Secondly, during my Personal Trainer Specialist Course in October 2001, I had the opportunity to hear the perspectives and opinions of Personal Trainer Instructors and Personal Trainer Course Manuals on supplementation and specifically Creatine Monohydrate supplementation. I am currently completing a 12-week version of Bill's ABCDE (Anabolic Burst Cycling of Diet & Exercise) routine found in his 3rd Supplement Review with great results. I decided I wanted to gain even more muscle than I did during my challenge, while keeping my fat percentages low. The trick's of ABCDE's diet are more difficult to initially understand than Body-for-LIFE, and require more initial work to set up. Bill was wise to produce Body-for-LIFE for those who want to build muscle and get their body fat percenages down to single digits. After that, to shake up routines, you may want to try ABCDE. It's a phenomenal program! Can you imagine my disappoinment, feeling great, going into a Personal Trainer's Course only to hear from the Instructors and the Course Manual, that
"Creatine is used as an attempt to increase power, speed and increase body mass." Then, under "Effectiveness / Concerns" it read, "Supplementation shows an increase in creatine stored in muscle and an increase in body mass. Not evident that the increase is muscle because of water gain with creatine. Side effects include excessive thirst and muscle cramping."
So, they were implying that my size and strength was all water! Can you imagine? No matter what I said in defence of EAS's BetaGen and Phosphagen HP - other lesser quality creatine supplements had left their mark on the Instructor's minds, the Course Manuals, and ultimately in the minds of every future potential Personal Trainer! A great injustice is being given to EAS products when they're put under such biases. And, the Author of the Course Manual had a BPE, B.Ed., MA Phys Ed, PFLC, CFP, ACE and Can-Fit-Pro Certification Director "TITLE" after her name, (but no "Dr."). Likewise, the references cited were from "Williams, Melvin (1998) The Ergogenics Edge Champlain: Human Kinetics." (still no "Dr." here either, and the 1998 date is quite outdated when considering current Medical and Scientific sources and research relating to Creatine Monohydrate).
But this is exactly the type of confusion that must be corrected when considering Nutritional Supplementation. It may take years of good public relations :-)
Which brings me to the latest Scientific and Medical discussions and research.
1. Muscle Media August 1998 - and at that time on-board the Muscle Media Team was Creative Director: Kal Yee, M.D., Contributing Writers: Mauro Di Pasquale, M.D., Brett Hall, R.D., Charles Staley, B.Sc., MSS - page 34 What Creatine Controversy?
"There is absolutely no proof from the reams of scientific studies done on creatine to support the media's contention that it is potentially harmful. There have been studies which have evaluated the effects of creatine supplementation (5 to 25 grams per day for up to 20 weeks, and 1.5 grams per day for up to 1 year). The only "side effects" reported in these studies has been weight gain, which is the primary reason many athletes take creatine. All available scientific evidence from these studies is that the weight gain is lean body mass.
In a recent report presented at the National Strength and Conditioning Association's annual conference by Dr. Richard Kreider, an expert on creatine supplementation and sports medicine, creatine's safety was further demonstrated. In Dr. Kreider's report, post-study questionnaires were filled out by 164 athletes who participated in |
