Captn_the
Banned
- Awards
- 0
Go!
Yea. I don't like that guy. He just doesn't seem legit.That Stoppani paper is suspect as hell
The majority of those papers are meaningless. Half are just about leucine by itself and the rest don't address ratios. The are just random amino papers
I can say that I've never felt a difference between them.
I've used both and to be honest, I don't waste much time thinking/worrying about it.
Oh yeah well <appeal to authority> and did you even consider <quotes from people I'm a fan of>. Additionally <arbitrary> pullquotes that support my perspective>RE: Laynes quote
He starts by saying leucine depletes the other aminos and cites some work that shows this. Ok... but what does this have to do with ratios? This is an argument against leucine taken independently (i.w. dont take leucine on its own cause it depletes other aminos)
So that is really a bad argument against blend ratios but for the sake of discussion lets pretend that makes sense. Now what? How does thins effect lbm gains? Answer.. we dont know. He even admits this much - "we believe that over time that it could actually short circuit protein synthesis because you’ll have a lack of substrate". Or in other words, we think it could hurt MPS but arent sure. So even after pretending the first part was relevant, the argument is at best, shaky.
The end of that quote by Layne's pretty much sums up the answer here - "We don’t know"
We don't know if higher ratio blends will deplete other amino substrates and we dont know if it does, what the consequence of that is, especially on MPS.
and again, all those studies you linked are essentially meaningless , unless you wanna point out any specific takeways from them that are applicable here
it is just discussion thats all. If you wanted to question Layne you could always email himRE: Laynes quote
He starts by saying leucine depletes the other aminos and cites some work that shows this. Ok... but what does this have to do with ratios? This is an argument against leucine taken independently (i.w. dont take leucine on its own cause it depletes other aminos)
So that is really a bad argument against blend ratios but for the sake of discussion lets pretend that makes sense. Now what? How does thins effect lbm gains? Answer.. we dont know. He even admits this much - "we believe that over time that it could actually short circuit protein synthesis because you’ll have a lack of substrate". Or in other words, we think it could hurt MPS but arent sure. So even after pretending the first part was relevant, the argument is at best, shaky.
The end of that quote by Layne's pretty much sums up the answer here - "We don’t know"
We don't know if higher ratio blends will deplete other amino substrates and we dont know if it does, what the consequence of that is, especially on MPS.
and again, all those studies you linked are essentially meaningless , unless you wanna point out any specific takeways from them that are applicable here
Definitely 2:1:1@10g
Which i agree with ^^^I agree 2:1:1 is the most studied, no arguing that. I'm partial to 4:1:1 myself due to the added benefit of slightly higher Leucine content. I am not a fan of the 8-12:1 ratios though as I feel you reach a diminishing point of returns with Leucine
The study Norton is referring to is -> Leucine stimulates clearance of indispensable amino acids. FASEB Journal. 1999;13:A908, but I cant find it anyone. It is cited in his dissertation. The author of it is Layman who was Norton's mentor so maybe he never got a pubbed and just gave Norton a copy? The gist of it was that they hooked rats up to a IV of leucine and saw that MPS increased but then as time went on the other aminos concentrations started to decrease. So really they takeaway here is about PROLONGED leucine and not really against amount. At least not directly but I can see how you can base some hypotheses from this against more leucine.I'm struggling to find which study you posted The Solution that shows that the other two aminos are reduced with Leucine administration. I've skimmed over them all, but I can't find it.
Does anyone have more information on this? More specifically I'd like to know whether the depletion was transient and how long after administration the effects were monitored for, because those factors are key to understanding whether or not it actually matters.
Yes I agree on hype.. Leucine gets a lot of hype from people so companies know they can make that $$$ of newbies on outrageous formulas.. I do like 1 product that's a 10:1:1 but really due to the surplus of extra goodies in the productSome very well balanced posts. I've always stuck to 2:1:1 - the rest being industry hype. I do find adding in unflavoured electrolytes improves my WO.
My boy is wicked smart But to answer the original question, both "feel" the same.The study Norton is referring to is -> Leucine stimulates clearance of indispensable amino acids. FASEB Journal. 1999;13:A908, but I cant find it anyone. It is cited in his dissertation. The author of it is Layman who was Norton's mentor so maybe he never got a pubbed and just gave Norton a copy? The gist of it was that they hooked rats up to a IV of leucine and saw that MPS increased but then as time went on the other aminos concentrations started to decrease. So really they takeaway here is about PROLONGED leucine and not really against amount. At least not directly but I can see how you can base some hypotheses from this against more leucine.
There is however this paper http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17878223 Again they did a leucine infusion and saw aminos decrease but this time it was in pigs (which believe it or not is a pretty good animal model for humans) what they found was that leucine alone can not stimulate MPS in meaningful way without other amino substrates. Again, not an argument against higher blend amino mixes.
or.. and this is just an idea.. but perhaps you can refrain from link bombing studies and quoting authors, until you at least have an understanding of what you are talking about.it is just discussion thats all. If you wanted to question Layne you could always email him
[email protected] or [email protected] (Scivation Owner)
Lets ask you this then. Take PES Amino Based productor.. and this is just an idea..
If you can't defend the position, don't perpetuate said position. If you think 2:1:1 is better that's fine but dont pretend to say this opinion is based on research or science when you dont understand the science or research behind, say you feel 2:1:1 is better, because Norton says so. Posting links to studies insinuates those papers support your position and the majority of people on this board are just gonna assume they do and wont read them and then as a result think 2:1:1 is better because science when reality doesnt really reflect this
2:1:1 has worked fine for me. It is the most studied ratio and is the closest ratio to natural food sources high in BCAAs such as And as others have mention no need to overdo any one particular amino acid. Save the extra money and put it towards some extra Whey, Casein, Eggs, Beef, Chicken, Pork...etc.
Why do others in this thread agree about the 2:1:1 ratio then?I agree 2:1:1 is the most studied, no arguing that. I'm partial to 4:1:1 myself due to the added benefit of slightly higher Leucine content. I am not a fan of the 8-12:1 ratios though as I feel you reach a diminishing point of returns with Leucine
Then why does layne back his Carbon product with his own BCAA research and other pubmed research?You're completely missing his point.
You can't conclusively say that either is better, I'm very much confident given the current published research that you can't, especially in an adequately fed context in terms of your all-day nutrition.
Show me a study showing that 2:1:1 BCAAs are superior to 8:1:1 BCAAs?Then why does layne back his Carbon product with his own BCAA research and other pubmed research?
Why does Stoppani back his products that use a 2:1:1 Ratio blend with his own research as well?
Why don't other companies provide studies that create 8:1:1 or 10;1:1 products to show how effective they are, or why they would be superior on the market?
If they want to market their product and teach consumers why their product is superior don't you think they would put forth the time and money to back the product, its claims, and the reasoning behind the decision on their BCAA blend?
now you agree..
Layne and Stoppani back their products with the most studied ratio for BCAA supplements.
This goes back to Post #1 + the others in this thread that said the same thing.You won't feel a BCAA product different at a 2:1:1 or 4:1:1 ratio, but 2:1:1 is the most heavily researched for BCAA products. More leucine is not always better because once you a reach a maximum leucine threshold more will not help activate MPS (Muscle Protein Synthesis to a larger degree)
2:1:1 has worked fine for me. It is the most studied ratio and is the closest ratio to natural food sources high in BCAAs such as And as others have mention no need to overdo any one particular amino acid. Save the extra money and put it towards some extra Whey, Casein, Eggs, Beef, Chicken, Pork...etc.
I agree 2:1:1 is the most studied, no arguing that. I'm partial to 4:1:1 myself due to the added benefit of slightly higher Leucine content. I am not a fan of the 8-12:1 ratios though as I feel you reach a diminishing point of returns with Leucine
Did I say they are better?and if that is the case then why are 8:1:1 or 10:1:1 better? Seeing their products use 2:1:1 Ratio
which is what i was asking all along.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Kinda forgot how Epistane feels.... | Anabolics | 1 | ||
Feels weird not to see Rich Piana anymore. | Pro Bodybuilding | 5 | ||
1 week off ostarine feels.... | Anabolics | 3 | ||
Feelsbadman.jpg on clomid. Just me? | Anabolics | 13 | ||
Phosphatidyl Choline feels like ... | Supplements | 17 |