Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

interesting read on CEE

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • interesting read on CEE

    1) CEE is a true covalently bonded ester and is absorbed into blood and
    tissues as the intact molecule. This is the picture that the
    manufacturers would have us believe and is the basis for why they claim
    CEE is superior to creatine monohydrate. However, inside cells CEE
    will be unreactive with creatine kinase and may be a potential
    competitive or non-competitive inhibitor to the enzyme. This would
    make it toxic to brain, heart, testes, muscle and all other CK
    containing tissues. People by now should be dying, but clearly are not
    and this means 2) and 3) are the more likely. Nonethess, CEE should be
    treated as a potentially toxic phrarmaceutical and in the US should be
    treated as a drug, which requires multi species studies
    to estimate LD50's and potential sites of tissue damage etc. However, recently I have been told that CEE did get new dietary ingredient status (scary).

    2) CEE is hydrolysed to creatine on absorption from the gut. In this
    case CEE offers no advantage over creatine monohydrate which has a
    bioavilability of 100%. Indeed if hydrolysis of CEE is less than 100%
    then it will be inferior to the monohydate. But in the case of
    hydrolysis there are no circumstances in which it could be better than
    the monohydrate in increasing tissue creatine levels. Obviously CEE
    manufacturers would prefer 1) except that they then shoot themselves in
    the foot over the issue of potential toxicity.

    3) CEE is not a true covalently bonded ester. The whole of this is a scam
    with the compound ionising in solution to free creatine, as does the
    monohydrate and all salts of creatine. In this case CEE would again
    represent no advantage over creatine monohydrate, except to the seller
    who can double the price.

    The failure of the US sports nutrition community (industry and the
    universities) to call for closer examination of CEE seriously questions its
    credibility in the eyes of many scientist in this country and the world. A simple water solvation test would answer 3), i.e. whether or not it was a covalent or ionisable derivative of creatine. The work time would be about one hour. Investigation of whether CEE is a competitive or non-competitive inhibitor of creatine kinase would take 2-3 hours. If either of these occured then clearly CEE must be investigated in at least two species to investigate lethality and potential organ damage. If on the other hand CEE is ionisable then I see no reason why a bioavailability study should not be undertaken comparing this, on a molar/molar basis, with
    creatine monohydrate. My guess is that plasma AUC would be identical.
    Again a very simple study.

    None of this is rocket science but could spare a few lives, if the
    manufacturers claims on the absorption of CEE are to believed.
Working...
X