James O'Byrne

Creatine Monohydrate vs. Creatine Ethyl Ester: Which Is Better?

By James O'Bryne, Supplement Science Editor

Q: I've been using creatine for years and have tried many types (monohydrate, citrate, malate, etc.)—some with better results than others. I've now been hearing about a new type of creatine and am wondering if it's worth trying. What is this "creatine ethyl ester"? Is it a better form of creatine? What do you know about it?

A: The first question we need to clarify is what do you mean by better? Yes, there is reason to believe creatine ethyl ester (or CEE) is probably more soluble than creatine monohydrate (Cr.H20) or other forms of creatine. And, as solubility affects transport over biological membranes (such as muscle cells), it probably is taken up into your muscles more effectively. Meaning, you can load it faster. However, whether this leads to a greater accumulation of creatine in your muscle, at the end of a five-day loading phase, compared to creatine monohydrate, is relatively unknown. At least, there's no human data as of yet that can support or dispute this claim.

To provide you with a brief scientific explanation, CEE is a membrane permeable form of creatine that theoretically can enter the cells without having to use the "typical" creatine transporter molecules. Users are reported to gain substantial increases in strength and muscle mass, with none of the gastrointestinal discomfort or water bloating normally associated with the monohydrate form. Recommended dosages range from as little as one to three grams per day with no "loading" phase, as typically prescribed for the monohydrate form.

Now, contrary to these claims, most manufacturers who market CEE-type products recommend less than the required five-gram dose of CEE per day. Using these recommendations, however, I am somewhat skeptical that this could lead to the same elevation of creatine muscle saturation as consuming 20 to 25 grams per day of monohydrate over four or five days, even taking into account the better solubility of CEE.

The better question is: what's the difference between supplementing with five grams of CEE versus five grams of monohydrate over a 30-day period? And, which form would provide greater gains in strength, muscular size, and performance?

There seems to be a limit in muscle for creatine uptake when the transport system is down-regulated, which decreases further uptake past a certain concentration (150 mmol/l). So in this regard, I cannot see the creatine levels being any higher than those achievable with creatine monohydrate based on a 30-day period of supplementation (at five grams per day). Where CEE may be more effective than monohydrate is in maintaining muscle concentrations after loading if a greater amount of creatine does reach your muscle tissues.

We know over time on a five-gram per day maintenance program, muscle creatine levels do begin to fall. Whether CEE can overcome this is just a guess at this time, as there are no muscle biopsy studies showing that CEE can be taken up better or even taken up in comparison to old creatine monohydrate (again, when looking at human data).

"Where CEE may be more effective than monohydrate is in maintaining muscle concentrations after loading if a greater amount of creatine does reach your muscle tissues."

So, to answer this question, we need to know where the creatine and the ethyl ester from the CEE product separate from being one compound into two; i.e., CEE -> Cr + EE? The gut? Plasma? Tissues? This will massively impact how well the creatine is absorbed in humans.

So, the answer in short is yes: CEE may be taken up into muscle tissues faster over the short term (as with creatine and carbs), but the upper limit following complete creatine muscle saturation may still be just the same. The real issue has got to be overall effectiveness then—whether CEE translates to greater or lesser performance than creatine monohydrate. Based on the current scientific as well as patent-based studies, we still do not know any of these answers for certain. Although, I wouldn't completely ignore the accumulating anecdotal evidence from people consuming CEE.

Following are the more popular anecdotal benefits (when compared to regular creatine monohydrate) I've been able to collect from friends, scientists, and by lurking around message boards:

• Works faster and is more efficiently absorbed
  This is likely because the esterification of creatine, CEE, will increase its lipopholic abilities, and thus esterified creatine will use fat more efficiently to permeate the cell wall and exert its effects on cellular function than its unesterified creatine monohydrate counterpart.
  
  
• Requires a smaller dosage
  This is likely because regular creatine monohydrate is absorbed poorly by the body, and its effectiveness is dependent on the cells' ability to absorb it. As a result, the poor absorption rate of regular creatine monohydrate requires users to ingest larger amounts of creatine monohydrate (5 to 20 grams, daily) to achieve a desired effect, versus the three to five grams of esterfied creatine, daily.
  
  
  "I would suggest you try CEE and simply determine how effective (or ineffective) it is for you..."
• Eliminates the infamous "water bloat" look
  Thus is likely because creatine draws water into the cell (cell volumization), and because most ingested creatine monohydrate is not all absorbed, any unabsorbed creatine will sit outside of the target cell with the water. As a result, this may cause the dreaded "creatine water bloat." Whereas esterfied creatine is said to pull nearly all of the water into the muscle cell, thereby creating a harder, more solid appearance of muscularity.

In my opinion, until more real scientific data comes in, I would suggest you try CEE and simply determine how effective (or ineffective) it is for you, in comparison to the other types of creatine you've tried.

• Next Article: "Interview with Carla Sanchez"
• Back to Issue 44 Table of Contents

Fill out the no-obligation form below to TAKE your free issue of the printed version of Real SOLUTIONS Magazine now! Still not sure? Click here to listen to a special audio welcome from our editor, Stephen Adele.