# Creatine Gluconate



## Scrumpy (Jun 23, 2008)

Hi guys, a little help with creatine gluconate please:

I have only just heard about it, i have taken both monohydrate and CEE before, but CEE i capsulate myself because of the taste. Does anyone know about creatine gluconate:

-It's effects compared to CEE

-How well it is absorbed

-It's taste

Thanks


----------



## BBWarehouse (Mar 31, 2008)

it's miles better.....but you won't find it in raw powder form.

-It's effects compared to CEE

Miles better than raw CEE imo, and I got better results than on Cellmass (which I found better than just CEE too). Cellmass was good, but SizeOn (the main CG product) was better.

-How well it is absorbed

No idea. It was the most effective creatine I've so far used however (see below for history, as I'm only just trying Kre-Alk now...so that may potentially be better, but I'm only on day 2).

-It's taste

Only used in flavoured products. SizeOn is very sweet, but nice tasting. No idea about the other CG products (haven't seen many tbh).

It always tends to be used as part of a wider blend with things like MCC (Magnesium Creatine Chelate) when used on products, together with other bits to enhance uptake.

here's a selection of reviews on SizeOn (the main CG product I can think of) that may give you a good idea of effectiveness:

Google Reviews

If you find 1 bad review, or 1 review where it states it's not the best creatine they've used....I will be shocked.

Lots of people are about to come on here and state it's a rip off....but non of them will have used the product. In the UK....if it's cheap it's seen as good....no matter if there are better products out there. It's the ALDI method of product evaluation.

--------

Personal Creatine Experience:

I've used mono, cee, as well as lots of blends like Animal Pump, Celltech etc. over the years and my best results were from SizeOn. Never used Kre-Alkalyn (am starting DY's Creatine now, which is basically Kre-Alkayln and powdered orange juice), but I know that get's amazing reviews from one of my suppliers, and a customer we had earlier in the week was telling me Kre-Alk was the best thing he tried....so Kre-Alk MAY be better, but so far (after only 2 days of DY Creatine), SizeOn is the thing I'd rate out of everything else used so far.


----------



## BSD (Feb 2, 2008)

BBWarehouse said:


> it's miles better.....but you won't find it in raw powder form.
> 
> it's used on Gaspari SizeOn, and something else (can't recall what), but it's always as part of a wider blend with things like MCC (Magnesium Creatine Chelate) when used on products, together with other bits to enhance uptake.
> 
> ...


BBW

Its available by the abundance from manufacturers but it has little take up as you are better off mixing glucose yourself . The cost to manufacture it is alot higher than actually just mixing your own grape juice due to the process involved hence why in the industry its pretty much a poor product (at least in the manufacturing arena)



> Creatine Gluconate is a molecule of creatine bonded to a molecule of glucose [or gluconic acid]. This synthetic alteration allows for greater intake of creatine because it is bonded to a fast-digesting carb, glucose, as well as increasing the amount of creatine uptaken into the muscles by stimulating the release of insulin.


So whether you take this, or WMS or Grape Juice it will be the same 

Hope that helps.

BSD


----------



## Scrumpy (Jun 23, 2008)

Thanks for the help, still a little fazed though:

So by mixing creatine with a glucose product you get creatine gluconate? Is the molecular bonding done in the manafacturing arena not different to just mixing in a glass?

Also for the information of BBW, creatine gluconate i think is sold in raw form here:

http://www.discount-supplements.co.uk/shopexd.asp?id=8302


----------



## BBWarehouse (Mar 31, 2008)

huh, no way. first time i've seen that!


----------



## BBWarehouse (Mar 31, 2008)

surely the bonded version is lower in cals?


----------



## BSD (Feb 2, 2008)

Scrumpy said:


> Thanks for the help, still a little fazed though:
> 
> So by mixing creatine with a glucose product you get creatine gluconate? Is the molecular bonding done in the manafacturing arena not different to just mixing in a glass?
> 
> ...


Yes it's just creatine bound to gluconic acid molecule so at a more fundamental level. Arguably, they'd be very little difference between that and just mixing creatine with glucose....but as always..try them both and see what happen? :thumb:


----------



## BSD (Feb 2, 2008)

BBWarehouse said:


> surely the bonded version is lower in cals?


We would be talking very little difference. Only reason why I say this mate is that when talking to one of the largest manufacturers of this; they themselves said they have trouble shifting it due to the cost and the alleged very little benefit [based on feedback from there buyers in the states]

We were offered this, but wouldnt touch it as theres little benefit..what with data also showing that you dont need a high as spike for creatine uptake as many think..but buy all means if you can get the powder give it a go and compare.


----------



## Scrumpy (Jun 23, 2008)

Thanks for the help guys, nice to have some business insight as all the marketing hype in products can prove misleading sometimes.

Would maltodextrin work just as well as glucose?

If not how about dextrose?


----------



## BSD (Feb 2, 2008)

Scrumpy said:


> Thanks for the help guys, nice to have some business insight as all the marketing hype in products can prove misleading sometimes.
> 
> Would maltodextrin work just as well as glucose?
> 
> If not how about dextrose?


Dextrose, Grape Juice, Malto all is fine in honesty; many merely take it with oats and seem to get just as good gains.


----------



## BBWarehouse (Mar 31, 2008)

BSD said:


> We would be talking very little difference. Only reason why I say this mate is that when talking to one of the largest manufacturers of this; they themselves said they have trouble shifting it due to the cost and the alleged very little benefit [based on feedback from there buyers in the states]
> 
> We were offered this, but wouldnt touch it as theres little benefit..what with data also showing that you dont need a high as spike for creatine uptake as many think..but buy all means if you can get the powder give it a go and compare.


I'd severely question this, based upon my extensive use of creatine sups over the past X years of training, and extensive user reviews.

Mono (even with lots of low-GI carbs) has never had any effect for me, but I saw my squats go from 180 x 5 to 200 x 4 over the course of a month whilst doing SP250 and SizeOn (which although it contains many other ingredients, has creatine gluconate as a part of it).

From user reviews of that product too, I have never ever seen one that rates it as any less than the best creatine people have tried - be they newbies or experienced supplement users.

Now this does contain lots of other stuff (creatine AKG, creatine gluconate, mono, citruline, taurine, l carnitine, ala, coQ10, and other bits and bobs....) but I'd still put this down as evidence for the effectiveness of CG based on the extensive reviews that put it top of the tree for creatine style products.


----------



## EXTREME (Aug 5, 2005)

So can anyone tell me how does the bond between the glocose molecule with creatine monhydrate come about?

I'm really interested because despite all the hype about CEE its manufacturing process is fundamentally flawed and between 20-30% of the creatine is converted to creatinine during the esterification process.


----------



## BSD (Feb 2, 2008)

BBWarehouse said:


> I'd severely question this, based upon my extensive use of creatine sups over the past X years of training, and extensive user reviews.
> 
> Mono (even with lots of low-GI carbs) has never had any effect for me, but I saw my squats go from 180 x 5 to 200 x 4 over the course of a month whilst doing SP250 and SizeOn (which although it contains many other ingredients, has creatine gluconate as a part of it).
> 
> ...


BBW

Sorry, we think there may be some confusion here. We are not talking about the entire product; just CG as a standalone and as a product in itself. It merely is just two bonded molecules, creatine and gluconic acid nothing more nothing less. The syngergistic effect of all the stuff in that product we cant comment on as we have never tried it and trust your esteemed judgement on. There is a debate to be had on whether it increases creatines intestinal absorption. Again all the theory is here, creatine attached to a glucose based molecule etc but in terms of results its probably to early to say if its better.


----------



## BSD (Feb 2, 2008)

EXTREME said:


> So can anyone tell me how does the bond between the glocose molecule with creatine monhydrate come about?
> 
> I'm really interested because despite all the hype about CEE its manufacturing process is fundamentally flawed and between 20-30% of the creatine is converted to creatinine during the esterification process.


Hi Extreme

It is manufactured with a link from creatine to gluconic acid so there both processed during breakdown. The basis of this product is that the creatine and gluconic acid would allow some of the following a] a raise in insulin b]faster absorption of the creatine c]less chance of turning into creatinine [better solubility\stability and a few other things . But per se, gluconic acid is not glucose. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconic_acid]

There is alot of confusion around alot of the creatines about today and with very limited data [research] on them; it is more a case of try and see.

To quote them



> the ionic salt of a creatine ion bonded to a glucose ion. The result is that you have something that gets absorbed into the system in much of the same way glucose does (easily and almost completely)


I guess the question here would be that if a person already had a higher BG level [say above 8mmol] how would that compare in any real gain over say someone who took creatine with grape juice \ wms?

As it gets more popularity their may be more data on it, but as it stands there's limited impartial information on this


----------



## Karl(Reflex) (Jun 12, 2006)

The question i have is if you have 5g Creatine Gluconate, how much of that is creatine and how much is gluconic acid and would that small amount really cause any insulin response?


----------



## BBWarehouse (Mar 31, 2008)

EXTREME said:


> So can anyone tell me how does the bond between the glocose molecule with creatine monhydrate come about?
> 
> I'm really interested because despite all the hype about CEE its manufacturing process is fundamentally flawed and between 20-30% of the creatine is converted to creatinine during the esterification process.


Extreme, do you have a link to a Kre-Alk study? I'd like to read up on it, and know you're a bit of an expert on the matter.


----------



## BSD (Feb 2, 2008)

Karl(Reflex) said:


> The question i have is if you have 5g Creatine Gluconate, how much of that is creatine and how much is gluconic acid and would that small amount really cause any insulin response?


Hi Karl

I believe from memory 10g yields 4-5g creatine.

Ill double check this later from a credible source [so dont quote me on this] , but this was what was indicated mid last year. I also beleive there is a study going to be initiated in the states against CM, CEE, CG and CAKG [latter having far more credibility in being a better creatine in theory] with results being availble in December.

With regards to the IR response, agree is it enough? But equally if the hosts BG [blood glucose] was say above 8-9mmol in the first place would that be enough for standard CM to do its thing? You'd think so....but food for thought.

Hope that helps fella


----------



## EXTREME (Aug 5, 2005)

As far as I'm aware putting cretine monohydrate in acidic conditions accelerates the creatinine conversion, so even before creatine gluconate hits the stomach acids its on its way to creatinine.

CEE is fundamentally flawed in its manufacturing process too, between 20-30% of it converts to creatinine during this process.


----------



## BSD (Feb 2, 2008)

EXTREME said:


> As far as I'm aware putting cretine monohydrate in acidic conditions accelerates the creatinine conversion, so even before creatine gluconate hits the stomach acids its on its way to creatinine.
> 
> CEE is fundamentally flawed in its manufacturing process too, between 20-30% of it converts to creatinine during this process.


It is of concern when there is limited data as well to state that CEE is a "better" creatine as well. I guess this holds true for so many products of late and it relies on clever marketing and people with a leap of faith.  Saying that, you do get the "I didnt get any results from CM but did with CEE" but this could be for a number of reasons; but hey if it works.... :thumbup1:


----------



## immy (Apr 18, 2010)

Say for someone like me who has never really responded to creatine but im willing to give it a another shot once i start training properly in again in around 10 days i was looking at using 3-5g of micronised creatine mono with vitargo, electrolytes + BCAA's post workout or would it be better for me to use creatine gluconate?


----------



## BBWarehouse (Mar 31, 2008)

immy said:


> Say for someone like me who has never really responded to creatine but im willing to give it a another shot once i start training properly in again in around 10 days i was looking at using 3-5g of micronised creatine mono with vitargo, electrolytes + BCAA's post workout or would it be better for me to use creatine gluconate?


For the sake of simplicity if you wanted to find out if you respond to *creatine*.....I'd go with Creatine Gluconate. If you're mixing in BCAA's in there as well you'll get a benefit from just the BCAA's, and hence might think "wow creatine is awesome", when in fact it's the carbs / BCAA's doing the work.

Creatine Gluconate is cheap for a couple month run anyway - £20 ish for 2-3 months from memory.


----------



## immy (Apr 18, 2010)

BBWarehouse said:


> For the sake of simplicity if you wanted to find out if you respond to *creatine*.....I'd go with Creatine Gluconate. If you're mixing in BCAA's in there as well you'll get a benefit from just the BCAA's, and hence might think "wow creatine is awesome", when in fact it's the carbs / BCAA's doing the work.
> 
> Creatine Gluconate is cheap for a couple month run anyway - £20 ish for 2-3 months from memory.


hmm may do but is there a major difference in performance with Creatine Gluconate to say micronised mono except the molecule of glucose as I plan on taking my mono now with Vitargo and Bcaa's and electrolytes after my weights session. and if I say take 5g of Creatine Gluconate will i be getting 5G of creatine as I've tried most forms of Creatine (CEE,Creapure) in the past and not noticed any difference but am willing to give micronised creatine mono a try again for a few weeks to see if i make any gains.


----------



## BBWarehouse (Mar 31, 2008)

immy said:


> hmm may do but is there a major difference in performance with Creatine Gluconate to say micronised mono except the molecule of glucose as I plan on taking my mono now with Vitargo and Bcaa's and electrolytes after my weights session. and if I say take 5g of Creatine Gluconate will i be getting 5G of creatine as I've tried most forms of Creatine (CEE,Creapure) in the past and not noticed any difference but am willing to give micronised creatine mono a try again for a few weeks to see if i make any gains.


Speaking from personal experience, the first creatine product I ever got any benefit from was the original Gaspari SizeOn, which was based around creatine gluconate. It was that reason that led to us launching creatine gluconate around 12 months ago within our own-brand range.

Personally I have never had any results from creatine mono unless I take it along with a hugggeeee amount of simple carbs, but I DO get great results from creatine gluconate. Whilst creatine gluconate obviously has a little carbs due to the nature of the bond, it's far less than I'd need to take with plain mono to get the same results. Due to the nature of the bond, the uptake just seems to be better for me.

If mono's worked for you, potentially stick with that, however for me personally gluconate was superior. Hope that helps


----------



## immy (Apr 18, 2010)

BBWarehouse said:


> Speaking from personal experience, the first creatine product I ever got any benefit from was the original Gaspari SizeOn, which was based around creatine gluconate. It was that reason that led to us launching creatine gluconate around 12 months ago within our own-brand range.
> 
> Personally I have never had any results from creatine mono unless I take it along with a hugggeeee amount of simple carbs, but I DO get great results from creatine gluconate. Whilst creatine gluconate obviously has a little carbs due to the nature of the bond, it's far less than I'd need to take with plain mono to get the same results. Due to the nature of the bond, the uptake just seems to be better for me.
> 
> If mono's worked for you, potentially stick with that, however for me personally gluconate was superior. Hope that helps


None of them have worked for me so far with regards to size gains or strength gains but my question is I'm planning on mixing mono with Vitargo would this have a better effect or should i give the gluconate a try and mix that with vitargo


----------



## klosey (May 14, 2011)

Gluco is cheap and chearful.. at its price its worth a shot


----------



## BBWarehouse (Mar 31, 2008)

immy said:


> None of them have worked for me so far with regards to size gains or strength gains but my question is I'm planning on mixing mono with Vitargo would this have a better effect or should i give the gluconate a try and mix that with vitargo


Personally I'd go with gluconate, but if none of the creatine's you ever tried have worked for you....it could also be down to:

1) Expectations - what do you expect to get from creatine and is this realistic? In all likelihood, the most anyone ever get's from creatine supplementation is a couple extra pounds, and better strength gains. It's not going to make a *massive* difference, just a little bit of a helping hand.

2) Potentially you're a creatine non-responder

....in terms of number 2, I thought I was a creatine non-responder until I tried the original Gaspari SizeOn, which I got some nice (for a natural product) gains from. That was based around creatine gluconate and was probably I think the first creatine gluconate product on the market. Certainly it was the most well known. For that reason, simply based on personal experience I would try creatine gluconate....however bear in mind you're not going to notice epic differences with any creatine product. You should ideally get a few extra lbs of gains, and better strength.

Hope that helps!


----------



## immy (Apr 18, 2010)

BBWarehouse said:


> Personally I'd go with gluconate, but if none of the creatine's you ever tried have worked for you....it could also be down to:
> 
> 1) Expectations - what do you expect to get from creatine and is this realistic? In all likelihood, the most anyone ever get's from creatine supplementation is a couple extra pounds, and better strength gains. It's not going to make a *massive* difference, just a little bit of a helping hand.
> 
> ...


Thank you very much for your help i will just spend the extra few £s this time round for my little off season i have planned and try the Creatine Gluconate.


----------



## immy (Apr 18, 2010)

Been looking where is the best place to buy Creatine Gluconate from i.e cost wise as i don't think there may be any quality difference from seller to seller (in a tub with a scoop if possible)


----------



## Jimmi50 (Aug 25, 2011)

So what about creatine and lucoxade?


----------



## immy (Apr 18, 2010)

Also another question after fasting for a month how long should one leave it before using creatine any time limit or can you use it right off the bat.


----------

