Strength and Fitness - The Impartial Guide to strength, fitness, endurance and nutrition

Creatine Monohydrate vs Creatine Ethyl Ester

Posted on Sunday, 4 December, 2011 by anthony

It's been a while since we first took a look at creatine monohydrate and in that time there have been a number of new research articles looking at creatine monohydrate. The positive effects of creatine monohydrate on strength, power and muscular endurance have long been established. In fact creatine monohydrate is the most research proven sports supplement currently available. The level of research has led to the International Society of Sports Nutrition stating that “Creatine monohydrate is the most effective ergogenic nutritional supplement currently available to athletes in terms of increasing high-intensity exercise capacity and lean body mass during training.” Interestingly most of the new research has focused on the health benefits of creatine monohydrate, which include: improved recognition memory, reduced mental fatigue, improved brain function, a possible neuro-protective effect, and potential antioxidant activity.

View the updated creatine monohydrate review

A number of new and more expensive versions of creatine have emerged over recent years. Of these creatine ethyl ester is perhaps the most popular alternative to creatine monohydrate. A number of claims have been made with regard to the effectiveness of creatine ethyl ester. But just how effective is it? And, more importantly how does it compare with the research proven creatine monohydrate? In view of some of the claims made by a number of manufacturers (“improved bioavailability”, “vastly superior absorption” and “longer half-life”.) it seemed like a good time to take a closer look at creatine ethyl ester.

Currently creatine ethyl ester has only had limited research compared with creatine monohydrate but of the research that has been completed the research has been negative towards the benefits of creatine ethyl ester. Laboratory studies have shown that it has a very short half life in the blood (around one minute) and appears to be more of a pronutrient for creatinine than creatine. One study that compared creatine ethyl ester (CEE) with creatine monohydrate and a maltodextrose placebo found that a significant amount of CEE was degraded to inactive creatinine. The researcher concluded that compared with creatine monohydrate, CEE was less effective at increasing muscle creatine levels or improving body mass or performance measures.

View the full creatine ethyl ester review

In Summary:

All current research supports the use of creatine monohydrate over creatine ethyl ester. Creatine monohydrate has a vast amount of research supporting its effectiveness as an effective supplement for increasing muscle strength, power, size and muscular endurance. It also has growing evidence of a number of potential health benefits.

Back to Sports Nutrition