MuscleTech CreaCore 80 Servings $33.13 DELIVERED @ BB.com

Related Stores

BodyBuilding.com

• 

  VehemenceThePhoenix on 27/01/2014 - 21:00

  +1

  I also think this is a joke

• 

  kronicmacstigator on 27/01/2014 - 21:24

  -1

  http://www.creapure.com for REAL creatine!

  I'm allergic to the artificial sweeteners. They give me headaches and fatigue!

  • 

    leeroys_dad on 27/01/2014 - 21:29

    you're not allergic. you're just not used to them. try drinking/eating with normal food

    • 

      kronicmacstigator on 27/01/2014 - 22:03

      -1

      LMAO! Dude… VERY common side-effect reported by alot of people! Do your research first! Believe me, definately allergic.

      • 

        ausmechkeyboards on 27/01/2014 - 23:27

        +1

        Not only is it not "common" or "reported by alot of people," but it's also a myth. Headaches? maybe. Extremely unlikely, and probably just a lie.. but maybe.

        ..But allergy? clearly you have no idea what an allergy is, or you wouldn't make such ridiculous claims.

      • 

        kronicmacstigator on 28/01/2014 - 21:20

        It's a very mild allergy but an allergy nonetheless

    • 

      Gnostikos on 27/01/2014 - 22:34

      -1

      Lol, the human body should not "be used to" known neurotoxins/carcinogens/hormone-endocrine disruptors like Aspartame or Sucralose. You think something that's 200 times sweeter than sugar is a good thing to be heaping into your body?

      try drinking/eating with normal food

      Stuff synthesized in labs as a byproduct of scientific research into gastrointestinal disorders is not "normal food".

• 

  drazenm on 27/01/2014 - 22:20

  frequently/daily use or artificial sweeteners,flavors,enhancers,whatever the hell call them, especially that garbage max, zero,sugar free drinks. Is literately saying "i want cancer! and i want it as soon as possible in this lifetime!"

  God help us all what the hell is in protein powders, pre workouts, intra workouts………………

  • 

    Gnostikos on 27/01/2014 - 22:59

    -2

    God help us all what the hell is in protein powders, pre workouts, intra workouts………………

    Well, processed foods in general really; but Australia is a bit behind the curve thankfully when it comes to mass-produced poisons resembling foods however… especially our primary produce.

  • 

    nephilim on 27/01/2014 - 23:00

    +1

    Funny thing is what you said is nonsense, never been proven on humans and worse pepsi max has been out in Australia for 20 odd years. If anything the normal corn sugar version is more dangerous as it is proven to create Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and corn sugar is in everything in 2014 (most subsided item in Australian farming).

    • 

      Gnostikos on 27/01/2014 - 23:10

      -1

      pepsi max has been out in Australia for 20 odd years

      That's not really long enough of a timeframe to be an objective study on carcinogenicity or degenerative diseases in later life caused by artificial sweeteners.

      It's like people still being born with birth defects due to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (even Japanese not personally connected to the bombings), it could be a generation or two before the genetic damage is evident.

      never been proven on human

      It's never been formally approved in the US either. It was simply rammed through the FDA approval process by then-company chairman Donald Rumsfeld via his political clout in Washington (which has some well-known revolving doors between the Federal Government and the Dept. of Health); the same Rumsfeld who we today know to be a highly trustworthy fellow.

      The rest of the world took America's green light on Aspartame as gospel without really doing much research themselves; as is the case with many pharmaceuticals and food additives.

      • 

        ausmechkeyboards on 27/01/2014 - 23:18

        Everything you have said so far is completely false. Aspartame is completely safe, is not a carcinogenic, and you should stop this fear propaganda you're trying to push out.

        Aspartame is considered to be safe by independent research that was taken place around the entire world, not just by the FDA, as you're trying to suppose. The FDA themselves didn't have it 'rammed through the approval process'— it was examined, and reexamined, and the FDA considers it to be the most carefully studied product they have ever approved.

        There is very little evidence to suggest it is harmful, most of which has been disproved, in comparison to the thousands of research programs taken place around the world which deemed it safe.

        If you choose not to consume aspartame, that's fine. But don't intentionally and blatantly lie about it to try to push your conspiracy theories on others.

      • 

        Gnostikos on 28/01/2014 - 01:18

        If you choose not to consume aspartame, that's fine. But don't intentionally and blatantly lie about it to try to push your conspiracy theories on others.

        It sounds to me like you skim-read the Wikipedia article on Aspartame in 5 minutes and just posted a summary.

        No I haven't lied. Donald Rumsfeld was indeed the CEO of the company who held the patent for Aspartame in 1981, Searle. When the FDA looked set to ban its approval for the second time (after ruling in 1980 that the board had not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that Aspartame is safe for use as a food additive), Reagan's newly-appointed FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, installed a sixth member on the commission looking into the additive and the commission became dead-locked. He then personally overruled their recommendations and broke the tie in Aspartame's favor. Arthur then got a job at the PR firm representing Searle and Monsanto. It was only in 1996, after several back-and-forth FDA findings and some serious reshuffling of FDA leadership, that Aspartame was allowed to be used in all foods.

        It was the only time in the FDA's history that they requested a criminal investigation of a manufacturer for knowingly misrepresenting findings and making false statements in Aspartame safety tests, in 1977. It was dropped due to a statute of limitations on the charges.

        "Survey of aspartame studies: correlation of outcome and funding sources," 1998, unpublished: http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html Walton found 166 separate published studies in the peer reviewed medical literature, which had relevance for questions of human safety. The 74 studies funded by industry all (100%) attested to aspartame's safety, whereas of the 92 non-industry funded studies, 84 (91%) identified a problem. Six of the seven non-industry funded studies that were favorable to aspartame safety were from the FDA, which has a public record that shows a strong pro-industry bias.

        In animal testing, mice fed Aspartame developed holes in their brains and monkeys exposed to it either died or developed chronic Grand Mal seizures.

        Honestly if you know anything about the history of PCBs, DDT, Agent Orange, Thalidomide, Bovine Growth Hormone, and other infamous toxins that were once considered harmless; you would know this pattern repeats itself in the health/food/agricultural industries time and time again. In the future people will probably look back on artificial sweeteners in the same light.

      • 

        ausmechkeyboards on 28/01/2014 - 11:15

        -2

        You've lifted a fairly large part of your response from here. I'm not sure why you try to claim I'm skimming through Wikipedia when you are blatantly reproducing nonsense.

        You continually ignore the independent research that took place in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, SA, among other places, all of which had nothing to do with the FDA, and all of which found it to be fine. There is not a single credible instance that suggests anything negative, and even your famed mouse study has been disproved.

        Within the US, aside from the FDA, various cancer research centers and councils have also dismissed the supposed links between aspartame and cancer.

      • 

        Gnostikos on 28/01/2014 - 15:23

        +2

        What I said is a matter of public record, nothing you said negates that. The serious and lengthy hurdles that Aspartame faced in gaining FDA approval leads me to believe it is unsafe for human consumption.

        Which seems more likely to you?

        That a multi-billion dollar a year industry wants to convince consumers that their product which they've become so heavily invested into, is safe, or that as you claim, a massive smear campaign against artificial sweeteners is being perpetuated by hundreds of unconnected investigators, scientists, institutes and independent researchers all over the world, for no real benefit?

        Welcome to Capitalism. It's not the first time something bad for human health has made astronomical profits and has been championed as safer than water itself.

        The world is in universal consensus that smoking is harmful to human health, and yet despite tobacco never claiming more than a peak of 10 million souls annually (in other words far less than 1% of global population), nobody would seriously try to claim that the risks are insignificant enough to warrant its widespread re-adoption.

        You seem to be of the mindset that because people are not dropping dead like flies from artificial sweeteners and processed food additives, and that headaches/allergy-like symptoms are the worst superficial signs you can expect, that we can all turn a blind eye to it.

        There are people who've inhaled more than a lifetime's worth of cigarette smoke and lived quite normal and long lives (though obviously biologically-degraded in many ways); while others perished well before their time in a miserable degenerative state.

        The effect artificial sweeteners can have on an individual has too many variables to be reliably calculated. The collective effect on human health is bad news, like accumulative exposure to radiation (An X-Ray or two won't kill you but they won't make you healthier or reduce your chances of cancer, that's for sure), and we shouldn't tolerate their consumption because they have not been impartially studied enough.

        You continually ignore the independent research that took place in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, SA, among other places, all of which had nothing to do with the FDA,

        The science is only as good as the funding allows it to be. Don't give me that politically-correct, heavily-sanitised Wiki-NPOV crap.

        Within the US, aside from the FDA, various cancer research centers and councils have also dismissed the supposed links between aspartame and cancer.

        Yawn. The National Cancer Institute is a part of the same Department of Health that the FDA is.

  • 

    ausmechkeyboards on 27/01/2014 - 23:20

    -1

    I hope your god helps you by granting you half a brain to realize you have no idea what you're talking about.

    You seem like the type of person who'd also petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide, right?

• 

  ModaMagic on 27/01/2014 - 23:42

  Probably the worst thing I have ever tasted to be honest, I can see why it was sold to me at $10 a container.

• 

  david07 on 28/01/2014 - 06:47

  +1

  you can get it cheaper than this on ebay $28.60 delivered

  http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/MUSCLETECH-CREACORE-LEMON-LIME-80…

• 

  lukeloop on 28/01/2014 - 07:41

  Just buy creative monohydrate, do your study.

• 

  J6 on 28/01/2014 - 11:21

  Cheaper on ebay, would be faster delivery too - not a deal
  http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/MUSCLETECH-CREACORE-LEMON-LIME-80…

• 

  barefoot on 30/01/2014 - 08:55

  Follow your dreams, you can reach your goals. I'm living proof. Beefcake. BEEFCAAAAAKE!