|
2002/05/30, 07:59 PM
Hey everyone, I read a lot of posts about creatine but would like to ask myself. Which is one of the top creatine supplements out there? How often should I take creatine, and should it be taken on rest days? I was also curios about Omega-3 fatty acids because I saw the Flax Seed Oil capsules at GNC and would like to know what they would mainly do for me.
-------
Thx :-)
Sirks
|
|
|
|
2002/05/30, 08:07 PM
Sirks - as for the flax seed oil - it's cheaper to get the liquid if you're going that route. You can also get the "healthy" fats in sesame, and olive oil. I don't get much fat in my diet so use that for my main fat source. Creatine questions abound and lots of folks have their preference. Usually, the container has recommended dosages. Normally it's 5 to 10 grams a day. From reading a lot of posts here, it seems most folks (myself included) load with around 10 grams (1/2 twice a day) then take it down to 5 grams a day (every day) while you're on it. I only use it for 4 weeks at a time then off for 2 to 3 weeks. From everything I've read, once you have it stable in your system it doesn't really matter when you take it. I like to take half of mine with my pre-workout and the other half in my post work out shake. No other reason in my case except it's easier for an old fart to remember. :)
|
|
2002/05/30, 08:11 PM
Thx for the reply!
I was also wondering if I should also take it everyday including my rest days? Or do you take it on your rest days?
|
|
2002/05/30, 08:17 PM
You also said that you load with around 10 grams (1/2 twice a day) then take it down to 5 grams a day. Does that mean I should start off with 10 grams a day then later on bring it down to 5 grams?
|
|
2002/05/30, 11:05 PM
I would recommend AST's creatine. If you want pure creatine get their micronized creatine monohydrate. If you can afford it, get their creatine HSC. www.fitrx.com seems to have good prices. 30 dollars for 200 servings of micronized creatine monohydrate. For the first 5 days take 4 5g servings. After the 5 days take it twice a day in 5g servings, even on resting days.
|
|
2002/05/31, 06:38 PM
I checked out the website and I'm thinking of trying their stuff. Thx for the link! :)
|
|
2002/05/31, 07:01 PM
You should also look into creatine that has the Creapure stamp (this signifies purity). Look into ProLab and Universal Nutrition...they both carry that stamp. You can purchase them online at www.netrition.com.
Good luck!
P.S. - Search for previous posts on creatine. There have been hundreds!
--------------
**_Robert_**
Pain is temporary; glory is forever!
|
|
2002/06/01, 12:53 AM
I have read MANY MANY positive reviews about CELL-Tech, it is a Muscle-Tech product so I do think it is good, I will start my supplementation on it monday, they have also proven it is 19 times better than regular Creatine.
|
|
2002/06/03, 10:26 AM
Cell-Tech is good, but expensive! And, I found the same results by taking regular creatine.
--------------
**_Robert_**
Pain is temporary; glory is forever!
|
|
2002/06/03, 08:05 PM
What do you mean by Regular Creatine Robert?
|
|
2002/06/03, 10:17 PM
From my experience.. I agree with Rapecho. I have tried many different brands of creatine and when it comes down to it.. unless you want to gain excess water.. regular creatine will do at a dosage of 5-10 grams immediatley following your workouts with 5-10 grams of creatine.
Good Luck
--------------
.o0 Arnold 0o...o0 theaustrianoak@hotmail.com 0o.
|
|
2002/06/04, 12:27 AM
Thx Arnold! Really appreciate it, I guess I'll try sticking with regular creatine for now and see how gains are.
Sirks
|
|
2002/06/04, 01:06 AM
One more question about Creatine that I haven't seen. Is taking Creatine before bedtime bad in any way? I don't mean right before bed, mabye 1-2 hours before bed.
Sirks
|
|
2002/06/04, 01:17 AM
Its not Bad to take it late ,but it would be more helpful to take it earlier in the day. Regular Creatine does not do much for me, but I had great results with Cell Tech.... But I couldnt afford to buy another bottle and most of my gains were lost..:(
--------------
Vaya con Dios... Keith
|
|
2002/06/04, 04:01 AM
Thx Keith, good to know :-)
|
|
2002/06/04, 04:50 AM
Anyone that has taken Animal Stak, have you had any or heard of any bad side effects happen from taking this supplement? I'm considering taking it but would like someone elses opinion.
Sirks
|
|
2002/06/04, 09:50 AM
There are many people here that have or are taking it, myself included. This is an exciting product. I haven't noticed any significant gains yet in my first 2 weeks on, but I have heard others really have tremendous success. I am going to finish up this run, wait a week, and then hit it again. Then, I will decide what i trully think.
No, as to the side effects, nothing negative to speak of as of yet.
As with anything, do your research, this is a POWERFUL product containing pro-hormones....
--------------
Ischjli
"Seven days without exercise makes one weak."
|
|
2002/06/04, 12:14 PM
Thx a lot Ischjli, think I'll do the same. Try it and see how it goes from there.
Sirks
|
|
2002/06/04, 12:55 PM
Also, do a search on Animal Stak. There have been lots of posts on this. By regular creatine, I mean the good old white powder creatine monohydrate. I only buy ProLab or Universal Nutrition brands nowadays.
--------------
**_Robert_**
Pain is temporary; glory is forever!
|
|
2002/06/04, 07:47 PM
I just bought some L-Glutamine. Whens should it be taken, and should I take it at the same time as my creatine or protein? Or does it have to be seperate from my other supplements. I've read a lot of posts about it but read so many different answers. For the people who have taken or are currently taking it, how do you take it???
-----------
SirKs
|
|
2002/06/05, 02:22 AM
I take glutamine when I wake up, just before or after work out and then again just before bed time. I take it with nothing else than a glass of water. If I need to take my protein shake then I wait 15 mins.
You could take it with the creatine thou.
--------------
- Nina :o) La vie est toujours aussi belle.....
|
|
2002/06/07, 02:33 PM
I take Glutamine with my creatine and my protein, before and after a workout.
|
|
2006/12/20, 09:47 PM
How long before working out sholud i take creatine.... or does it matter?
|
|
2006/12/26, 12:49 PM
============
Quoting from chris2012:
How long before working out sholud i take creatine.... or does it matter?
=============
i'd say 30 minutes or less, but i'd love to hear a more professional opinion.
also, i don't usually take any additional creatine after i lift- is this acceptable ?
|
|
2006/12/26, 03:13 PM
Yes, this is acceptible. I am a fan of pre workout....where blood flow from muscle works maximises creatine usage.
--------------
\"If it ain\'t broke, you aren\'t trying.\"
|
|
2006/12/26, 09:43 PM
As am I. Creatine serum levels in blood peak a few hours after ingestion, so why not take it when it will be utilized best.
--------------
Iron and chalk.
|
|
2006/12/27, 12:38 AM
when i brought it up, my doctor had no idea why post-workout ingestion would do any good.
will taking capsules (like i have customarily)do anything different than a liquid ?
|
|
2006/12/27, 11:38 AM
Liquid (powder form) is assimilated easier and quicker. Also will be better quality.
--------------
A little discipline at the table and at the gym might help reduce that belly!
Ivan
Montreal Canada (City of Festivals)
|
|
2006/12/27, 11:48 AM
Liquid is no good. Get powder form.
In fact I would recommend looking into CEE. This is your best assimilated form, no loading either.
--------------
\"If it ain\'t broke, you aren\'t trying.\"
|
|
2006/12/27, 01:12 PM
The liquids are very unstable (no matter what the label says) and will break down into creatinine, which can not be absorbed by the digestive system.
I like CEE, but I often wonder whether the added quality is worth the price. It's not that much more expensive, but you have to wonder if its really that much more absorbable. If you want a higher quality product, go with the ester.
I get a micronized monohydrate that I am pleased with. Then again, I get it for free so I just use more of it rather than paying for a better product.
--------------
Iron and chalk.
|
|
2006/12/27, 02:09 PM
CEE is worth the price, in fact you may get it these days right around the same price...it may be especially for folks who consider themselves 'nonresponders'.
Wrestler....You wonder if the added quality is worth the price, but it is not that much more expensive??? Doesn't make alot of sense. And use more rather than paying for a <quote> better product? A bunch of double speak.
By the way, it is a higher quality due to the ester attachment (as in the last E in CEE).
--------------
\"If it ain\'t broke, you aren\'t trying.\"
|
|
2006/12/27, 11:22 PM
I know why it's higher quality. But I have to wonder how much better it is. If it is 10% more effective at 10% more cost, then sure, why not. It's a quality vs. quantity thing. It's not double speak, in fact it's part of what I am studying for my undergrad.
If you can find it at the same price, than without a doubt, go with the ester. I'll stick with regular monohydrate, but only because I get it for free.
--------------
Iron and chalk.
|
|
2006/12/28, 10:53 AM
Yeah Wrestler, we know you get it for free. If you wanted to tell folks that, why not just make a post telling them that instead of some rambling nonsensical post and throw in 'I get creatine for free'. Big deal, I have been getting supplements for free for years. They give tons of that stuff out. If you are studying what you posted for your undergrad and that is what you have learned, and paying for it, you are getting taken to the cleaners.
--------------
\"If it ain\'t broke, you aren\'t trying.\"
|
|
2006/12/28, 12:13 PM
What the hell are you talking about?
I'm studying industrial engineering biomechanics. To be simple, it's efficiency. If product a is 90% effective and product b is 95% effective, yet product b costs 5% more, you can take more of product a for less cost and get the same results that you would from product b. It's not that tough to understand.
My point by stating I get it for free is that IF I WASN'T a sponsored lifter on a sponsored team, then I would probably pay for the CEE rather than micronized monohydrate. Get off your high horse and stop taking everything personally.
--------------
Iron and chalk.
|
|
2006/12/28, 02:01 PM
What you are talking about is simple economics, in fact economics 101. Have to pay to learn what you stated? Geez bro....
Taking personally? Well, when posts are made with redundancy/rambling just to make a post and try to promote yourself, then yes, I see through it.
You are quite the master of the obvious.
--------------
\"If it ain\'t broke, you aren\'t trying.\"
|
|
2006/12/28, 02:17 PM
"Wrestler....You wonder if the added quality is worth the price, but it is not that much more expensive??? Doesn't make alot of sense. And use more rather than paying for a <quote> better product? A bunch of double speak. "
You were the one who didn't understand what I was saying. You called it nonsensical. If it's so easy to understand, why do you have problems getting what I am saying?
This isn't a contest. Yes, you have been doing this longer than me and have more experiance, we get it. This isn't a contest, every post I read you seem to feel the need to reply to with "well I've been doing this for years". We get it.
The purpose of my post wasn't to insinuate what you have or haven't been doing, I post to help people. The original poster asked a question, you made a statement, and I commented on it. What good will promotion on a internet forum board do for my numbers? Will it help me win my next competition?
--------------
Iron and chalk.
|
|
2006/12/28, 02:31 PM
I suggest you re read your post. Apparantely you are easily confused. It is nonsensical...here is your post..
I like CEE, but I often wonder whether the added quality is worth the price. It's not that much more expensive, but you have to wonder if its really that much more absorbable. If you want a higher quality product, go with the ester.
So, you wonder if the ADDED QUALITY(your words) is worth the price. But then you state you wonder if the added quality is worth it, but then say it is not that much more expensive. And if you want higher quality product, then go with the ester. And you say you use more CM to give you more resluts..MORE CM will not yeild more results.
Get a degree in something you understand.
--------------
\"If it ain\'t broke, you aren\'t trying.\"
|
|
2006/12/28, 02:58 PM
As in quality vs. quantity. We went through this. I'm not sure how much more expensive it is, or how much more effective it is, and neither do you.
The only reason CEE is a better product than CM is because it is more easily absorbed. That is it. So if you take more of a product with less absorption, you are getting the same thing. I don't need a degree to understand that, it's common sense.
If you have a problem with something I say, then critque it. Stop the personal attacks.
--------------
Iron and chalk.
|
|
2006/12/28, 03:19 PM
Personal attacks? You first said 'get off your high horse' in response to a post that gave a critique of your post.
Again, taking more creatine monohydrate will not produce more results. It is not in this case a simple matter of quantity vs. quality.
There are many folks who do not repsond to CM, and many do not simply because 'stores' are already there. Many in fact if eating a lot of red meat to begin with, probably get nothing out of loading.(by the way no loading required with CEE, another case for better and almost immediate absorbtion). Even 'non responders' do respond, the difference is so minute that the differentiating is almost impossible.
You now backtrack and state matter of factly that CEE IS better than CM. This was the whole crux of my response in my post. Thank you for verifying me correct.
--------------
\"If it ain\'t broke, you aren\'t trying.\"
|
|
2006/12/28, 03:27 PM
I said get off your high horse in response to attacking my studies and telling me I am self promoting.
And you talk about creatine like its magic. It's not results, it's absorption. I get my results from training hard and smart, not from a powder I take at the end of a workout.
9 out of 10 non-responders respond to CM when you mix it with glucose. No big thing here.
And I never disputed that CEE > CM. In fact, if you see from the beginning, I am agreeing with you.
--------------
Iron and chalk.
|
|
2006/12/28, 09:43 PM
Silly boy, I never said creatine was like magic, in fact nowhere near. Trying to turn the focus away from your bad posting will not work.
Show me where 9 out of 10 non responders respond when you mix it with glucose. I challenge you right now, in fact here is your homework assignment...show me the papers where anywhere near this is proven. You cannot back this up in any way, another bad post.
This tactic is nothing new, folks have been trying to do this for years.
You are a rookie bro, you dig yourself deeper with each post.
--------------
\"If it ain\'t broke, you aren\'t trying.\"
|
|
2006/12/28, 10:48 PM
Just to let both of you know, I have tried CM on 2 occasions (2 cycles). Once was with Grape juice (high Glucose), the other was with just water, neither did anything for me. To reitterate, I eat alot of red meats and that is why it didn't work for me.
I did say liquid form in my post, obviously powder mixed with water or whatever the liquid you want, is what I was talking about, not the pre mixed junk. Anyway, thats my 2cents.
--------------
A little discipline at the table and at the gym might help reduce that belly!
Ivan
Montreal Canada (City of Festivals)
|
|
2006/12/29, 01:34 PM
The purpose of this study was to describe the physiological profile of responders (>20 mmol.kg(-1) dry weight increase in total intramuscular creatine monohydrate + phosphorylated creatine ) versus nonresponders (<10 mmol.kg(-1) dw increase) to a 5-day Cr load (0.3 g.kg(-1).d(-1)) in 11 healthy men (mean age = 22.7 years). Pre-post 5-day cellular measures included total resting Cr content (Cr + PCr), fiber type composition, and fiber type cross-sectional area (CSA) determined from muscle biopsies of the vastus lateralis. Body mass, daily dietary intake, 24-hour urine outputs, urinary Cr and creatinine (CrN), and strength performance measures (1 repetition maximum bench and leg press) were also assessed before and after the 5-day loading period. Results indicated that there were 3 levels of response to the 5-day supplementation: responders (R), quasi responders (QR), and nonresponders (NR) with mean changes in resting Cr + PCr of 29.5 mmol.kg(-1) dw (n = 3), 14.9 mmol.kg(-1) dw (n = 5), and 5.1 mmol.kg(-1) dw (n = 3), respectively. The results support a person-by-treatment interaction to acute Cr supplementation with R possessing a biological profile of lowest initial levels of Cr + PCr, greatest percentage of type II fibers, and greatest preload muscle fiber CSA and fat-free mass. Responders also showed improvement in 1RM leg press scores following the 5-day loading period. NR had higher preload levels of Cr + PCr, less type II muscle fibers, small preload muscle CSA, and lower fat-free mass and displayed no improvements in 1RM strength scores. The results suggest that to be considered a responder to acute oral supplementation, a favorable preexisting biological profile may determine the final extent to which an individual responds to supplementation. Physiologic profiles of nonresponders appear to be different and may limit their ability to uptake Cr. This may help partially explain the reported equivocal performance findings in the Cr supplementation literature.
There's a study showing that the only physiological difference between a responder and a non-responder is that non-responders have higher pre-load creatine levels.
Creatine supplementation: a comparison of loading and maintenance protocols on creatine uptake by human skeletal muscle.
* Preen D,
* Dawson B,
* Goodman C,
* Beilby J,
* Ching S.
Department of Human Movement and Exercise Science at The University of Western Australia, Crawley, W.A., Australia, 6009.
The purposes of this investigation were first to determine the impact of 3 different creatine (Cr) loading procedures on skeletal muscle total Cr (TCr) accumulation and, second, to evaluate the effectiveness of 2 maintenance regimes on retaining intramuscular TCr stores, in the 6 weeks following a 5-day Cr loading program (20 g x day(-1). Eighteen physically active male subjects were divided into 3 equal groups and administered either: (a) Cr (4 x 5 g x day(-1) x 5 days), (b) Glucose+Cr (1 g x (-1) of body mass twice per day), or (c) Cr in conjunction with 60 min of daily muscular (repeated-sprint) exercise. Following the 5-day loading period, subjects were reassigned to 3 maintenance groups and ingested either 0 g x day(-1), 2 g. day(-1) or 5 g x day(-1) of Cr for a period of 6 weeks. Muscle biopsy samples (vastus lateralis) were taken pre- and post-loading as well as post-maintenance and analyzed for skeletal muscle ATP, phosphocreatine (PCr), Cr, and TCr concentrations. Twenty-four hour urine samples were collected for each of the loading days and last 2 maintenance days, and used to determine whole body Cr retention. Post-loading TCr stores were significantly (p <.05) increased in all treatment conditions. The Glucose+Cr condition produced a greater elevation (p <.05) in TCr concentrations (25%) than the Cr Only (16%) or Exercise+Cr (18%) groups. Following the maintenance period, muscle TCr stores were still similar to post-loading values for both the 2 g x day(-1) and 5 g x day(-1) conditions. Intramuscular TCr values for the 0 g x day(-1) condition were significantly lower than the other conditions after the 6-week period. Although not significantly different from pre-loading concentrations, muscle TCr for the 0 g x day(-1) group had not fully returned to baseline levels at 6 weeks post-loading. The data suggests that Glucose+Cr (but with a much smaller glucose intake than currently accepted) is potentially the most effective means of elevating TCr accumulation in human skeletal muscle. Furthermore, after 5 days of Cr loading, elevated muscle TCr concentrations can be maintained by the ingestion of small daily Cr doses (2-5 g) for a period of 6 weeks and that TCr concentrations may take longer than currently accepted to return to baseline values after such a Cr loading regime.
And there's a study that shows that creatine intake is improved 56% (25% vs 16%) when taken with glucose.
That took me 5 minutes on medline.
Bro. Rookie. Bad posting.
Call me what you want, but I get results. And I win. No matter what type of creatine I am taking.
--------------
Iron and chalk.
|
|
2006/12/29, 01:36 PM
ah, I thought you were refering to the pre-mixed serum Ivan. Just misunderstood that part.
--------------
Iron and chalk.
|
|
2006/12/29, 01:43 PM
Thank god somebody finally cleared that up wrestler. I for one couldn't have slept tonight if you hadn't explained it so carefully.
============
Quoting from wrestler125:
The purpose of this study was to describe the physiological profile of responders (>20 mmol.kg(-1) dry weight increase in total intramuscular creatine monohydrate + phosphorylated creatine ) versus nonresponders (<10 mmol.kg(-1) dw increase) to a 5-day Cr load (0.3 g.kg(-1).d(-1)) in 11 healthy men (mean age = 22.7 years). Pre-post 5-day cellular measures included total resting Cr content (Cr + PCr), fiber type composition, and fiber type cross-sectional area (CSA) determined from muscle biopsies of the vastus lateralis. Body mass, daily dietary intake, 24-hour urine outputs, urinary Cr and creatinine (CrN), and strength performance measures (1 repetition maximum bench and leg press) were also assessed before and after the 5-day loading period. Results indicated that there were 3 levels of response to the 5-day supplementation: responders (R), quasi responders (QR), and nonresponders (NR) with mean changes in resting Cr + PCr of 29.5 mmol.kg(-1) dw (n = 3), 14.9 mmol.kg(-1) dw (n = 5), and 5.1 mmol.kg(-1) dw (n = 3), respectively. The results support a person-by-treatment interaction to acute Cr supplementation with R possessing a biological profile of lowest initial levels of Cr + PCr, greatest percentage of type II fibers, and greatest preload muscle fiber CSA and fat-free mass. Responders also showed improvement in 1RM leg press scores following the 5-day loading period. NR had higher preload levels of Cr + PCr, less type II muscle fibers, small preload muscle CSA, and lower fat-free mass and displayed no improvements in 1RM strength scores. The results suggest that to be considered a responder to acute oral supplementation, a favorable preexisting biological profile may determine the final extent to which an individual responds to supplementation. Physiologic profiles of nonresponders appear to be different and may limit their ability to uptake Cr. This may help partially explain the reported equivocal performance findings in the Cr supplementation literature.
There's a study showing that the only physiological difference between a responder and a non-responder is that non-responders have higher pre-load creatine levels.
Creatine supplementation: a comparison of loading and maintenance protocols on creatine uptake by human skeletal muscle.
* Preen D,
* Dawson B,
* Goodman C,
* Beilby J,
* Ching S.
Department of Human Movement and Exercise Science at The University of Western Australia, Crawley, W.A., Australia, 6009.
The purposes of this investigation were first to determine the impact of 3 different creatine (Cr) loading procedures on skeletal muscle total Cr (TCr) accumulation and, second, to evaluate the effectiveness of 2 maintenance regimes on retaining intramuscular TCr stores, in the 6 weeks following a 5-day Cr loading program (20 g x day(-1). Eighteen physically active male subjects were divided into 3 equal groups and administered either: (a) Cr (4 x 5 g x day(-1) x 5 days), (b) Glucose+Cr (1 g x (-1) of body mass twice per day), or (c) Cr in conjunction with 60 min of daily muscular (repeated-sprint) exercise. Following the 5-day loading period, subjects were reassigned to 3 maintenance groups and ingested either 0 g x day(-1), 2 g. day(-1) or 5 g x day(-1) of Cr for a period of 6 weeks. Muscle biopsy samples (vastus lateralis) were taken pre- and post-loading as well as post-maintenance and analyzed for skeletal muscle ATP, phosphocreatine (PCr), Cr, and TCr concentrations. Twenty-four hour urine samples were collected for each of the loading days and last 2 maintenance days, and used to determine whole body Cr retention. Post-loading TCr stores were significantly (p <.05) increased in all treatment conditions. The Glucose+Cr condition produced a greater elevation (p <.05) in TCr concentrations (25%) than the Cr Only (16%) or Exercise+Cr (18%) groups. Following the maintenance period, muscle TCr stores were still similar to post-loading values for both the 2 g x day(-1) and 5 g x day(-1) conditions. Intramuscular TCr values for the 0 g x day(-1) condition were significantly lower than the other conditions after the 6-week period. Although not significantly different from pre-loading concentrations, muscle TCr for the 0 g x day(-1) group had not fully returned to baseline levels at 6 weeks post-loading. The data suggests that Glucose+Cr (but with a much smaller glucose intake than currently accepted) is potentially the most effective means of elevating TCr accumulation in human skeletal muscle. Furthermore, after 5 days of Cr loading, elevated muscle TCr concentrations can be maintained by the ingestion of small daily Cr doses (2-5 g) for a period of 6 weeks and that TCr concentrations may take longer than currently accepted to return to baseline values after such a Cr loading regime.
And there's a study that shows that creatine intake is improved 56% (25% vs 16%) when taken with glucose.
That took me 5 minutes on medline.
Bro. Rookie. Bad posting.
Call me what you want, but I get results. And I win. No matter what type of creatine I am taking.
=============
--------------
Sometimes life is like herding cats.
Charlie
|
|
2006/12/29, 02:22 PM
Well, I commend you on effort, and in school your teacher would probably give you a C for effort. However, here in the real world, which we are trying to prepare you for, you get nothing.
Your homework assignment does nothing to validate what you said that 9 out of 10 non responders suddenly respond with glucose. Your 5 minutes on medline was in fact useless to this discussion, we all know that glucose helps creatine uptake. Hell, folks have been using grape juice for years. This simply shows again what I have stated in prior posts, that glucose has been used for years to try to maximise uptake. Again, does nothing to back up your 9 out of 10 post.
You even go as far as stating that one of your 'studies' shows that the only physiological difference between a responder and a non-responder is that non-responders have higher pre-load creatine levels. Duh! Read my prior posts.
You are doing nothing but verifying what I have already said.
Your 'studies' all look nice, something everyone knows....but still do not in any way qualify your misstatement that 9 out of 10 non responders now respond. Until you do find something to back that up, which you never will, you lose bro! Yes, you are a rookie.
You win...hardly. this has been as easy as taking on a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.
--------------
\"If it ain\'t broke, you aren\'t trying.\"
|
|
2006/12/29, 05:06 PM
I meant I win at what I do. MMA, powerlifting, and strongman, none of which have anything to do with the type of creatine I am taking.
When someone can't defend their position, they resort to personal attacks. You can't refute what I am saying, so you make comments like "here in the real world" "this has been easy" and "you are a rookie". You attack my degree program (ranked top 5 in the nation, btw) and say that I am nonsensical. Congratulations on your "ass kicking contest", but I was trying to keep it civil. You are the one who has to resort to personal attacks.
You never mentioned the difference between responders and nonresponders. You never said anything about glucose in any of your prior posts on this thread. And if you read my original posts, I WAS AGREEING WITH most of what you said. And I have been since the begining. You seem too intent on turning this into a personal war to bother noticing that.
The 90% was a number I was pulling out of my ass. Show me a study where CEE causes all nonresponders to "get results" and I'll come back and issue a public apology and everything. Or better yet, just find me 1 study that isn't backed up by supplement companies that shows CEE has better absorption than the last study showed. Till then, I am done posting here.
--------------
Iron and chalk.
|
|
2006/12/30, 12:51 AM
yeesh. this thread puts my arguements with mutt to shame!
|
|
2006/12/30, 11:47 AM
Well, sounds like time to man up bro. You are now resorting to straw man tactics, totally changing the discussion to 'personal attacks' as you put it.
Believe me, if I wanted to do personal attacks, you would have known it. I thought it has been quite civil. I did nothing of the sort 'attacking' your degree program, you put up the most basic element of finance, and stated that is what you learned in your degree program.
Anyone would say if one has a checkbook, they know that. Not much in the way of a degree.
Now trying to turn things around and make me show you a study I never purported will not work either. The burden of proof was on you to back up your statement of 90%.
Finally admitting by your own statement....90% was a number you pulled out of your ass is what I wanted to hear all this time.
End of story
Your apology is accepted.
--------------
"If it ain't broke, you aren't trying."
|
|
2007/01/08, 11:26 PM
wow, a moderator that picked a fight...what the? I thought the purpose of this forum was to share information, not pick on the "little guys" when the mods disagree with a statement.
Just an observation from a new member. I would hope that THIS SITE, THIS FORUM would be different from all of the other "fitness forums" out there that allow members to talk down to each other or the mods to pick fights just because they have some "power"
As I said, this is just an observation. I know that if this was my site and a moderator displayed that type of banter/ behavior I would be very disappointed at how he represented my site.
I joined this site to get away from that type of behavior, yknow....
--------------
Either You Worked Out Today or You Didn\'t
|
