Will one cycle of creatine while doing CKD result in a gain in muscle mass. I am mostly concerned with getting ripped, but I would also like to gain a little mass?


Geoffrey

-I would advise against taking 'creatine' during a 'CKD' (although Trainerdan will tell you otherwise). During the low-carb week, there is little insulin present which jeopardizes the transport of creatine (and it's efficiency). However, you could do a 'loading-phase' during the 'carb-up'... and just a 'maintenance' phase following the 'carb-up' (i.e. up to 25 grams during the 'carb-up' ... and 5 grams a day on the low-carb days). This way- you take advantage of the high insulin levels during the 'carb-up' (‘supercompensation’ plays a role in the efficient transport of creatine as well).

I won't get into this again, but creatine DOES NOT need insulin to be used by the body. Your body uses the creatine that is present in red meat without an insulin spike, so why does it need one to use powdered creatine? Granted, insulin IMPROVES the transporrt and uptake by the muscle cells, but it will still get stored by the body without insulin.

Also, there are studies that show that creatine is beneficial during fat loss phases.

Now I have to go dig them up ... LOL ... I'll be back later with the article/study.

With the reduction in calories required to change body composition (to lose fat), energy levels often decline. That can lead to a reduction in training intensity, which can contribute to muscle loss.

Creatine increases the efficiency of muscle energy stores by acting as a backup for the regeneration of ATP in cells by donating a phosphate moelcule. When you look at the function creatine has in the body, it makes sense that it may help you maintain muscle phosphagen while dieting.

There is a study that examines this. (1) It involved 16 males, ages 18 to 26, who had been training with weights for at least 2 years, 3 to 6 times per week. They were split into 2 groups, one group was the control group and took a placebo. The other group took 20g of creatine per day for 4 days (loading phase). Both groups were on a reduced calorie diet. A sprint test was done to determine anerobic exercise performance.

Both groups lost 3.7% weight loss. The creatine group showed a 16% increase in muscle creatine stores, and also showed 4.6% increase in performance during the testing. The contol group showed a 1.1% DROP in performance.

The creatine group also lost less fat free mass than the placebo group. The researchers indicated that this may have been due to the intracellular water retention that promotes cellular hydration. This is one of the benefits of creatine use.

The bottom line is that it may be advantageous to use creatine when you are on a calorie restricted diet because it maintains muscle energy stores and muscle training efficiency.

REFERENCE:

Rockwell, JA., et al. Creatine supplementation affects muscle creatine during energy restriction. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise . (2001) 33: 61-68.

-Dan, you still didn't prove me wrong. This 'reference' does not state the effects creatine will have on a KETOGENIC diet. A 'calorie restricted diet'- can still be ample in carbohydrates (wherein insulin levels are not jeopardized!).

So, just to be clear, you are taking a stance that creatine can only be used by the body in the presence of carbohydrates?

-No. However, I believe creatine would be better utilized on a 'higher carb' diet, that's all.

At the risk of being redundant, I think I'll quote myself.

Ok, ok, anyways- there is an interesting product(s) out by EAS- 'Phosphagen XT' and 'InsuLoad HP' ...looks like the perfect 'carb-up' supplements to me.

Never trust a study done on less than 100 people or when the people writing the study cannot spell.

I thought it was "Be thankful that people take the time out of their busy schedule to bring real scientific research for a discussion, whether it involves 16 or 100 subjects, even if they do misspell"? Am I missing something?

If someone is wants specific information and 100 people require an accurate study, I would not trust information from an article that has misspelled words in it. My brother has a kidney degenerating kidney disease called IgA Nephropathy. He works out 6 days a week and when he looks for information about his problem, because he cannot use creatine or protien to put on weight, it needs to be accurate and someone sputtering out an article with limited people that were tested and grammatical errors would make me hesitant of whether to trust the information or not.

It is no different than all of these supplement companies stating that you will put on 20 pounds of lean muscle in four weeks or that their products are equal to steroids in strength. None of it is true and people should be given the facts. I miss the old days of Muscle Media, when it was run out of Bill Phillips basement and he tested each product for accuracy and did independent research on what supplements work in actual case studies or not.

So should I be hesitant whether to trust your reply? It contains a few grammatical and spelling errors as well.

You're changing the subject. First you have an issue with the size of the study and the spelling of its presentation. Fine. I commented that any reference to a scientific study is welcome here - if we later decide that it's too small a sample, we'll do so ourselves using our own judgement, but it's nice to see new research brought up.

From that you've changed the subject to applicability of the study to someone with a serious medical condition, and demanding greater "accuracy". This leads me to believe that you need to read up on the terminology of scientific studies in general. "Accuracy" can be defined as conformity to fact, exactness, or the ability of a measurement to match the actual value of the quantity being measured (see dictionary.com). A research study, on the other hand, is a fact-finding venture, designed to provide clues to improve our understanding of factors and quantities involved. A more applicable term might be "validity" of a study, i.e., whether its conclusions are correctly inferred or deduced (same source). Are you correct in hinting that the study may not be valid for patients with renal disease? Probably. Does that invalidate the study for healthy subjects? Absolutely not. Interpretation of a study's findings is a task that requires almost as much knowledge of the subject as the conduct of the study itself. Don't bash research just because it does not fulfil your ideas or desires. There are enough anti-lowcarb activists doing that already, some of whom have valid points but most do not.

My wife is a doctor and I know what makes a legitimate study. Second, I don't make spelling errors. You should pull out the dictonary.

I'm not arguing with you anymore about a poorly written study that was not run properly.

Again, bad study and no spelling errors.

P.S.: Learn how to spell judgment.

P.P.S.: Learn how to spell fulfill.

P.P.P.S.: I never trust the validity of someone who cannot spell or is too lazy to double check for spelling errors and Type-O's.