
>> but noticeably above recommended dosages in the maintenance phase.
>> ........CONCLUSIONS: The perceived positive effects noted support current
>> research (strength/weight gains), while the perceived negative effects
>> (cramping/gastrointestinal distress) were consistent with anecdotal
>> reports
>> surrounding creatine supplementation.
>
> Kinda a large-scale exercise in anecdotal evidence. With no placebo
> control. I'm not saying it's wrong, though - just that it's not
> convincing. I can't get the full text, though, so i'm basically in the
> dark.
>
>> Am J Kidney Dis. 2001 Jan;37(1):73-78.
>
> This one is called "Creatine supplementation increases renal disease
> progression in Han:SPRD-cy rats", and is by Edmunds, Jayapalan, DiMarco,
> Saboorian and Aukema, at Texas Woman's University.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=11136170
>
>> The growing use of creatine as a potential ergogenic aid among active
>> individuals has raised concern regarding its effects on the kidney,
>> particularly among those individuals with compromised renal
>> function....... ...... These results indicate that creatine supplements
>> may exacerbate disease progression in an animal model of cystic renal
>> disease. Although systematic research of the effects of creatine
>> supplementation in humans with compromised renal function is awaited, it
>> follows that creatine should be used with particular caution in
>> individuals with or at risk for renal disease
>
> Yeah. So, what they did here is feed creatine to mutant rats with cystic
> kidney disease, and they found that it made them worse. This is an
> important finding if you are a mutant rat with cystic kidney disease. It
> is a finding to think about if you're a human with kidney disease of some
> sort. I'm not sure what it means for those of us with healthy kidneys; it
> does indicate that creatine increases renal stress, but if you have
> healthy kidneys, you can deal with increased renal stress quite happily up
> to a point (if not, time to quit drinking beer). Again, what's missing is
> quantitation related to healthy individuals; it would be really nice to
> feed creatine to healthy humans and then measure some kidney function
> parameters.
>
>> J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash). 1999 Nov-Dec;39(6):803-10; quiz 875-7.
>
> Creatine: a review of efficacy and safety - A. S. Graham & R. C. Hatton
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=10609446
>
>> OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the data on the efficacy and safety
>> of
>> the nutritional supplement creatine. ..........
>>
>> Laboratory investigations of endurance isotonic exercises, strength and
>> endurance during isotonic exercises, isokinetic torque, isometric force,
>> and
>> ergometer performance have yielded roughly an equal number of published
>> studies showing a positive effect or lack of effect. Field studies (i.e.,
>> on
>> subjects participating in sports activities) are less impressive than
>> laboratory studies. ......
>>
>> ...... Reports have linked creatine to weight gain, cramping,
>> dehydration,
>> diarrhea, and dizziness. Creatine may decrease renal function, but only
>> two
>> case reports of this effect have been published. Creatine appears to be
>> well
>> tolerated in short-term trials. .....
>>
>> ......CONCLUSION: While creatine may enhance the performance of
>> high-intensity, short-duration exercise, it is not useful in endurance
>> sports. Because commercially marketed creatine products do not meet the
>> same
>> quality control standards of pharmaceuticals, there is always a concern
>> of
>> impurities or doses higher or lower than those on the labeling. Consumers
>> should balance the quality of information supporting the use of creatine
>> with the known and theoretical risks of using the product, including
>> possible renal dysfunction
>
> The take-home sentence is "despite the many clinical trials, high-quality
> research is lacking". These guys come to quite a reasonable conclusion -
> that we really can't be sure one way or the other, at least on the basis
> of data up to 1999.
>
>> CANCER, anyone?
>>
>> Prescrire Int. 2002 Jun;11(59):88-90.
>
> "Creatine: little impact on athletic performance, but a risk of adverse
> effects." - no authors listed
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
>
> I can't get full text for this one, and its abstract is all claims and no
> evidence. How much do i trust some anonymous French doctors? Not so much.
> A look at the usual output of Prescrire:
>
> http://www.prescrire.org/signature/p...ernational.php
>
> Suggests that their business is rubbishing things. Which is not to say
> they're wrong - but i suspect they have an editorial bias in favour of
> articles which knock something. As long as you bear that in mind, probably
> quite a useful periodical! Perhaps they're just working under Voltaire's
> apocryphal maxim "the art of medicine consists in amusing the patient
> while nature cures the disease"!
>
>> Yoshizumi WM, Tsourounis C.
>
> Effects of creatine supplementation on renal function - W. M. Yoshizumi,
> C. Tsourounis (2004); J Herb Pharmacother 4(1):1
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15273072
>
> I believe that that in terms of scraping barrels, the Journal of Herbal
> Pharmacotherapy could well be described as the bottom. Although having
> said that, this paper does seem quite sound.
>
>> Creatine is a popular supplement used by athletes in an effort to
>> increase muscle performance. The purpose of this review was to assess
>> the literature evaluating the effects of creatine supplementation on
>> renal function. ........ In people with a history of renal disease or
>> those taking nephrotoxic medications, creatine may be associated with an
>> increased risk of renal dysfunction. One case report of acute renal
>> failure was reported in a 20-year-old man taking 20 gm/day of creatine
>> for a period of four weeks. .......... Future studies should include
>> renal function markers other than serum creatinine and creatinine
>> clearance.
>
> Two interesting things here. Firstly, "according to the existing
> literature, creatine supplementation appears safe when used by healthy
> adults at the recommended loading", whilst "in people with a history of
> renal disease or those taking nephrotoxic medications, creatine may be
> associated with an increased risk of renal dysfunction". Sounds right to
> me - if your kidneys work, fine, if not, avoid. Secondly, "since creatine
> supplementation may increase creatinine levels, it may act as a false
> indicator of renal dysfunction"; ie perfectly healthy people might seem
> ill if they take lots of creatine, which is an interesting point. A bit
> like how eating a load of kidney beans can make your doctor think you have
> a bleeding bladder .
>
>> Shill Brinks and his Cartel choose to ignore the most elementary prima
>> facie
>> evidence that sumpn is wrong w/ taking 20 grams of creatine: The kidney
>> dumps it forthwith, as creatine. Which is the kidney's way of saying
>> WTF??????
>
> More its way of saying "this is not needed", which, if you look at it
> another way, is saying "we've got enough now". Which is a good thing to
> hear!
>
> Anyway, this 20 g/day business - this is the alleged loading phase, rather
> than maintenance, and i thought the latest thinking was that that wasn't
> necessary. I would certainly agree that it's silly to gorge yourself with
> that amount of creatine if it's all going to get excreted.
>
> I'll throw in one of my own:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=16260971
>
> "Effect of oral creatine supplementation on urinary methylamine,
> formaldehyde, and formate", from some chaps at the Higher Institute of
> Physical Education and Physical Therapy, Free University of Brussels, in
> Med Sci Sports Exerc. These guys should be part of the creatine mafia, if
> i understood you right.
>
> Anyway, they did exactly what i said! They fed 20 healthy young men 21 g
> each (grumble as above) of creatine daily for two weeks and measured the
> hell out of them. The result: "urine excretion of methylamine and
> formaldehyde increased, respectively, 9.2-fold (P = 0.001) and 4.5-fold (P
> = 0.002) after creatine feeding". So, creatine *does* lead to increased
> formaldehyde excretion in healthy humans; presumably, that means it's also
> elevated in blood. As to kidney damage: these changes happened "with no
> increase in urinary albumin output", ie without loss of kidney barrier
> function, at least.
>
> So, no evidence for the much-discussed renal damage, but that
> significantly elevated urine formaldehyde is a worry. I'm not saying it's
> yellow liquid death, but i would like to know what the blood level is, and
> what the known toxicology of formaldehyde says that level means. It might
> still be harmless, no worse than eating a foie gras sandwich or something,
> but it might not. I'd like to see a followup study with (a) 5 g/day
> dosage, (b) measurement of blood formaldehyde before and after, (c)
> measurement of DNA damage in white blood cells, as a reporter of damage
> done by formaldehyde, (d) measurement of blood pH, since formaldehyde can
> cause acidosis via metabolism to formic acid, although i think this is
> highly unlikely at the levels seen here. This would be incredibly easy to
> do.
>
>> Is it clear that Brinks is a blustering disingenuous asshole? Yes.
>
> You did quite a bit of selective quotation in the abstracts above, my dear
> chap, so perhaps the beam that is in thine own eye requires a little
> attention before you start on Brinksy in earnest.
>
> Anyway, to the bullet points, i'll add:
>
> Is it clear that we need to keep looking at creatine, specifically for
> pathological effects in healthy people at realistic doses, and over longer
> timescales? Yes.
>
> Is it clear that creatine has definite pathological effects? No.
>
> I don't think either of you could disagree with those. Now fucking shut up
> and go and lift some weights.
>
> tom
>
> --
> The sun just came out, I can't believe it
>

Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> I'll throw in one of my own:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=16260971
> They fed 20 healthy young men 21 g each (grumble as above) of
> creatine daily for two weeks and measured the hell out of them. The
> result: "urine excretion of methylamine and formaldehyde increased,
> respectively, 9.2-fold (P = 0.001) and 4.5-fold (P = 0.002) after
> creatine feeding". So, creatine *does* lead to increased
> formaldehyde excretion in healthy humans; presumably, that means
> it's also elevated in blood.

At least one of these reactions takes place only in the gut, done by
the bacteria. I can't remember now which exact bacterial enzyme that
is - perhaps humans don't have the sarcosine reductase, that does the
conversion of sarcosine to methylamine.

So the implication might be that the dietary creatine is less
preferable to the internally produced (normally at the rate of about 1
g a day). I recall that the internal synthesis is inhibited when the
intake of creatine is increased, so in some sense there is some degree
of choice.

But then again, the efficiency of the internal synthesis depends
on methionine, which restriction increases the life span in lab
animals :-)

According to a calculation I did a year ago when I read the article,
the amount of formaldehyde produced by ingesting 21 g of creatine can
be internally produced from drinking around 6.25 liters of a typical
aspartame-containing soda.

I have been trying to find the Placebo brand. That stuff works 50% of
the time!!


Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> Will Hopkins, in Sportssci.org, and others, referred to or implied a
> "creatine cartel".
> IOW, a group of highly vested interests in promoting this supplement.
> The problem is, they border on religious fanaticism (well, you would too,if
> yer bucks were at stake), to the point where Kreider states that creatineis
> safer than carbohydrate. goodgawd....
> http://sportsci.org/jour/0001/opinions.html debate onliability
>
>
> As I play the cite-the-abstracts-without-understandin-a-fukn-thing game, one
> thing is becoming evident:
> Straightout medical, physiology, and nutritional journals are far more
> critical of the health prospects of creatine than the sports/exercise
> physiology journals are. Hmmmmmmmm.........
> Interestingly, 1998,1999 seem to be the "hot years" for creatine research,
> and most stuff since seems to be put out by the creatine cartel. They seem
> to dominate google.
>
> Brinks, the apparently drooling boy-toy of this cartel, tips his own handw/
> his incessant (and humorless) name-calling hysteria, and is laughable when
> he says, or implies, creatine is *absolutely* safe, by simply ignoring stuff
> that would suggest otherwise. He refuses to discuss mechanisms,
> explanations, anything that detracts from creatine efficacy?
>
> A few minutes, by yours truly who is the computer moron of the tri-state
> area here, showed the following, which brinks will no doubt lambast as being
> shit cites. And mebbe they are, just like his cites.
> But just how would he know? What is his own scientific authority on which
> to judge these, or even his own cites?
> Apparently by whether or not they support his pre-existing stance and vested
> interests.
>
> Here's the stuff our shilling boy-toy brinks and his cartel don't want to
> acknowledge.
>
> Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003 Mar;89(1):26-33. Epub 2002 Dec 24
> Potential cytotoxic effect of chronic administration of creatine, a
> nutrition supplement to augment athletic performance.
>
> Neuropsychiatry Research Unit, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon,
> Saskatchewan, Canada. Yup@sask.usask.ca
>
> Creatine is alleged to be an ergogenic aid to enhance sports performance and
> recently became a popular sports nutrition supplement. Although short-term
> supplementation of creatine has not been associated with major health risks,
> the safety of prolonged use has caused some concern.
>
> ******* The present study demonstrates that creatine is metabolized to
> methylamine, which is further converted to formaldehyde by
> semicarbazide-sensitive amine oxidase (SSAO). Formaldehyde is well known to
> cross-link proteins and DNAs, and known to be a major environmental risk
> factor. *******
>
> SSAO-mediated production of toxic aldehydes has been recently proposed tobe
> related to pathological conditions such as vascular damage, diabetic
> complications, nephropathy, etc.
>
> *********Chronic administration of a large quantity of creatine can increase
> the production of formaldehyde, which may potentially cause serious unwanted
> side-effects. *********
>
> Now, just how long do you think it will take to assess this type of
> long-term effect?
>
> Just to give you an indication of how dicey supplementation w/ ANYTHING can
> be, it is now known that Vit B6 can cause irreversible peripheral
> neuropathy, because it is an active inhibitor of DNA repair enzymes, in
> doses as low as 25 mgs. I was asleep in class that day, but woke up likea
> shot when I heard DAT!
>
>
>
> Physiol Genomics. 2003 Jan 15;12(2):163-74
>
> (edited for your reading pleasure)
>
> ........ the validity of using some of these genes as endogenous controls
> (i.e., housekeeping genes) when human skeletal muscle was exposed to
> elevated total creatine levels and exercise was also examined. ......
>
> . We conclude that, using real-time RT-PCR, beta-actin or CYC may be usedas
> housekeeping genes to study gene expression in human muscle in experiments
> employing short-term creatine supplementation combined with high-intensity
> exercise.
>
> IOW, creatine affects gene expression. See the previous cite.
>
>
>
> Next, from Kreider hisself.....
>
> Greenwood M, Farris J, Kreider R, Greenwood L, Byars A.
>
> Clin J Sport Med. 2000 Jul;10(3):191-4.
>
> OBJECTIVE: To describe patterns of creatine use in select Division I
> collegiate athletes based on recommended dosages according to body weight.
> Further, to report the perceived effects noted with creatine
> supplementation. ...... . PARTICIPANTS: Two-hundred and nineteen male and
> female collegiate athletes representing eight varsity sports. .......
> RESULTS: . Creatine users (34 athletes, 38%) reporting perceived negative
> effects were primarily at or below recommended dosages in the loading phase
> but noticeably above recommended dosages in the maintenance phase.
> ........CONCLUSIONS: The perceived positive effects noted support current
> research (strength/weight gains), while the perceived negative effects
> (cramping/gastrointestinal distress) were consistent with anecdotal reports
> surrounding creatine supplementation.
>
> Golly, Brinks!!! Looks like you're going to have to be someone else's
> bitch, now.
>
>
>
> Next, is admittedly a little alarmist, but it alarms me. Just how does one
> know what state one's kidneys are in? Ever see anyone on dialysis? High
> incidence of suicide in dialysis.
>
> Am J Kidney Dis. 2001 Jan;37(1):73-78.
>
> The growing use of creatine as a potential ergogenic aid among active
> individuals has raised concern regarding its effects on the kidney,
> particularly among those individuals with compromised renal function........
> ...... These results indicate that creatine supplements may exacerbate
> disease progression in an animal model of cystic renal disease. Although
> systematic research of the effects of creatine supplementation in humans
> with compromised renal function is awaited, it follows that creatine should
> be used with particular caution in individuals with or at risk for renal
> disease
>
>
>
> J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash). 1999 Nov-Dec;39(6):803-10; quiz 875-7.
>
> OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the data on the efficacy and safety of
> the nutritional supplement creatine. ..........
>
> Laboratory investigations of endurance isotonic exercises, strength and
> endurance during isotonic exercises, isokinetic torque, isometric force, and
> ergometer performance have yielded roughly an equal number of published
> studies showing a positive effect or lack of effect. Field studies (i.e.,on
> subjects participating in sports activities) are less impressive than
> laboratory studies. ......
>
> ...... Reports have linked creatine to weight gain, cramping, dehydration,
> diarrhea, and dizziness. Creatine may decrease renal function, but only two
> case reports of this effect have been published. Creatine appears to be well
> tolerated in short-term trials. .....
>
> ......CONCLUSION: While creatine may enhance the performance of
> high-intensity, short-duration exercise, it is not useful in endurance
> sports. Because commercially marketed creatine products do not meet the same
> quality control standards of pharmaceuticals, there is always a concern of
> impurities or doses higher or lower than those on the labeling. Consumers
> should balance the quality of information supporting the use of creatine
> with the known and theoretical risks of using the product, including
> possible renal dysfunction
>
> Oh, but this was one of them crappy 1999 studies.....
>
>
>
> CANCER, anyone?
>
> Prescrire Int. 2002 Jun;11(59):88-90.
>
> (1) Creatine occurs naturally in the body. Some is derived from dietary
> sources, but endogenous synthesis covers individual requirements. Creatine
> deficiency occurs only in subjects with genetic disorders. (2) Oral creatine
> supplementation at supraphysiological doses seems to slightly improve the
> performance of some types of muscle exercise, but only those lasting less
> than 30 seconds; even this small effect is inconsistent. (3) The vague
> regulatory status of creatine supplements hinders effective monitoring of
> adverse events. Serious adverse events have been reported in people taking
> creatine supplements, but it's still unclear whether or not the creatine is
> responsible.
>
> ******Animal data suggest a link with cancer after long term exposure.
> ******
>
> (4) The precise composition of creatine supplements is unclear:
> contamination is possible, and other substances, especially doping agents,
> are sometimes added. (5) Taking creatine supplements is inadvisable
>
>
> Yoshizumi WM, Tsourounis C.
>
> Creatine is a popular supplement used by athletes in an effort to increase
> muscle performance. The purpose of this review was to assess the literature
> evaluating the effects of creatine supplementation on renal function.
> ........ In people with a history of renal disease or those taking
> nephrotoxic medications, creatine may be associated with an increased risk
> of renal dysfunction. One case report of acute renal failure was reportedin
> a 20-year-old man taking 20 gm/day of creatine for a period of four weeks.
> .......... Future studies should include renal function markers other than
> serum creatinine and creatinine clearance.
>
>
>
> Shill Brinks and his Cartel choose to ignore the most elementary prima facie
> evidence that sumpn is wrong w/ taking 20 grams of creatine: The kidney
> dumps it forthwith, as creatine. Which is the kidney's way of saying
> WTF??????
>
> Now, do I think most people will keel over dead from creatine? No.
>
> Is it clear that Brinks is a blustering disingenuous asshole? Yes.
>
> Would I use it for competition? Yes.
>
> Would I pray afterwards? Yes.
>
> --
> ------
> 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

ephedralover wrote:

> I have been trying to find the Placebo brand.
> That stuff works 50% of the time!!

FIFTY? No, no, no.

PLACEBO® Brand supplements work ALL the time. There is a belief factor
involved, however, that may be the source of those reports that they're
not 100% effective.

I blame the Cynic Cartel, the Gloomy Gus Gestapo, the Wet Blanket
Brigade, as well as the Doom Merchants. Just a few of the groups
currently embroiled in an anti PLACEBO® Brand supplements smear
campaign.

--
Curt James, Regional Sales Manager, PLACEBO® Brand supplements.
Utilizing the ultimate in Reverse Psychology Technologyâ„¢. If you
think it's not working then it must REALLY be working! Embracing the
philosophy that money wasted is actually money well spent. Buy it NOW,
TODAY! Look for PLACEBOTOX® coming soon! Wiping the wrinkles off
sourpusses like nobody's business!