BCAA's a must or hype?

[Admin]

Times change - but these values have remained stagnent for a while. Is it not fair to ask for some kind of reference to back up a claim?

Not really. Those values have fluctuated a bit over the last 15 years.

Who said asking for references is bad? What are you even talking about?

 

[Jiigzz]

?? ^^^ I didn't say BCAAs "transform into" protein. I said BCAAs basically form muscle from the other aminos and they are anti-catabolic. Who said BCAAs for structural protein?

Everyone is always getting up in arms about BCAAs, or anything that isn't $10/kg. You can just avoid free form aminos if you do not like
what they are proposed to do.

Leucine rich protein is anti catabolic. When you eat meat, you have all the aminos right there ready to rumble. When you only have BCAAs, then you need the others to fill in the gaps.

You still need all the other aminos to create a protein.

 

[Chuck Diesel]

Leucine rich protein is anti catabolic. When you eat meat, you have all the aminos right there ready to rumble. When you only have BCAAs, then you need the others to fill in the gaps.

You still need all the other aminos to create a protein.

I didn't say you do not need the other aminos to make protein. I also didn't say anything about leucine rich protein. When you eat meat you have all the arginine there to increase Nitric Oxide, does a steak preworkout give you pumps?

 

[Chuck Diesel]

Leucine rich protein is anti catabolic. When you eat meat, you have all the aminos right there ready to rumble. When you only have BCAAs, then you need the others to fill in the gaps.

You still need all the other aminos to create a protein.

Wait what is your argument? That BCAAs in free form serve no purpose?

 

[Jiigzz]

Not really. Those values have fluctuated a bit over the last 15 years.

Who said asking for references is bad? What are you even talking about?

A lot happens in 15 years, but generally things get more precise as measuring techniques become more accurate. Will they change again? Perhaps. But id like to see something on 0.8g/kg with added BCAAs performing equal to a 1.8g/kg diet. If that doesnt exist, then its just speculation.

Id like to read scivations study to see what they uncover

 

[Jiigzz]

Wait what is your argument? That BCAAs in free form serve no purpose?

No. Not at all.

That BCAAs can replace protein in the diet.

 

[Chuck Diesel]

No. Not at all.

That BCAAs can replace protein in the diet.

I feel if you are trying to build more muscle, excess protein doesn't mean you will automatically build more muscle. Like I said excess protein is the #1 cause of excess ammonia in the body. I didn't say, replace 1/2 of your min. protein requirement with BCAAs.

 

[Admin]

A lot happens in 15 years, but generally things get more precise as measuring techniques become more accurate. Will they change again? Perhaps. But id like to see something on 0.8g/kg with added BCAAs performing equal to a 1.8g/kg diet. If that doesnt exist, then its just speculation.

Id like to read scivations study to see what they uncover

I agree but I'm not sure thats what he's saying. I can easily find studies that show BCAA's do nothing. In fact, I used to post them along with the glutamine studies. I have no problem with anyone believing that. I have found that for me, when I was 32 they did absolutely nothing. At 42, they help with recovery and DOMS and if you told me at 32 that would happen, I would say you're full of ****

 

[thebigt]

Which has changed more times than Hillary has lied.

that would be a whole lot of changes....

 

[JudoJosh]

Based on what?

Protein intake is diet.. moreover, it is pretty clear where the 'optimal' level of protein intake currently sits. 0.8g/kg is optimal for the non training population - if you think their demands and our demands are equal, you maaay want to do more research.

Meh.. im being nit picky here I know, but this is wrong. We can not really define what is "optimal" yet. We have an idea but far from definitive (and prolly never will be considering the insane amount of context present)

 

[Jiigzz]

Meh.. im being nit picky here I know, but this is wrong. We can not really define what is "optimal" yet. We have an idea but far from definitive (and prolly never will be considering the insane amount of context present)

Hence my quotations the main point was that exercise, particularly strength training, has a greater demand for protein than a sedentary person. Sure, the numbers are just that, but I see them more as a representation of scale - the more demand you place on the muscular system, the more substrate required to maintain/ grow the existing base.

Numbers are arbitrary and can easily be changed, but I think the general premise will always hold true.

Edit: I see where I went wrong, shouldnt have said it is clear where 'optimal' is. Should have said based on current guidelines.

 

[Chuck Diesel]

I agree but I'm not sure thats what he's saying. I can easily find studies that show BCAA's do nothing. In fact, I used to post them along with the glutamine studies. I have no problem with anyone believing that. I have found that for me, when I was 32 they did absolutely nothing. At 42, they help with recovery and DOMS and if you told me at 32 that would happen, I would say you're full of ****

Thats how I was with antioxidants and joint formulas. At 30 I was like useless......now I'm like **Mandatory**

I never ate over about 80g of protein a day and went from 5'7" 129lbs in 1995 to 5'7" 215lbs in 2003 same body fat, cant stomach pretty much no protein powder except from peas and don't like drinking that often. I have always wanted to use BCAAs since 2005 but got bad headaches from the as-k in them. BUT I got a crap load of research over the years on the anti-catabolic effects of free form BCAAs, the ammonia scavenging properties etc etc.

I wish I had time to train like I did back then, I'm going to add 16g of BCAAs a day to see where it takes me over the next 3 month.

 

[uforce]

sub'd

 

[Admin]

Why is it either a must or just all hype? Why is it being pigeion holed into extreme ends of the spectrum? Like everything, it is a bit more nuanced and contextual than simply good or bad.

Are they helpful? Possibly
Do you NEED them? No
Can you make progress without them? Yes
Would that progress be made better with the addittion of them? Possibly

this

this again

and again.

 

[uforce]

got bad headaches from the as-k in them.

this must be why certain BCAAs give me headaches??

 

[JudoJosh]

Not really. Those values have fluctuated a bit over the last 15 years.

Who said asking for references is bad? What are you even talking about?

Ehh.. it's been pretty consistent for the most part in the academic side, the internet and gym world may have flactuated some, but research wise, it's been pretty steady.

The 1.7-1.8g/kg is based off a paper from 1996 and it hasn't really deviated much from that since (PMID 8700446).

We knew since the late 80s (PMID 2745350) that athletes needed more then .8g/kg and I'm the early 90s knew strength athletes needed even more (1.5-2.0g/kg via PMID 1844991)

So this wasn't so much of a flip flopping all over hut a zeroing in with the range getting narrow and narrow until it hit 1.8g/kg in 96 and hasn't really changed much since

 

[Chuck Diesel]

this must be why certain BCAAs give me headaches??

For me im 100% sure it is and I do know from being in manufacturing it take about 3-5x the as-k and sucralose to flavor a bcaa over a say preworkout. Same reason why some ppl get bad stomach aches on bcaas

I rem one time I got a product sample of one of my products and they didnt know it was sup to be as-k free. I took it....instant headache and stomach ache.

Edit: I didnt know the,sampe had as-k

 

[Admin]

Ehh.. it's been pretty consistent for the most part in the academic side, the internet and gym world may have flactuated some, but research wise, it's been pretty steady.

The 1.7-1.8g/kg is based off a paper from 1996 and it hasn't really deviated much from that since (PMID 8700446).

We knew since the late 80s (PMID 2745350) that athletes needed more then .8g/kg and I'm the early 90s knew strength athletes needed even more (1.5-2.0g/kg via PMID 1844991)

So this wasn't so much of a flip flopping all over hut a zeroing in with the range getting narrow and narrow until it hit 1.8g/kg in 96 and hasn't really changed much since

I didn't know you were around in the 80's.

 

[Chuck Diesel]

Ehh.. it's been pretty consistent for the most part in the academic side, the internet and gym world may have flactuated some, but research wise, it's been pretty steady.

The 1.7-1.8g/kg is based off a paper from 1996 and it hasn't really deviated much from that since (PMID 8700446).

We knew since the late 80s (PMID 2745350) that athletes needed more then .8g/kg and I'm the early 90s knew strength athletes needed even more (1.5-2.0g/kg via PMID 1844991)

So this wasn't so much of a flip flopping all over hut a zeroing in with the range getting narrow and narrow until it hit 1.8g/kg in 96 and hasn't really changed much since

Ive never needed over 80g a day. Right now I prob get 60g protein 5x a week. Maybe 100g 2x a week. I should be 140lbs....

 

[JudoJosh]

If I'm not mistaken, I think the point Chuck Diesel is trying to make is that, protein intake above a certain limit ceases to be beneficial (doesnt necessarily = more gains) and instead may be detrimental to health (hence the ammonia point he keeps bringing up randomly). But what one can do is to take in BCAAs.

The mistake being made though is the assertation that the BCAAs *WILL* be beneficial at this point. They *MAY* be beneficial and if so prolly via different routes then protein (such as won't be more anabolic but may aid in recovery or help fatigue or whatever else).

The second mistake is this assertation that a "crap load" of research or "bazillion" papers exist that support his claims. That simply isn't true (notice the lack of citations here). We do have *SOME* evidence that BCAAs might be helpful in certain scenerios/under certain conditions, but it honestly still isn't that all clear yet.

Personally my take is, if *YOU* find them helpful, then have at it. If you don't take it and wanna know will they help definetely? The answer is, I dunno. It is possible and the best thing you can do is prolly give it a shot for yourself and see. Won't hurt so have at it.

 

[JudoJosh]

I didn't know you were around in the 80's.

We as the academic/research collective. Although I was around in the 80s but at that point more obsessed then my wee wee then with protein research (only slightly more obsessed with it then I am now)

 

[Chuck Diesel]

My argument is ^^^ for the most part...but im not posting a bunch of pubmed studies on aminos at 1030pm so yeah there is a lack of citations. Theres Citations on my site. Also if bcaas were the price of Creatine everyone who is a memember of AM would use them. If whey was $40 a lb everyone would b like "whey is useless."

 

[Admin]

We as the academic/research collective. Although I was around in the 80s but at that point more obsessed then my wee wee then with protein research (only slightly more obsessed with it then I am now)

There is no academic/research collective. Its a collection of bickering ego's. :lol:

 

[JudoJosh]

Ive never needed over 80g a day. Right now I prob get 60g protein 5x a week. Maybe 100g 2x a week. I should be 140lbs....

Great for you! You must save a decent amount of money only needing that low of a protein intake.

Unfortunately when speaking about the demographic as a whole thiugh, 1.8g/kg is the reccomended amount as that is what the literature supports at this time.

 

[JudoJosh]

There is no academic/research collective. Its a collection of bickering ego's.

Like you wouldn't believe

 

[Chuck Diesel]

Great for you! You must save a decent amount of money only needing that low of a protein intake.

Unfortunately when speaking about the demographic as a whole thiugh, 1.8g/kg is the reccomended amount as that is what the literature supports at this time.

Yep only eat 3x a day. No meal prep. I do like rice crispy treats and apples between meals but not much protein in those.

 

[Admin]

Like you wouldn't believe

Try UPenn instead of Temple. You will re-evaluate the meaning of ego.

 

[Chuck Diesel]

Its like when MRI released NO2 in 2003, everyone was prob like "you get enoght arginine from food, why take free form arginine...get ur pumps from egg whites"

 

[JudoJosh]

Try UPenn instead of Temple. You will re-evaluate the meaning of ego.

Lol... I did an internship at UPenn in their ExPhys lab so worked with a few of their exercise science researchers. Gonna be some interesting papers coming out of their lab soon on exercise & cancer.

 

[JudoJosh]

Try UPenn instead of Temple. You will re-evaluate the meaning of ego.

By the way, I like that you remembered where I got my UG from. It helps to perpetuate my delusion that people pay attention to me

 

[Jiigzz]

Its like when MRI released NO2 in 2003, everyone was prob like "you get enoght arginine from food, why take free form arginine...get ur pumps from egg whites"

The principle is not the same. BCAAs are not a complete protein, nor can they become one without the other aminos being present for encoding.

But more importantly, this comment is using someones opinion rather than something grounded in research - so the comments ITT is entirely different. What has been said is not an opinion, more than it is the current consensus based on data that is available today.

But in saying that, supplemental arginine wont do much for a cosmetic pump anyway, hence why companies have phased it out

 

[Toff]

Must? No.

Good to have and everyone who trains for a living, do use them

I find im always in a fasted or dieting state as im still overweight/high fat, so I added BCAA and im seeing myself tone up nicely and not lose the muscle to become skinny fat

 

[squirtguns89]

is bringing up the point that bcaas arnt complete proteins not a bit redundant? not trying to be a wise guy srs. you eat protein=amino acids for hours no? as it takes many many hours for protein to fully digest. is it not more than likely that our demographic has more than enough complete protein being broken down pretty consistently throughout the day?

if thats as accurate, as it is logical (in my head), then the main argument should be whether or not a influx of bcaas causes enough of a benefit in its elevation of mps from leucine and other benefits, that it merits use regardless of protein content, as whole protein chains are readily available to make use of. based on that thought its always confused me with the interest in eaas, as do we not have more than enough eaas typically going through us, isnt the bcaa going to the best bang for your buck? aside from those training fasted lacking an amino acid pool to pull from.

we do know that high amounts of different singular free form amino acids have different impacts on markers than simply consuming them through whole foods.

based on those thoughts, idk why they some only recommend them while cutting in a definitive sense.

 

[Ameyer9]

If I'm not mistaken, I think the point Chuck Diesel is trying to make is that, protein intake above a certain limit ceases to be beneficial (doesnt necessarily = more gains) and instead may be detrimental to health (hence the ammonia point he keeps bringing up randomly). But what one can do is to take in BCAAs.

The study on a protein heavy diet (iirc like 2.5x recommended) found no body composition changes over regular. Meaning, excess protein may not lead to fat gain. That also being said, excess protein may not lead to more muscle mass either. IMO, too many people overdo their protein intake. Obviously there's other variables that can come in to play, but for Joe Schmo 250g of protein isn't necessary.

Would link but I can't link yet. I'm sure someone else has seen this study.

 

[Rocket3015]

That took a lot of reading to catch up....

 

[Chuck Diesel]

It's hilarious that you think you know more than i do when it comes to physiology. Holy fuk i'm dying right now. Your posts are so potato, and without any citation it's comical.

I didn't say I know more than you do about anything, I have no idea who you are. I know who I am and I know research and the sports supplement industry. Your talking about post some citations or else everything you say is BS...ok.

Go to my site, click on DIESELADE and get all the citations you want. I didn't post a link bc I don't want to seem like I'm pimping. The effects of BCAAs are more biochemistry related. I do know biochemistry.

 

[Chuck Diesel]

That took a lot of reading to catch up....

Basically, the question was "a must or hype" which what I think he wanted to ask is "are BCAAs [important] or BS"

Then it went to "BCAAs suck, eat more protein...that contains BCAAs"

This is AM, so if you post some citation for like some new herb from Madagascar done on ants and it increased their strength 200% in 20min,
then thats legit.

Things like BCAAs, the first level of supplementation above food (I count protein powder as more like food), then its like "oh hell no, BCAAs are useless."

BTW I'm up for AM cardio, not to did in the crates to post citations.

 

[Chuck Diesel]

based on those thoughts, idk why they some only recommend them while cutting in a definitive sense.

This is because there are specific human studies that say during a calorie restricted state, or fasting, BCAAs decreased muscle breakdown. Your other points make sense, except free form aminos do more for your anabolic window than "extra protein powder," because they do not take 1-3h to break down. There was this study that says older people take about 3hours to break down protein from a food source. Extra protein also has to be digested.

You know, it is almost like saying why take hydrolyzed whey when you can take casein.

 

[JudoJosh]

The study on a protein heavy diet (iirc like 2.5x recommended) found no body composition changes over regular. Meaning, excess protein may not lead to fat gain. That also being said, excess protein may not lead to more muscle mass either. IMO, too many people overdo their protein intake. Obviously there's other variables that can come in to play, but for Joe Schmo 250g of protein isn't necessary.

Would link but I can't link yet. I'm sure someone else has seen this study.

Sounds like you are talking about Antonio et al, paper. There has been some recent investigation into protein overfeeding and I believe his lab is doing more also with different (re better) controls so there should be more overfeeding papers coming soon.

 

[JudoJosh]

This is because there are specific human studies that say during a calorie restricted state, or fasting, BCAAs decreased muscle breakdown.

Compared to what?

Compared to taking nothing, sure they will help.

Compared to taking protein, ehh not so clear here.

 

[Chuck Diesel]

Compared to what?

Compared to taking nothing, sure they will help.

Compared to taking protein, ehh not so clear here.

My point is not compared to protein, my point is IF BCAAs are useless. Like I said before, its not
an issue of BCAAs vs Protein. I said in another thread a few days ago, if I do not do anything
I need to change the way people see BCAAs. They are a supplement, not protein. Protein is
like a food. So the reason why I use the Arginine comparison is, it is an amino acid that has
a place as a supplement. Taurine is an amino acid that has a place as a supplement. The
"just eat more protein" is what I am trying to get people away from with BCAAs. Another one
is carnitine. Carnitine has very beneficial effects when taking around a workout to reduce CK
and this other muscle damaging enzyme LDH. I wouldn't say just eat more protein for the benefits
of carnitine, arginine and also BCAAs.

 

[Admin]

Compared to taking protein, ehh not so clear here.

Is to me.

 

[JudoJosh]

My point is not compared to protein, my point is IF BCAAs are useless. Like I said before, its not
an issue of BCAAs vs Protein. I said in another thread a few days ago, if I do not do anything
I need to change the way people see BCAAs. They are a supplement, not protein. Protein is
like a food. So the reason why I use the Arginine comparison is, it is an amino acid that has
a place as a supplement. Taurine is an amino acid that has a place as a supplement. The
"just eat more protein" is what I am trying to get people away from with BCAAs. Another one
is carnitine. Carnitine has very beneficial effects when taking around a workout to reduce CK
and this other muscle damaging enzyme LDH. I wouldn't say just eat more protein for the benefits
of carnitine, arginine and also BCAAs.

I fail to understand the comparisons you are trying to make.

 

[JudoJosh]

Is to me.

In what regard? Recovery? Gainz? Fatigue management? Etc?

 

[Admin]

In what regard? Recovery? Gainz? Fatigue management? Etc?

Recovery, DOMS.

 

[Chuck Diesel]

Recovery, DOMS.

Any citations besides your body?

 

[JudoJosh]

Recovery, DOMS.

When/how do you use the aminos?

 

[Admin]

Any citations besides your body?

Nope. In fact, most show it won't do much.

 

[Admin]

When/how do you use the aminos?

Pre-workout, before bed.

 

[Chuck Diesel]

Nope. In fact, most show it won't do much.

I was just being over the top. I got DOMS studies. Will post when Im not doing absolutely nothing.