Q: Is it true that Creatine ester is better for someone trying to keep their lines?
No, creatine ethyl ester (CEE) is not better for someone worried about "definition" and CEE has been shown to be less effective (and not effective at all) than creatine monohydrate (CRM) when the 2 where compared in a actual clinical trial (see below). Additionally water retention outside the muscle with any creatine is temporary and small, so we have physique competitors discontinue use 48-72hrs before competition although 24hrs is probably enough.
Moral of the story stick to only CRM, which has been shown in hundreds of clinical trials to be effective. CRM is the only evidence based form of creatine used for increasing size and strength and there would be no difference between the 2 forms in water outside the muscle especially if you took enough CEE possibly to work.
More info
The cellular uptake of many other substances is greatly improved when they were esterified but not creatine. Esterification is the chemical process of combining an organic acid, like creatine, with an alcohol to produce a new compound. But CEE is not stable in the blood stream, meaning most is probably not available to muscle and the ester is lost (esterified creatine is unstable in low pH conditions, and has been shown to be rapidly degraded to creatinine in stomach acid) . So the myths and distorted science around CEE are harmful to athletes for 2-reasons: 1st, because athletes are told that it is absorbed better than CRM, they can take less of it. This means that they probably are getting less than the optimal amount of creatine to their muscles. 2nd, CEE costs significantly more that CRM. Also keep in mind that even with equal doses, CEE was shown not effective while CRM was.
Research article
The effects of creatine ethyl ester supplementation combined with heavy resistance training on body composition, muscle performance, and serum and muscle creatine levels
Mike Spillane1, Ryan Schoch4, Matt Cooke1, Travis Harvey5, Mike Greenwood1, Richard Kreider3 and Darryn S Willoughby
Numerous creatine formulations have been developed primarily to maximize creatine absorption. Creatine ethyl ester is alleged to increase creatine bio-availability. This study examined how a seven-week supplementation regimen combined with resistance training affected body composition, muscle mass, muscle strength and power, serum and muscle creatine levels, and serum creatinine levels in 30 non-resistance-trained males. In a double-blind manner, participants were randomly assigned to a maltodextrose placebo (PLA), creatine monohydrate (CRT), or creatine ethyl ester (CEE) group. The supplements were orally ingested at a dose of 0.30 g/kg fat-free body mass (approximately 20 g/day) for five days followed by ingestion at 0.075 g/kg fat free mass (approximately 5 g/day) for 42 days. Results showed significantly higher serum creatine concentrations in PLA (p = 0.007) and CRT (p = 0.005) compared to CEE. Serum creatinine was greater in CEE compared to the PLA (p = 0.001) and CRT (p = 0.001) and increased at days 6, 27, and 48. Total muscle creatine content was significantly higher in CRT (p = 0.026) and CEE (p = 0.041) compared to PLA, with no differences between CRT and CEE. Significant changes over time were observed for body composition, body water, muscle strength and power variables, but no significant differences were observed between groups. In conclusion, when compared to creatine monohydrate, creatine ethyl ester was not as effective at increasing serum and muscle creatine levels or in improving body composition, muscle mass, strength, and power. Therefore, the improvements in these variables can most likely be attributed to the training protocol itself, rather than the supplementation regimen.