MARK MAGUIRE




Mark Maguire

Important Note:
Be Sure To See Why
Show-Tech TM
Is The Best Choice For
Alternative Steroid Supplements Ever!




Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
 1986 22 OAK AL  18   53   10   10   1  0   3    9   0  1   4  18  .189  .259  .377   20   0   0   0   1   0
 1987 23 OAK AL 151  557   97  161  28  4  49  118   1  1  71 131  .289  .370  .618  344   0   8   8   5   6
 1988 24 OAK AL 155  550   87  143  22  1  32   99   0  0  76 117  .260  .352  .478  263   1   4   4   4  15
 1989 25 OAK AL 143  490   74  113  17  0  33   95   1  1  83  94  .231  .339  .467  229   0  11   5   3  23
 1990 26 OAK AL 156  523   87  123  16  0  39  108   2  1 110 116  .235  .370  .489  256   1   9   9   7  13
 1991 27 OAK AL 154  483   62   97  22  0  22   75   2  1  93 116  .201  .330  .383  185   1   5   3   3  13
 1992 28 OAK AL 139  467   87  125  22  0  42  104   0  1  90 105  .268  .385  .585  273   0   9  12   5  10
 1993 29 OAK AL  27   84   16   28   6  0   9   24   0  1  21  19  .333  .467  .726   61   0   1   5   1   0
 1994 30 OAK AL  47  135   26   34   3  0   9   25   0  0  37  40  .252  .413  .474   64   0   0   3   0   3
 1995 31 OAK AL 104  317   75   87  13  0  39   90   1  1  88  77  .274  .441  .685  217   0   6   5  11   9
 1996 32 OAK AL 130  423  104  132  21  0  52  113   0  0 116 112  .312  .467  .730  309   0   1  16   8  14
 1997 33 OAK AL 105  366   48  104  24  0  34   81   1  0  58  98  .284  .383  .628  230   0   5   8   4   9
         STL NL  51  174   38   44   3  0  24   42   2  0  43  61  .253  .411  .684  119   0   2   8   5   0
         TOT    156  540   86  148  27  0  58  123   3  0 101 159  .274  .393  .646  349   0   7  16   9   9
 1998 34 STL NL 155  509  130  152  21  0  70  147   1  0 162 155  .299  .470  .752  383   0   4  28   6   8
 1999 35 STL NL 153  521  118  145  21  1  65  147   0  0 133 141  .278  .424  .697  363   0   5  21   2  12
 2000 36 STL NL  89  236   60   72   8  0  32   73   1  0  76  78  .305  .483  .746  176   0   2  12   7   5
 2001 37 STL NL  97  299   48   56   4  0  29   64   0  0  56 118  .187  .316  .492  147   0   6   3   3   7
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
 16 Seasons         6187      1626      6     1414      8    1596  .263  .394  .588        3  78 150  75 147
               1874      1167      252    583       12   1317                       3639
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
 162 Game Avg        535  101  141  22  1  50  122   1  1 114 138  .263  .394  .588  315   0   7  13   6  13
 Career High    156  557  130  161  28  4  70  147   3  1 162 159  .312  .483  .752  383   1  11  28  11  23
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
 Year Ag Tm  Lg  G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   TB   SH  SF IBB HBP GDP

Shaded Text indicates partial season results.

Special Batting   Glossary

 Year Ag Tm  Lg  PA  Outs  RC  RC/27  OWP    BA *lgBA   OBP *lgOBP  SLG *lgSLG  OPS *lgOPS*OPS+ psOPS  SB%
+--------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+----+
 1986 22 OAK AL   58   44    5  3.07      | .189  .253| .259  .320| .377  .395| .636  .715|  76         0%
 1987 23 OAK AL  641  411  127  8.34      | .289  .257| .370  .324| .618  .412| .987  .736| 164        50%
 1988 24 OAK AL  635  427   92  5.82      | .260  .256| .352  .320| .478  .385| .830  .706| 134         0%
 1989 25 OAK AL  587  412   78  5.11      | .231  .256| .339  .320| .467  .377| .806  .697| 130        50%
 1990 26 OAK AL  650  424   94  5.99      | .235  .255| .370  .322| .489  .381| .859  .703| 143        66%
 1991 27 OAK AL  585  406   61  4.06      | .201  .253| .330  .321| .383  .384| .714  .705| 103        66%
 1992 28 OAK AL  571  362  105  7.83      | .268  .253| .385  .322| .585  .376| .970  .698| 175         0%
 1993 29 OAK AL  107   58   28 13.03      | .333  .261| .467  .330| .726  .399|1.193  .729| 224         0%
 1994 30 OAK AL  172  104   26  6.75      | .252  .263| .413  .334| .474  .418| .887  .752| 137         0%
 1995 31 OAK AL  422  246   94 10.32      | .274  .259| .441  .332| .685  .410|1.125  .741| 200        50%
 1996 32 OAK AL  548  306  142 12.53      | .312  .272| .467  .345| .730  .437|1.198  .782| 203         0%
 1997 33 OAK AL  433  276   88  8.61      | .284  .269| .383  .338| .628  .425|1.012  .763| 161       100%
         STL NL  224  132   48  9.82      | .253  .269| .411  .341| .684  .423|1.095  .764| 182       100%
         TOT     657  408  136  9.00      | .274  .269| .393  .339| .646  .424|1.039  .763| 168       100%
 1998 34 STL NL  681  369  179 13.10      | .299  .268| .470  .338| .752  .422|1.222  .761| 217       100%
 1999 35 STL NL  661  393  154 10.58      | .278  .276| .424  .351| .697  .444|1.120  .795| 178         0%
 2000 36 STL NL  321  171   83 13.11      | .305  .273| .483  .351| .746  .446|1.229  .797| 205       100%
 2001 37 STL NL  364  256   46  4.85      | .187  .267| .316  .338| .492  .438| .808  .776| 106         0%
+--------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+----+
 16 Seasons     7660 4797 1450  8.16      | .263  .262| .394  .332| .588  .408| .982  .740| 163        60%

* indicates the value is park adjusted
Shaded Text indicates partial season results.

Fielding   Glossary

 Year Ag Tm  Lg Pos   G     PO    A    E   DP    FP   lgFP  RFg  lgRFg  RF9  lgRF9  GS   Inn    LF   CF   RF
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+------+----+----+----+
 1986 22 OAK AL  3B   16     10   20    6    1  .833  .948  1.88  2.37
 1987 23 OAK AL  1B  145   1173   90   10   91  .992  .992  8.71  8.50
                 3B    8      2   11    3    0  .812  .952  1.62  2.31
                 OF    3      1    0    0    0 1.000  .980  0.33  2.00                           0    0    3
 1988 24 OAK AL  1B  154   1228   88    9  118  .993  .992  8.55  8.41
                 OF    1      0    0    0    0              0.00  2.10                           0    0    1
 1989 25 OAK AL  1B  141   1170  114    6  122  .995  .993  9.11  8.35
                 DH    2
 1990 26 OAK AL  1B  154   1329   95    5  126  .997  .992  9.25  8.36
                 DH    2
 1991 27 OAK AL  1B  152   1191  101    4  120  .997  .992  8.50  8.30
 1992 28 OAK AL  1B  139   1118   71    6  118  .995  .993  8.55  8.36
 1993 29 OAK AL  1B   25    197   14    0   20 1.000  .993  8.44  8.24
 1994 30 OAK AL  1B   40    307   18    4   26  .988  .992  8.12  8.49
                 DH    5
 1995 31 OAK AL  1B   91    775   64   12   65  .986  .993  9.22  8.32
                 DH   10
 1996 32 OAK AL  1B  109    913   60   10  118  .990  .992  8.93  7.92
                 DH   18
 1997 33 OAK AL  1B  101    884   60    6   88  .994  .992  9.35  8.04
         STL NL  1B   50    439   34    1   40  .998  .993  9.46  8.16
         TOT     1B  151   1323   94    7  128  .995  .992  9.38  8.08
 1998 34 STL NL  1B  151   1326   97   12  128  .992  .993  9.42  8.01
 1999 35 STL NL  1B  151   1180   80   13  119  .990  .993  8.34  7.64
 2000 36 STL NL  1B   70    535   23    1   49  .998  .992  7.97  7.73  8.56  9.25   70  587.0
 2001 37 STL NL  1B   90    686   33    4   60  .994  .993  7.99  7.84  8.93  9.26   87  724.7
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+------+----+----+----+
 Position Total  1B*1763  14451 1042  103 1408  .993  .992  8.79  8.17              157 1311.7
                 DH   37   Games not counted in Overall Total below
                 3B   24     12   31    9    1  .827  .949  1.79  2.35
                 OF    4      1    0    0    0 1.000  .980  0.25  2.02                            0    0    4
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+------+----+----+----+
 Overall Total      1791  14464 1073  112 1409  .993  .992  8.68  8.08

Shaded Text indicates partial season results.

Postseason Batting


 Year Round Tm  Opp WLser  G   AB  R   H  2B 3B HR RBI  BB  SO  BA    OBP   SLG  SB CS SH SF HBP
+------------------+-----+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+---+---+---+-----+-----+-----+--+--+--+--+--+
 1988 ALCS  OAK BOS   W     4  15   4   5  0  0  1   3   1   5  .333  .375  .533  0  0  0  0  0
      WS    OAK LAD   L     5  17   1   1  0  0  1   1   3   4  .059  .200  .235  0  0  0  0  0
 1989 ALCS  OAK TOR   W     5  18   3   7  1  0  1   3   1   4  .389  .400  .611  0  0  0  1  0
      WS    OAK SFG   W     4  17   0   5  1  0  0   1   1   3  .294  .333  .353  0  0  0  0  0
 1990 ALCS  OAK BOS   W     4  13   2   2  0  0  0   2   3   3  .154  .353  .154  0  0  0  0  1
      WS    OAK CIN   L     4  14   1   3  0  0  0   0   2   4  .214  .312  .214  0  0  0  0  0
 1992 ALCS  OAK TOR   L     6  20   1   3  0  0  1   3   5   4  .150  .346  .300  0  0  1  0  1
 2000 NLDS  STL ATL   W     3   2   1   1  0  0  1   1   1   0  .500  .667 2.000  0  0  0  0  0
      NLCS  STL NYM   L     3   2   0   0  0  0  0   0   1   0  .000  .333  .000  0  0  0  0  0
 2001 NLDS  STL ARI   L     4  11   0   1  0  0  0   0   0   6  .091  .091  .091  0  0  0  0  0
+------------------+-----+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+---+---+---+-----+-----+-----+--+--+--+--+--+
  2 Lg Div Series    1-1    7  13   1   2  0  0  1   1   1   6  .154  .214  .385  0  0  0  0  0
  5 Lg Champ Series  3-2   22  68  10  17  1  0  3  11  11  16  .250  .366  .397  0  0  1  1  2
  3 World Series     1-2   13  48   2   9  1  0  1   2   6  11  .188  .278  .271  0  0  0  0  0
 10 Postseason Ser   5-5   42 129  13  28  2  0  5  14  18  33  .217  .320  .349  0  0  1  1  2
+------------------+-----+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+---+---+---+-----+-----+-----+--+--+--+--+--+

 


When the smoke cleared at the end of the 1998 season, after the most explosive home run race in the history of major league baseball, Mark McGuire emerged as the all-time single season leader with 70 home runs. The previous record of 61, held for 37 years by Roger Maris, was also surpassed by Sammy Sosa who finished the 1998 season with 66 home runs. Was Mark McGwire's 70 home runs the greatest home run season of all time? For the record books, the answer is yes. But in terms of dominating his peers, the answer would be an emphatic no.

In 1927, the year Babe Ruth hit sixty home runs, the average starter hit about six home runs. In 1961, when Roger Maris hit 61 home runs, followed by Mickey Mantle with 54 home runs, the average starter hit about 14 home runs. During 1998, the average starter hit about 17 home runs.



By comparing a player's statistics to the statistics of his contemporaries, it is possible to get a much better idea of the extent to which a player dominated a statistical category during a given year. A strong argument can be made that the greatest home run season in the history of major league baseball was Babe Ruth's 54 home runs in 1920. The year before, Ruth had set a new home run record with 29 home runs, surpassing Ned Williamson's 1884 total of 27. In 1920, millions of fans showed up to watch him dominate the home run race as no player had before as has since. At the end of the 1920 season, George Sisler was second to Ruth with 19 home runs. That same year, Gavvy Cravath won his sixth National League home run crown with 12 home runs. Ruth's dominance over the other power hitters of his day was mind boggling.

Additional support for Ruth's 1920 season being the greatest of all time can be found in the table below which provides a z-score analysis of the greatest home run seasons in major league history. To get a z-score, the average number of home runs for a given year (e.g., 6.01 in 1927) is subtracted from a player's home run total for a given year (e.g., 60 for Ruth in 1927). The remainder (e.g., 60 - 6.01 = 53.99) is then divided by the standard deviation for home runs for a given year (e.g., 8.49 in 1927). This produces a z-score of 6.36 for Ruth's 60 home runs in 1927. While Ruth's 60 home run season was a great season, the following table indicates that 1920 was the greatest season of all time. 

Player               Z-Score     Home Runs       Year     

  1. Babe Ruth         8.30          54          1920     

  2. Babe Ruth         7.48          29          1919     

  3. Babe Ruth         7.20          59          1921     

  4. Ned Williamson    6.80          27          1884     

  5. Babe Ruth         6.77          47          1926     

  6. Gavvy Cravath     6.67          24          1915     

  7. Buck Freeman      6.63          25          1899     

  8. Babe Ruth         6.36          60          1927     

  9. Fred Pfeffer      6.25          25          1884     

 10. Babe Ruth         6.00          54          1928     
Ruth's home run feats certainly stick out when a z-score analysis is performed. In comparison to the z-scores listed in the table above, Mark McGwire's 1998 z-score was 4.36 [(70-16.69)/12.23]. While this is a great accomplishment, it is nowhere near the dominating performances listed in the above table. To obtain a z-score of 8.30 in 1998, a player would have had to hit 118 home runs, almost doubling the previous record of 61. That is basically what Ruth did in 1920. If one player hit 118 home runs, while the next best player remained in the 50 or 60 home run range, he would become a mythical figure. That was the impact that Ruth had on the game of baseball with his dominating home run performances which began in 1919.

The table below provides a list of the greatest home run seasons of all time. The fact that seven of the top thirteen occurred during the past three seasons demonstrates that we are currently in an unprecedented home run era. Some of the possible causes for the proliferation of home runs that have been entertained are a dilution of pitching talent due to league expansion and a declining minor league; and stronger players due to nutrition, weight training and performance enhancing drugs. Whatever the reason for the home runs, Mark McGwire is not alone in conquering old home run records. Sammy Sosa, Ken Griffey Jr. and many other players have also been having Ruthian years lately. 

Player                    Home Runs       Year     

  1. Mark McGwire             70          1998     

  2. Sammy Sosa               66          1998     

  3. Mark McGwire             65          1999     

  4. Sammy Sosa               63          1999     

  5. Roger Maris              61          1961     

  6. Babe Ruth                60          1927     

  7. Babe Ruth                59          1921     

  8. Jimmie Foxx              58          1932     

  8. Hank Greenberg           58          1938     

  8. Mark McGwire             58          1997     

  11. Ken Griffey Jr.         56          1997     

  11. Ken Griffey Jr.         56          1998     

  11. Hank Wilson             56          1930     
The purpose of this article is not to diminish the great performances of Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Ken Griffey, Jr. over the past three years, but to put them in perspective. One of the great things about the 1998 season was that it sparked an interest in baseball history. Fans were reminded of the many insults Roger Maris had to endure during the 1961 season as he threatened Babe Ruth's record. They also remembered the commissioner of baseball, Ford Frick, placing an asterisk next to Maris' record because he took 162 games to get the record, while Babe had done it in 154 games. The asterisk was eventually removed, but only a few years after Maris' death in 1985.

While Maris was made to endure an asterisk next to his record (sic), Josh Gibson never had a chance to be in the record books because of the color of his skin. In 1936, he hit 84 home runs in 170 games. Some of those home runs came in Negro National League games where the pitching was of major league quality, but some of the home runs came against semi-pro teams, so comparisons are difficult. Nonetheless, those who saw both players perform claim that Gibson was equal to Ruth as a home run hitter. McGwire and Sosa's 1998 competition help remind us of the great players of the past.

In James A. Riley's article, "Don't Forget Gibson's Power," he recalls the night McGwire hit his 62nd home run against the Chicago Cubs, breaking Maris' 37 year old record. After breaking the record, "he (McGwire) graciously embraced Sammy Sosa, including him in the spotlight as America celebrated." Then Riley asks, "Wouldn't it have been great if Ruth and Gibson could have been afforded the same opportunity to chase the home run record together?" Let us celebrate McGwire's new record and the enjoyable 1998 season, but before we begin the next century, let us also remember Maris' great season, and the dominance of Gibson and Ruth in their respective leagues during the first half of this century.

In one of the most dramatic revelations in the arena of sports supplementation, high-profile slugger and current American sports icon Mark McGuire reported on Wednesday August 4, 1999 that he had discontinued taking the dietary supplement Androstenedione since May,1999.

"I don’t like the way it was portrayed like I was the endorser of the product, which I wasn’t. I don’t like how it’s portrayed, but young kids take it because of me. I don’t like that," the St. Louis slugger said.

McGuire is quickly becoming one of the most recognizable and marketable sports personalities in the world. Sidestepping any potential controversy, he is cleaning up his act and taking a hard stance against the substance. He said, "I discourage young people from taking it. If you’re old enough and you have your own mind, you can do whatever you want."

Even though it is allowed in major league baseball, Andro has become the poster child of banned substances. It has been banned by the NFL, Olympic Games, NCAA and both men’s and women’s tennis. Al Thurston and his NABF was the first natural bodybuilding sanction to ban the precursors and the NGA, according to a statement from President Andrew Bostinto, will ban Andro and other precursors that convert to steroid hormone in the liver, on January 1, 2000.

Many continue to debate the actual benefits of andro, some citing that there are none. And in yet another report, medical studies indicate that prolonged use of andro may lead to enlarged male breasts. Despite the controversy, Andro and related products are allowed by the FDA to be sold over the counter at health food stores and gyms. At least for now.

This article used by permission from Steele Jungle Publications. Subscribe now. Only ten dollars for four super issues. Check out our ad in Natural Strength Resources Section for subscription information.





About The New
"CreaBlast™" Creatine

You Will Be Stronger.

High Grade Creatine Is Here
As you may know Sharp Labs Inc. who is one of the leaders in alternative supplement research and development has finally released their mega potent high grade own creatine formula. Folks please browse our site and see why we think our creatine will outperform any other creatine product out there. There is so much nonsense talked about in this modern day creatine world and the bottom line is this!

CREATINE IS
BASICALLY ALL THE SAME

All Creatines Are Yes Pretty Much The Same Except For The Grade Of The Strain. Some Companies Mix Other Ingredients To Try To Be Unique And Others Try Liquid Formulas But The Bottom Line Is You Are Paying For The Potency Of Your Supplement, Well You Should Be!

CREATINE DOES COME
IN SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT GRADES

There Are Many Grades Of Creatine On The Market. We Could Easily Make Our CreBlast With Cheaper Grade Creatine And Sell It For $10-$15 Per Bottle And That Is A Fact. We Can Send You Proof!

THE HIGHER THE STRAIN
THE MORE EFFECTIVE THE CREATINE

Our Creatine Is Made By Our Own Private Manufacturer And With Sharp Labs Being Their Leading Supplement Formulation Team You Should Know You Are Getting Top Grade In Any One Of Our Supplements!

USE CREATINE ALONE:

ie. Not With Other Ingredients Mixed Into Your Creatine Capsule. This Does Not Mean Don't Use Any Other Supplements Just Use A Base Creatine Supplement For Your Supplement. Other Add In Ingredients Only Take Away From The Potency And Effectiveness And May Actually Break Down The Structure Of The Creatine!

YES ALL CREATINE IS IMPORTED

Sharp Labs Inc. Imports The Absolute Top Grade Creatine Available And Each Bottle Is Checked For Potency, Purity, Quality, And Utmost Freshness!


"CreaBlast™"

There is overwhelming evidence which shows that creatine supplementation does cause an increase in the amount of creatine phosphate in muscles. Harris et al (1992) conducted a study examining creatine content in the quadriceps femoris muscle in 17 subjects after supplementation of 5 g of creative monohydrate 4-6 times a day for two days. The results found a significant increase in the total creatine level in all subjects but the results were especially noticeable in those with the lowest muscle creatine store at the start of the study. To determine whether exercise could affect the amount of creatine absorbed by muscles, some of the participants followed a unique training program. During supplementation, they pedaled a bicycle ergometer for one hour each day while using only one leg to supply the pedaling force. With supplementation, the unexercised legs increased their creatine levels by about 25 percent, but the exercised legs increased their creatine levels by 37 percent. It is hypothesized that exercise increases the flow of blood to the muscles or changes the rate at which muscles absorb creative from the blood, thus improving the creatine loading effect. Another study conducted by Febbraio replicated the results obtained by Harris.

Several studies also show that creatine supplementation does cause an increase in muscle strength. Earnest et al (1995) conducted a study investigating the influence of creatine monohydrate supplementation on muscular power and strength in 10 experienced weight trained male subjects. Three series of high intensity, anaerobic type muscular workouts were used. The first series consisted of three consecutive 30 second Wingate bike tests, followed by five minuets of rest. Peak anaerobic power was defined as the greatest power achieved in a given five second work interval. Anaerobic work was defined as the total amount of work performed in a 30 second period. The second series used a one repetition maximum (lRM) free weight bench press as a test of muscular strength. The third series utilized complete lifting repetitions at 70% of the bench press IRM until fatigue. Fatigue was defined as the inability to complete one lifting repetition or the inability to maintain a lifting cadence of one second eccentric and one second concentric (lifting and lowering the weight). Total lifting volume was calculated as 70% of pre-test IRM multiplied by the number of complete lifting repetitions. Subjects received either a glucose placebo or creatine monohydrate supplement in a double blind fashion. (After 14 days of supplementation, each subject was re-tested on the Wingate bike tests. Re-testing for the weight lifting trials was done after 28 days of supplementation.

Within the creatine group, total anaerobic work from the Wingate tests was significantly higher during all post-test trials. The increases were 13% for series one, 18% for series two and 18% for series three. No changes were noted in the placebo group. Greater total anaerobic work resulted from the creatine subject's ability to achieve and maintain higher levels of anaerobic power consistently over- each five second time interval. Bench press IRM increased 6% in the creatine group. Total lifting volume was significantly higher within the creatine group, whether expressed in absolute terms (26%) or relative terms (29%). Increases in the total lifting volume were associated with the ability of the creatine group to perform 26% more lifting repetitions. The authors conclude that the ability of the creatine group to perform a greater total lifting volume demonstrates the effectiveness of creatine as an ergogenic aid.

In Hultman's study (cited in Anderson, 1974) these results were replicated. Each day, creatine was given in six separate doses of five grams a day. During the six-day period, five other Estonian runners of comparable ability received a glucose placebo instead. All runners were unaware of the actual composition of their supplements. Before and after the six-day supplementation, the athletes ran four 300-meter and (on a separate day) four 1000-meter intervals, with three minutes of rest between the 300-meter intervals and four minutes of rest between the 1000-meter intervals. Improvement on the final 300-meter interval (from pre-to-post supplementation) was more than twice as great for creatine users, and improvement was more than three times as great for creatine supplements in the final 1000-meter interval. Total time to run all four 1000-meter intervals improved from 770 to 757 seconds after creatine supplementation. In comparison, the placebo group actually slowed from 774 to 775 seconds.

In Hultman's study (cited by Anderson, 1994) creatine supplementation was very important during the last interval of each workout. Creatine supplementers doubled their advantage during the final 300-meter interval and tripled their advantage in the closing 1000-meter sprint. This supports Hultman's hypothesis that creatine is likely to be most helpful when lactic acid levels are highest and fatigue is greatest. Hultman thus feels that creatine serves as a buffer lowering lactic acid muscle burn and delaying fatigue, thus allowing an athlete to perform longer workouts.

In contrast, Balsom at al (1993) investigated the influence of creatine supplementation on endurance exercise performance in the form of a 6 km run and showed that creatine supplementation does not enhance performance or increase peak oxygen uptake during prolonged continuous exercise. There was actually decreased performance in the creatine supplementation group, which may be attributed to the participants weight gain.

In support of Balsam et al (1993), Febbraio et al (1995) conclude that creatine supplementation "may not increase performance during exercise where a significant proportion of energy is derived form aerobic metabolism." This aerobic metabolism occurs during more prolonged, sustained exercise as opposed to anaerobic metabolism which occurs during fast, nonsustained muscle contractions. It is therefore more likely that if creatine supplementation has an effect it will only be seen during brief, anaerobic exercise such as sprinting or weight lifting.

As you may or may not know, creatine monohydrate will not fully dissolve in liquid. That's why you always get that gritty sand at the bottom of the glass. Look at it this way, if it falls like sand to the bottom of your glass what does it do in your stomach? Maybe that explains why so many complain of stomach discomfort when using regular creatine monohydrate.

New High Grade "CreaBlast" Creatine
With Sharp Labs Inc.'s endless strive for excellence in all phases of sports supplement science and manufacturing we have finally released our new high grade ultra pure new creatine supplement that incorporates state-of-the-art particle micronizing technology.

This technology sets a new standard for creatine monohydrate supplementation by actually producing creatine "micro-particles" that are 20 times smaller than regular creatine powder.

High grade micronized creatine has numerous advantages over regular creatine monohydrate.

Faster Absorption
"CreaBlast" Creatine's smaller particle size means quicker digestion and faster utilization. Our capsules are packed with these tiny crea-particles and release superior performance.

More Efficient
 20 times more total surface area for greater uptake into the bloodstream.

Greater Purity
 Micronizing creatine produces a more pure creatine. By increasing the total processing steps and purification procedures, "CreaBlast" yields a finished product substantially more pure. Test it. We challenge you.

Mixes Easier and Better
 "CreaBlast" Creatine has 20 times more surface area. Greater service area means easier, faster and more complete mixing.

No Stomach Upset
 Regular creatine monohydrate sits in the gut longer. This causes discomfort to many users. CreaBlast Micronized Creatine goes into solution better and leaves the gut quicker causing no stomach upset.

Better Results
 New "CreaBlast" Micron High grade Creatine offers 2000% more particle surface area for better utilization, better uptake, and faster results.

Drink Plenty of Liquids!
 Creatine works by enhancing muscle cell hydration. It is very important to consume adequate fluids while taking creatine to see best results. A good rule of thumb is to drink an EXTRA 16 to 20 ounces of liquid for every 5 grams of creatine you take.

During your Loading Phase you should be drinking an EXTRA 64 to 80 ounces of liquid than you normally drink. During the maintenance phase you should drink an EXTRA 32 to 40 ounces.

Order "CreaBlast™" Now!



To See The Latest In Next Generation Bodybuilding Supplements And Safe Alternatives To Steroids Please Click Below To Learn More About "SHOW-TECH"™! SHOW-TECH™ Is One Of Our Most Exciting And Long Time Products To Help Men And Women Alike Achieve The Fullest Potential In Muscle Compostion And Definition Without The Dangers Of Harmful Steroids! Our Proven Cell Volumization Formula Works For Nothing Short Of Amazing Results With Muscle Growth Guaranteed To Everyone! Perfect For All Levels Of Bodybuilding From The Beginner To The Professional Bodybuilding Competitor! Superior Lean Mass Gains Now Without Those Illegal And Potentially Deadly Steroids!







Web Author: Sharp Labs Inc.™
SEE WHAT SHOW-TECH™ CAN DO FOR YOU!
Hardcore Bodybuilding Without Testosterone Abuse At Its Best!
Copyright2006 And Up - Sharp Labs Inc.
"ALL RIGHTS RESERVED"


BUY NOW ! - CLICK HERE !!
SAFEST, FASTEST WAY TO BIGGER MUSCLE !


Order Explosive Muscle Growth Now!
SENSATIONAL DEFINITION! ** CLICK HERE ** AMAZING RESULTS REALLY!
Legal, Safe Alternative To Steroid With Huge Testosterone Gains! Mark Maguire Story Above!