Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:15:18 GMT

Is she taking creatine now? ...and I understand if you'd rather not comment. She had some nice swims at the Pro-Am meet. Congratulate her for us! I don't mind saying. She doesn't take it. She only takes supplements from a company called Bio-Genesis, because we have it in writing that they absolutely guarantee purity. They don't make creatine, though, so it isn't in her regime. She's a--rightfully so--paranoid athlete. And on the Pro-Am kind words, she says, "Thanks so much!"

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:00:05 GMT

There is some serious unwarranted paranoia here about creatine. There are two basic facts about creatine supplementation: While what you say may be very true in a generaly way, creatine can cause serious digestive disorders. If you have digestive problems, you shouldn't take it. I spoke wiht a friend who works for the Food 7 Drug. she is a Registered Diatition(sp) and she says that creatine generally and maybe legally, she didn't know for sure, is to have a warning about gas, diarrhea and other problems. I looked at all of th ebrands at GNC. they were all labelled with some type of warning. I am very worried about the attitude so many of us in this country have towrards supplements. We assume that since they haven't hurt us, thye won't in the future and then they won't others. Most supplements are never scientifically proven to do what they say they do. Even thosee that have been "studied." I haven't gone throught he two sites you list. But I have looked at other creatine sites. they are mostly anecdotal and meaIingless. i have heard that US swimmers have the most expensive pee in the world.

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:24:37 GMT

I have heard some great things about Bio-Builde. Supposedly, its packed with partial protein chains so it breaks down the food you've eaten faster and more completely. Anyone have an opinion on it?

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Chris Stevenson — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 05:43:29 GMT

I am very worried about the attitude so many of us in this country have towrards supplements. Amen to that. This discussion will probably not change anyone's mind about creatine. There are two very different approaches to the whole risk-benefit of creatine: #1: There is little or no risk (unless you have kidney or GI problems), so why not? #2: There is little or no benefit to me, so why risk it? I fall squarely in camp #2 because creatine, even if worked as advertised, will do nothing to enhance my enjoyment of training and competing in USMS. My problematic knees do not need the weight gain, either. Since I am uninterested in creatine I am not going to spend much time scanning through the scientific literature. But a quick search (thru SciFinder Scholar) on the chronic effects of creatine supplements yielded only 69 hits, out of thousands for creatine supplementation itself. I found the following interesting and offer it to you (italics are mine): ********snip************ Creatine supplementation in health and disease: What is the evidence for long-term efficacy? Derave, Wim; Eijnde, Bert O.; Hespel, Peter. Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Department of Kinesiology, Exercise Physiology and Biomechanics Laboratory, Catholic University of Leuven, Louvain, Belg. Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry (2003), 244(1&2), 49-55. Abstract A review. Creatine supplementation is an established ergogenic aid in sports and is now claimed to have therapeutical applications in a variety of diseases. The available literature mainly covers the short-term (one to several weeks) effects of creatine supplementation on skeletal muscle function in health and disease, which is of little help to evaluate the long-term (two or more months) potential of creatine as a drug in chronic disorders, such as neurodegenerative diseases or muscular dystrophies. Recent findings in healthy humans indicate that the beneficial effect on muscle function and muscle total creatine content may disappear when creatine is continuously ingested for more than two or three months. The mechanism for this habituation to chronic creatine exposure is poorly understood. The primary purpose of the present review article is to critically evaluate the available evidence for long-term efficacy of creatine administration and to hypothesize about ways to optimize creatine administration regimens. ********snip************ "The mechanism of habituation to chronic exposure is poorly understood." Again, I did not do an exhaustive search. But if chronic effects were poorly understood in 2003 I very much doubt they are completely understood at this time. If you want to perform experiments on yourself, please go right ahead, just don't kid yourself. My own suggestion is that if you need creatine supplements for legitimate health reasons (and there are some) then the risk-benefit changes substantially. But to drop time in a master meet? And possibly not even that, if the effects wear off? Okay, enough time on :soapbox: (sorry, the smileys are cute, aren't they?)

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:49:24 GMT

Yep, I did say that in response to another post. But this is just my personal belief (Hopefully I’m still allowed to have personal opinions and beliefs), not my “official position.” I believe athletes take creatine as a supplement for the sole purpose of enhancing performance. The fact that creatine is not banned, makes it a legal supplement. I’ll readily admit I don’t know why WADA bans some supplements while allowing others, but I’m sure they have a much better understanding of this than I do. So I trust they know what they are doing. I believe I would be cheating myself if I took performance enhancing supplements. But then again, I’m not trying to make the US Olympic team or medal in Beijing, I’m just trying to hang on long enough that I can beat Paul Smith in the 100-104 500 Free. Rob do you think fastskins are cheating? It's not a natural product. Of course your opinon is valid. I don't see a big difference in a non harmful supplement (if this is the TRUTH) and a fake sharkskin bodysuit. Admittedly the top guys and girls all have everything so the advantage is negated. The only thing affected is faster records etc. That said records fall over time as training methods and science change. At least that's how I see it.

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:59:24 GMT

I feel the oposite. I have never taken supplements but I feel like I am cheating my self by not taking them, leagal supplements that is. I don't think that I will take creatine because it seems kind of like an unknown substance that we don't fully know about and could be a health risk. But I don't have a problem with people who do take it becasue when it comes down to it, hard work is the best way to enhance your performance. Muscle milk on the other hand seems safe and can legally enhance one's performcace so I don't see any reason not to take it other than the price... I believe creatine was first pinpointed in the early 1830's and has been taken for supplemental value since the mid 1920's. It's certainly not unknown, and is perhaps the most studied sports supplement behind a multi-vitamin, but like anything, make sure you do your own personal research before giving something the go-ahead.

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

knelson — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:56:39 GMT

In 2000, my wife said there was only herself and maybe two other athletes on the entire team that were not using creatine. Is she taking creatine now? ...and I understand if you'd rather not comment. She had some nice swims at the Pro-Am meet. Congratulate her for us!

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

The Fortress — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:04:30 GMT

But this is just my personal belief (Hopefully I’m still allowed to have personal opinions and beliefs), not my “official position.” Yes, please don't stop. That would be boring and so not the point of this forum. I don't know. If it's legal, it can't be cheating. Maybe Warren's right that not taking legal supplements is cheating yourself. I'd love to know how many masters are taking creatine. Given the compulsiveness of many swimmers, I'd say there are quite a few ... Me, I won't take it. The side effects alone send me running. Um, water retention and weight gain and whatever -- no thanks! My liver has enough to do processing all of my allergy RX meds and occasional sleep meds. I don't need more crap in my system. And I like to breathe.

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Rob Copeland — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:44:54 GMT

To quote Rob Copeland: "I personally believe that creatine should be banned and that anyone who has used it has cheated."Yep, I did say that in response to another post. But this is just my personal belief (Hopefully I’m still allowed to have personal opinions and beliefs), not my “official position.” I believe athletes take creatine as a supplement for the sole purpose of enhancing performance. The fact that creatine is not banned, makes it a legal supplement. I’ll readily admit I don’t know why WADA bans some supplements while allowing others, but I’m sure they have a much better understanding of this than I do. So I trust they know what they are doing. I believe I would be cheating myself if I took performance enhancing supplements. But then again, I’m not trying to make the US Olympic team or medal in Beijing, I’m just trying to hang on long enough that I can beat Paul Smith in the 100-104 500 Free.

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:49:30 GMT

Yep, I did say that in response to another post. But this is just my personal belief (Hopefully I’m still allowed to have personal opinions and beliefs), not my “official position.” I believe athletes take creatine as a supplement for the sole purpose of enhancing performance. The fact that creatine is not banned, makes it a legal supplement. I’ll readily admit I don’t know why WADA bans some supplements while allowing others, but I’m sure they have a much better understanding of this than I do. So I trust they know what they are doing. I believe I would be cheating myself if I took performance enhancing supplements. But then again, I’m not trying to make the US Olympic team or medal in Beijing, I’m just trying to hang on long enough that I can beat Paul Smith in the 100-104 500 Free. I feel the oposite. I have never taken supplements but I feel like I am cheating my self by not taking them, leagal supplements that is. I don't think that I will take creatine because it seems kind of like an unknown substance that we don't fully know about and could be a health risk. But I don't have a problem with people who do take it becasue when it comes down to it, hard work is the best way to enhance your performance. Muscle milk on the other hand seems safe and can legally enhance one's performcace so I don't see any reason not to take it other than the price...

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

The Fortress — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:14:04 GMT

I'm surprised that anyone in board positions of USAS or USMS would consider it cheating. To quote Rob Copeland: "I personally believe that creatine should be banned and that anyone who has used it has cheated." (Post # 226, Dara Torres-Amazing thread)

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:37:08 GMT

I think whether something is ethical has something to do with relationship among how much it effects performance, how much it costs, and how dangerous it is. For example, full body racing suits probably make you a little faster, they cost a lot, and they are not dangerous. This may mean they are unethical, because some swimmers can't afford them. But most of us use them. Creatine may make you a little faster, the amount needed for meet preparation costs a few bucks, and it's not dangerous. By comparison, that sounds pretty ethical to me. I think we see it the same way. I think that fastskins are like the BMW's of swimgear not neccessarily a status symbol but something that is price prohibitve for some. The analogy of the cost of a good golf club to an avid golfer as being comparable to a FS as a justification for buying one is true, but golf clubs are cost prohibitive to some too.

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:25:04 GMT

If it's proven to be safe and non habitforming then it should be legitimised as a supplement. The issue with steroids is because kids think it's ok and do it..the detrimental risks are too high... I think whether something is ethical has something to do with relationship among how much it effects performance, how much it costs, and how dangerous it is. For example, full body racing suits probably make you a little faster, they cost a lot, and they are not dangerous. This may mean they are unethical, because some swimmers can't afford them. But most of us use them. Creatine may make you a little faster, the amount needed for meet preparation costs a few bucks, and it's not dangerous. By comparison, that sounds pretty ethical to me.

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:10:08 GMT

There is some serious unwarranted paranoia here about creatine. There are two basic facts about creatine supplementation: 1. It enhances short duration exercise performance 2. It has never been shown to have a negative health effect. I searched a little and found an article to support each of those points. As more research is done and still nobody finds any actual evidence of serious side effects, the tone of reviews seems to be shifting from "creatine is unknown and possibly dangerous" to acceptance of creatine's safety. Long-term creatine supplementation does not significantly affect clinical markers of health in athletes Effects of creatine supplementation on performance and training adaptation If it's proven to be safe and non habitforming then it should be legitimised as a supplement. The issue with steroids is because kids think it's ok and do it..the detrimental risks are too high...

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:56:24 GMT

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:30:12 GMT

This is an interesting discussion. Creatine seems like a grey area and seems risky. I haven't touched it. Maybe the fact that you would have to eat several pounds of steak a day to get the same intake that some people consume with supplementation is nature's way of limiting it. Most of us (except eskimos) didn't evolve that way. I suspect your physicians would take a dim view of it.

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:02:22 GMT

Possibly... I have heard the same about Red Bull and the like..don't overdo any of that stuff... Drink plenty of water regardless... I do...evertime I swim Back Stroke. Usually through my nose though.:drown::rofl:

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:43:53 GMT

I've heard it is hard on your kidneys. Anyone know if this is true? Possibly... I have heard the same about Red Bull and the like..don't overdo any of that stuff... Drink plenty of water regardless...

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:31:30 GMT

Hopefully, this post will go through. I had a problem when I first tried. If you have even slight gastric problems, Creatine is going to screw you up. I know many GIs who say that in time taking extra creatine is going to do a terrible number of your intestines. I have had a Colectomy. I used to have pretty bad colitis. I still have problems. After my surgery, I took some creatine and about killed myself. My surgeon and my GI were really freaked at me. A side effect of taking in extra creatine is diarrhea. I waddle like to know if anyone who doesn't have gut problems has had problems taking creatine? I and many others took it in Afghanistan. No side effects that I noticed or anyone talked about. Also, we didn't care if it was cheating given the situation. I haven't taken it since returning to the USA. I've heard it is hard on your kidneys. Anyone know if this is true?

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:49:49 GMT

Well, creatine isn't banned, if you count that as legit. In 2000, my wife said there was only herself and maybe two other athletes on the entire team that were not using creatine. I'm surprised that anyone in board positions of USAS or USMS would consider it cheating. As far as the negative effects, there are thousands of studies that have shown creatine to be safe and effective in individuals with healthy kidneys. There is additional research that shows in people who are predisposed with kidney ailments, that it can increase the severity of those problems. Nathan, I guess I was trying to say that perhaps folks should not really consider it "cheating" to use it if it is not dangerous etc. The same way as a fastskin helps and is not dangerous...I don't think skins are cheating, they are an artificial aid though...but if everyone is doing it and nobody is getting hurt...so be it. For me it's not the steroids but the fact that it forces others to risk compromising their health and use them too if they want to keep pace.

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:52:20 GMT

If it's proven to be safe and non habitforming then it should be legitimised as a supplement. The issue with steroids is because kids think it's ok and do it..the detrimental risks are too high... Well, creatine isn't banned, if you count that as legit. In 2000, my wife said there was only herself and maybe two other athletes on the entire team that were not using creatine. I'm surprised that anyone in board positions of USAS or USMS would consider it cheating. As far as the negative effects, there are thousands of studies that have shown creatine to be safe and effective in individuals with healthy kidneys. There is additional research that shows in people who are predisposed with kidney ailments, that it can increase the severity of those problems.

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

The Fortress — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:45:07 GMT

I've taken creatine for years and have worked for or with at least two-hundred other athletes who have taken it for long durations as well. Not a single side effect reported. The group was split about 90/10 for creatine monohydrate to creatine ethyl ester, so there was quite the variation between formulas and brands also, but all still well to do. Hmmm .... Well, the Pres of USMS is on record as saying he views creatine as cheating. I'm coming to the conclusion that there are probably quite a number of masters using creatine. I guess I will be permanently stuck being one of the smaller competitors in the sprint lanes.

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:04:08 GMT

My sentiments exactly! Stud: Many people cannot afford massages, stretchers, gym memberships, chiros, etc. Also many people have jobs and kids and can't train as much as those without. There will never be a truly level playing field. Plus, technical suits have been around forever. They're part of the sport. I think it's moot, the top swimmers mostly have them. Nobody is losing races because they can't afford one. It's unlikely I'll ever need or want one. I'll just take my top time and think it could be a bit lower. ;)

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:02:28 GMT

It does seem to me that if you have problems, as I said earlier, Creatine is going to screw you up. If you don't have problems maybe it won't. There are two other things I wonder about. Like taking a lot of vitamins, anything your body doesn't use is out wiht the urine or elswhere. How do you know what is the corrrect dosage of Creatine? I do know that a GI I used t go to siad he never ran behind someone who took Creatine.

RE: Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

Former Member — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 06:26:40 GMT