It will Kill you, creatine that is!

[Catalonia]

Quote[/b] (xahrx @ May 10 2004,7:42)]

0-->

Quote[/b] (Catalonia @ April 21 2004,3

0)]Ok, but do you know how it works? That is, why would regulating the substance translate into higher profit margins? I mean--you can't sell it if it's banned, or does it simply put up a barrier in order to ensure that only the major players can sell it?

I have no idea how he thinks regulating creatine might help pharma companies, but banning ephedra while leaving ephedrine on the market isn't too bad for them. It basically means you can no longer get the herbal supplement for x dollars a dose and have to buy the decongestant/cold medicine for y dollars a dose, where y is more expensive than x and the money goes to the pharma companies.
The real drive would be from government, because it's their power and budget that increases directly as a result of every new task they gladly take upon themselves to protect us from ourselves. The pharma companies benefit only in that they get to function in a managed market where competition is put out of business because of high regulatory costs and restrictions on what can be sold.

Well.. governmental regulation (unless it is driven in through popular forces) Serves the business community. So that could make some sense. A favorite quote of mine was from the early 20th century American philosopher John Dewey

"Politics is the shadow cast over society by big business"

And indeed, states always work on behalf of promoting their interests--becuase that is where their bread is buttered.

 

[bugpowder]

Quote[/b] (Jake @ April 08 2004,4:50)]Second, his "creatine level" (whatever that means) went from 3500 to 9000 overnight? I have a *really*, *REALLY* hard time believing that he was creatine-toxic from 5GM/day- that's just so over the top, but then on top of that, why would his level more than double within 24 hours, *after* having taken it for so long already. And *what* creatine level? ...
... Could his creatinine levels be so high as 3500? Very, very doubtful. Normal is 0.6-1.2. As a reference, a creatinine of 2.0 means that about 50% of your kidney function is shot; 4.0, 25%, and so on. It's too late in the afternoon- I can't begin to think how little kidney function you'd have left with a creatinine of 3500, much less 9000.

just to clarify, it sounds like the serum creatine kinase level (given in IU/l) was measured by blood test. As such, these results are plausible.

Quote[/b] (A case of rhabdomyolysis with water intoxication confirmed by muscle biopsy @ Department of Neurology, Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.)] Laboratory examination revealed marked serum hyponatremia(102 mEq/l) and high value of creatin kinase (1,259 IU/l). The level of creatin kinase reached a peak(39,700 IU/l) at the 5th hospital day. An analysis of the muscle biopsy specimen showed necrotic muscle fibers and opaque fibers, that was compatible with rhabdomyolysis.

 

[xahrx]

Quote[/b] (Catalonia @ May 11 2004,3:22)]Well.. governmental regulation (unless it is driven in through popular forces) Serves the business community. So that could make some sense. A favorite quote of mine was from the early 20th century American philosopher John Dewey
"Politics is the shadow cast over society by big business"
And indeed, states always work on behalf of promoting their interests--becuase that is where their bread is buttered.

The exception for popular causes shows the true nature of the problem: government regulation serves government. It doesn't serve business in general, only those few who can buy power to manage the market in their favor. We have the disadvantage of participatiing in a market that can't really buy any favoritism.

I would disagree in general with Dewey, as I think he's a paranoid leftist. Whether or not a regulation benefits one business or another isn't generally the driving force in whether or not it gets passed. Whether or not it will increase the power and budget of the government is, because in the end it's the government, not business that can force anything or anyone, business or individual, to comply with its rules by using violence.

What we end up getting is the removal of effective supplements from the legal market and their replacement with ineffective substitutes, most likely made by larger companies. We have a choice not to use the originals, brave the black market and all its risks or hope for an amazingly strong placebo effect. The people manufacturing the substances lose their jobs or run the risk of getting arrested, or at the very least lose a profitable segment of their business.

That's why I think everyone, and I mean everyone on a forum like this has to respond to nonsense articles like this when they come up. Call people on their BS before the ignorant masses are led to a 'solution' by the government. Pretty soon free weights will be outlawed because of their relatively lower safety profile compared to machines.

 

[Jake]

Quote[/b] ]just to clarify, it sounds like the serum creatine kinase level (given in IU/l) was measured by blood test. As such, these results are plausible.

Good catch, (again), bug! Assuming they were talking about serum CK, yes, these results are definitely plausible, and even low for rhabdo, where CK can be as high as 200,000. But the article didn't say whether these were serum or urine levels, and to be honest, given the quality of the writing, I (probably erroneously) assumed that they meant *creatinine* levels- My bad!
Jake