EL Whey Cooper. Check it. Why do people ignore it?

Page 2 of 2 First 12
  1. Board Sponsor
    USPlabsRep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,596
    Rep Power
    1712030
    Level
    56
    Lv. Percent
    48.68%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by The Solution View Post
    Or this to boot:

    Regarding the importance of postW carbs (outside of the endurance context), here are the "big 3" studies thus far that challenge the idea that postW carbs will do anything beyond a sufficient protein dose for the goal of muscle anabolism (note that the main limitation of these studies is that they are acute rather than chronic/long-term):


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17609259
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21131864
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23351781


    More in-depth discussion of the relative importance of postW carbs is here: http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/5

    Performance would come from pre-workout carbs, you dont get enhanced performance from taking something POST-workout or AFTER your workout to impact the session you just performed.
    Think about what your saying.

    Hence why Aceto is huge on pre-workout carbs,
    If you take carsb pre-workout you would utilize them as fuel
    If you dont take any carbs pre-workout are you really going to enhance performance (think fasted training or a P+F Meal)


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2206056/


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12432174


    And a good article:


    http://www.simplyshredded.com/top-10...ve-barr-2.html




    If you find any conflicts, let me know. And keep in mind what I said in the original post of this thread: "outside of the endurance context"


    Doing 60 sets of high reps & low rest = endurance work. But even then, unless you're going to hit those same muscle groups again within an insufficient timeframe to re-up glycogen stores (i.e., within the same day), then the objective of focusing on hitting your total carb target for the day (as opposed to immediately postworkout) still stands.


    Inhibiting protein breakdown, eh? If you actually read the links in the OP, you'd see this (MPS = muscle protein synthesis, MPB = muscle protein breakdown, CHO = carbohydrate):


    "The concurrent ingestion of 50 g of CHO with 25 g of protein did not stimulate mixed MPS or inhibit MPB more than 25 g of protein alone either at rest or after resistance exercise. [...] Our data suggest that insulin is not additive or synergistic to rates of MPS or MPB when CHO is coingested with a dose of protein that maximally stimulates rates of MPS." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23351781


    Similar acute anabolic response dosing thresholds have been seen with egg protein & beef. However, this dosing ceiling is higher in older subjects (40-ish g as opposed to 20-25 g).


    http://fitnfly.com/learn-about-food/nutrition-facts

    Insulin sensitivity will be optimized until optimal glycogen status is re-established, whether it be postworkout or the next day


    Intra workout carbohydrates?


    Good thread for you here on good information for intra-workout carbs too (as a general outsider look)


    In the end if it fits your calories/macros for the day if you want to use simple carbs intra/post workout its personal preference, but mostly all research will show you its not necessary for those with pre-existing meals that are overlapping or intra-workout BCAA thats are still showing present aminos in the system given the post-workout period where protein syntehsis is elevated for 24+ hours and food is still digesting. For those cutting it may be a lot harder (Satiety) wise to sacrafice intra-wrokout or postworkout simple carbs and a focus on denser caloric food choices also those with greater micronutrients.


    If you hit your calories sure it will work to aid your goal, but it comes down to preference and what you feel is optimal.

    Research indeed exists showing beneficial effects of protein intakes beyond 1 g/lb. It's not a vast body of literature, but it exists nonetheless. And the kicker is, these amounts (ranging from 2.3-2.7 g/kg depending on the study) were seen in both deficit & surplus conditions. Heck, even Stuart Phillips, known for being super-conservative, acknowledged the ultility of 1.8-2.7 g/kg for athletes in a deficit in a recent review paper. As a general rule, protein demands are higher for lean, trained athletes in an energy deficit."[/b]


    ^There's my quote, which I recently modified to include the mentioning of benefit from consuming 3.0 g/kg in this paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23645387


    Wonderpug is correct that this large amount was compared with suboptimal intake. However, I don't see the strong argument against going as high as 3.0 g/kg. If anyone wants to present one, then great; I just don't think it presents any safety risks (or other detriments) that warrant any particular caution. Additionally, 3.0 is close enough to 2.7 g/kg, which has been demonstrated to be effective (I'll get to that).


    Now, Let's take a look at where I got the 2.3-2.7 kg figures.


    Mettler et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19927027) compared 1.0 g/kg with 2.3 g/kg in lean athletic subjects in an energy deficit, and the latter outperformed the former for guarding against LBM loss. However - and this is the big point - 2.3 g/kg was still insufficient for completely preserving LBM. Notably, the subjects trained an average of 334 minutes per week (resistance training + cardio). They lost less LBM consuming 2.3 g/kg than the group consuming 1.0g/kg. Keep in mind that it's not like the subjects were starving; they consumed slightly more than 2000 kcal throughout the trial.


    Along these lines, Maestu et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300017) saw better LBM preservation than Mettler et al did, and intakes ranged 2.3-2.6 g/kg.


    Next up, we have Hoffman et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23035701), who sought to examine the effect of phosphatidic acid (PA) supplementation, but also ended up comparing different protein intakes, 2.1 g/kg in the control & 2.6 g/kg in the treatment group. The latter outperformed the former, and my hunch is that it could have been due to the higher protein intake rather than the PA specifically. It's notable that these results were seen in caloric maintenance conditions.


    Willoughby et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16988909) examined the effect of a protein & amino acid supplement & ended up observing the treatment group with an intake of ~2.7 g/kg outperform the control group, whose intake was ~2.2 g/kg. Notably, this occurred under caloric surplus conditions.


    All research has its limitations, and the aforementioned can be criticized for having the typical shortcomings of a small subject number &/or short duration.


    A paper by Phillips & Van Loon (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425) mentions the following: "To optimize the ratio of fat-to-lean tissue mass loss during hypoenergetic periods, athletes are advised to [...] increase their protein intake to ~20–30% of their energy intake or ~1.8–2.7 g/kg/day." I'm not saying that the recommendations of some of the top protein researchers should be taken as gospel, but it's worth noting that their recommendations indeed exceed ~0.8 g/lb for certain scenarios. It's not just something I personally made up because I'm a bro who likes BBing.


    I thus stand by the points I made in "The Quote" - the latest version of which I'll simply reiterate here:
    ______________________________ ___________


    [i]Research indeed exists showing beneficial effects of protein intakes beyond 1 g/lb. It's not a vast body of literature, but it exists nonetheless. And the kicker is, these amounts (ranging from 2.3-2.7 g/kg depending on the study) were seen in both deficit & surplus conditions. Heck, one of the most prolific protein researchers Stuart Phillips, known for being conservative, acknowledged the ultility of 1.8-2.7 g/kg for athletes in a deficit in a recent review paper. In a more recent paper, Phillips even pushes the upper end to 3.0 g/kg.


    As a general rule, protein demands are higher for lean, trained athletes in an energy deficit. You also have to consider the limitations of the research. Just because a certain amount of protein can prevent negative nitrogen balance does not mean this is an accurate reflection of muscle preservation (let alone an indicator of optimal intake for gain). N-bal is notorious for overestimating muscle protein status. There's even research showing positive N-balance concurrent with LBM loss. Lol, there's research showing a prevention of negative N-balance during endstage starvation as a survival defense response.


    Another confounder is that protein needs in the literature are expressed in terms of total body mass. This is sort of a necessary evil when discussing the literature, which does not express protein needs as g/kg LBM. So, when mentioning that protein needs are lower for eucaloric & hypercalorc conditions as opposed to hypocaloric conditions in lean/athletic subjects, this is in reference to *proportional* differences. ABSOLUTE needs can be quite similar among those with the same LBM. Also keep in mind that the optimal protein requirements of folks on ergogenic supplements like creatine (or AAS) have simply not been investigated, much less systematically investigated for the purpose of establishing dose-response relationships. There in all likelihood is a higher ceiling of protein dosing effectiveness in these individuals, as well as a lower threshold of protein dosing for muscle retention. Assuming that the effective protein dosage ceiling is the same in natties & enhanced athletes is foolish. Protein requirements for off-season & pre-contest bodybuilders (& other athletes) under varying degrees of deficit & surplus is still open to investigation, particularly in the context of rigorous, periodized training programs.


    You also have to realize that the figures that get spit up in study outcomes are expressed as means (averages). This means that a mixed bag of responses occurred, some substantially higher or lower than the reported mean value. If you really want to rigidly latch on to some mean value and believe that it unquestionably applies to you, then you're making quite the leap of faith.





    Which is exactly my take home point, you dont need for 99% of us an immediate protein shake right after you finish a workout or your last set of bicep curls most of us will not be going instantly catabolic and need protein ASAP

    Eric Helms of 3dmj:


    Hey folks! So I've been in New Zealand since August 2012, a year prior to that I started an extensive lit review on protein. Primarily on hypocaloric, resistance training individuals, who are not obese, with resistance training experience. There's ~8-9 total studies out there so far that look at these conditions (depending on inclusion criteria) and 6 if we're talking studies that report LBM and bodyfat (some just give bodyweight and NBAL, etc.).


    First part of my masters (which I submit this week literally) was this systematic review. Alan was actually one of the few I trusted to give it a look over in it's very initial stages, and now it's in the final stages of review at IJSNEM, it's been through 2 rounds of revisions, updates etc., and will be in press soon. The review is as systematic and non-narrative as you can get considering the limited data available and I was able to present recommendations relative to LBM vs weight which is important. A huge issue with available data is not only the methodology of nitrogen balance as Alan pointed out but also that 90% of the studies looking at protein intake give us intakes as g/unit of TOTAL bodyweight and were done on overweight and obese populations. This drives the perception of the "right" amount of protein down as the optimal intake is likely relative to LBM.


    So the review is enlightening, puts a bit more structure and hard evidence to the discussion, when it comes out on pubmed you can believe I'll be spamming it via social media



    Let me start with the good stuff about my study:
    Double Blinded (diet plans were modified with supplement powder that researchers and participants were not aware of the content of)


    So, my biases won't effect the results, we can be very sure of the compliance of the participants, individual effects can be analyzed and discussed (mean changes can mask individual results), and small effects won't be "no effect" and results won't be inappropriately labeled in a binary way (two flaws of p values). These statistical aspects are critical when discerning small changes that may matter over time. And finally, we have data on a number of relevant variables


    Next, let me point out the the downsides/limitations:
    MRI, DEXA, hydrostatic weighing and ultra sound ALL fell through due to broken equipment, the inability to fix equipment, equipment not arriving, and having a grant turned down. The realities of research hit hard. So that left with me with only anthropometry to measure changes in fat mass and lean mass. Even though some of the best anthropometrists (ISAK level 4) are here at AUT, you just can't get a reliable measure of LBM from it. You can get a reliable measure of bodyweight change and skinfold (fat mass) change though, highly reliable in fact, but not muscle or LBM.
    The final limitation is the length. Crossovers need wash outs at least twice the length of the intervention, of course the interventions are separate so they take twice as long as parallel group designs. So although the time length intervention was only 2 weeks on each diet, that was the most I could manage as I was getting ethics approval from Sep-Oct, recruiting from October all the way through June, and collecting data from Feburary to July, and my Masters thesis is due...well...now pretty much lol.


    I specifically analyzed the data with carb sources as a covariate to make sure this was not related to the large amount maltodextrin powder that comprised the 1.6g/kg groups carb intake (the 2.8g/kg group had protein powder), and the fact that not only total mood disturbance, but also specifically fatigue (which is unrelated to satiety or hunger) increased indicates this was not just due to proteins satiating effect.


    When people report stress it typically precedes or accompanies measurable physiological changes. Had the study been longer small differences in LBM changes would have become more and more detectable, if this had been a 2 month vs 2 week study would they have showed greater LBM loss in the lower protein group which might have caused the stress? Or, if we had a reliable measure of LBM would that have discerned these hard to measure changes?


    But what we can say is that in the context of a 40% caloric deficit, the 2.8g/kg protein, low fat diet was less stressful, less fatiguing, caused less diet stress and is therefore likely more sustainable. That said, I think probably an approach where you use a 20-30% deficit would be even better, this would allow you to not have such a low fat intake and might improve performance measures.


    http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-n...a-single-meal/

    http://www.machinemuscle.com/intervi...t-alan-aragon/

    "The general thrust is that people mistakenly think that there’s a strict limit to how much protein you can have per meal without anything beyond it being wasted. That’s wrong because the body is really good at utilizing nearly all the protein you throw at it, regardless of dose. The rate of entry and progression through the digestive tract is a tightly regulated process. A small amount of protein will take a few hours to be processed, while a Thanksgiving-sized portion of protein can take all day. Either way, it gets absorbed & put to use according to the homeostatic demands of the body at the time. It’s not like any amount beyond, say, 30 grams magically leaks out of your sweet arse. Those who are a touch more sophisticated will point to research showing that acute (short-term) muscle protein synthesis (MPS) plateaus at a dose of about 25-30 grams – although a recent study showed that it was closer to 40 grams in older subjects. So, the hypothesis is that more of these acute spikes in MPS through the day will translate to more muscle growth in the long-term. Well, it hasn’t worked that way with the majority of long-term studies. There are still more questions than answers in this area, like many areas of nutrition for sports & fitness.

    "Layne’s protocol’s theoretical basis is sound, at least on paper. It aims to strike a balance between avoiding the refractory nature of MPS under conditions of constantly elevated circulating amino acids, while still maximizing the number of nutrient-mediated anabolic ‘spikes’ through the day. This protocol might be appropriate for someone trying to pull the final strings to edge out the competition on a bodybuilding stage. However, I’m skeptical that this strategy would benefit those already consuming a high protein intake (which is already rich in BCAAs). For most non-competitors, I don’t see the realistic long-term sustainability of this routine.

    As for the other end of the spectrum (2-3 meals per day), this is obviously more realistic for regular people. This works out well, since the importance of muscle retention during dieting varies according to the population. The more overfat & deconditioned someone is, the greater the proportional & net loss of fat vs. muscle is when dieting. Further along the progression, the leaner & more conditioned someone is, the more muscle they stand to lose as they continue to diet. So, can low meal frequency work for competitors? Yes, it can. Is it optimal? Well, that’s a question that so far doesn’t have a definitive, science-based answer, and it might never have one. For advanced athletes in a dieting situation, the objective is to retain as much muscle as possible while losing fat, since muscle loss at this point is a more urgent threat than it is for guys coming straight off the couch. Nitpicking for advanced athletes, I‘d speculate that anything below 3 meals (technically, 3 protein feedings) per day is not optimal, regardless of program phase.

    Admittedly, the scientific basis for this is less solidly grounded than the protein recommendations. The rest of the desired results would be taken care of by the remainder of the diet. This brings me to the most important point, which is that nutrient timing is far less important than hitting the targeted macronutrient totals for the day. I would go as far as to say that attempting to precisely time nutrients is largely an exercise in jerking off hypotheses compared to hitting daily totals. -

    http://www.leangains.com/2011/04/cri...d-on-meal.html
    who is debating carbohydrates? You are all over the place.

    good read though..

  2. PESCIENCE.com
    nattydisaster's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  0 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    10,330
    Rep Power
    3607565
    Level
    84
    Lv. Percent
    14.39%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProActivity VeteranPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Philosophy View Post
    I can't understand why Whey is being crucified, I have used natural HWPI for the past year and my results have been nothing short of impressive. I must admit though my training and nutrition have been on point 95% of the time.

    Perhaps science proves a blend is optimal, it just doesn't seem as though the difference will be noticeable especially when considering one's diet.
    But what if your results could have been even greater than impressive?
    Amino-IV - Not Your Average Amino
    SELECT Protein
    - Ultra-Premium Blend
    ALPHAMINE - Thermogenics...Redefined
  3. Senior Member
    Touey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,844
    Rep Power
    3205965
    Level
    71
    Lv. Percent
    51.85%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by nattydisaster View Post
    But what if your results could have been even greater than impressive?
    It is true for the person who is also not per se the professional and have to draw the line somewhere if a budget you are trying to stay this is economical.
    Optimal way have I found is to take the two in a blend, why not?
    It is the better option giving you much advantage to the hard work you are putting into training and some small things when added up will make a great difference not just on the workout scheme but in life generally.
    "To your wife you should kiss try today"-Touey

    Brotato's bark brings shakes to the pups in the yard
    •   
       

  4. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    The Solution's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    10,772
    Rep Power
    7360990
    Level
    100
    Lv. Percent
    66.33%
    Achievements Posting VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityActivity VeteranActivity Royalty

    Quote Originally Posted by USPlabsRep View Post
    who is debating carbohydrates? You are all over the place.

    good read though..
    90% of the post had to deal with your protein intake, timing, and relevance to the entire scenario (from Alan's and Erics perspective) I could also link Lyle McDonald and his work from bodyrecomposition and his thoughts as well. martin I did towards the bottom and his popular top 10 fasting myths article found here:

    http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top...-debunked.html

    It goes to show even with a smaller meal frequency optimal results can still be found even if someone is not slamming a protein shake after their last set of bro curls and running to the locker room.

    Since you were slamming me about post-workout carbs, and intra-workout BCAA's. Are these things really that necessary if one has an adequate pre-workout meal? Those in contest prep may not be able to get post-workout carbs, so is that saying that is not optimal? absolutely not. Some people who run Keto even in an offseason or for a gaining phase are perfectly fine without carbs. While carbs are not a mandatory macronutrient yes they have plenty of benefits. And me personally find that not having them makes my performance suffer/lack, but some thrive off protein and fat. Again this is where nutrition, training, and diet cannot be as black and white as some people think it is. There is always new things, new strategies, different sources and meal plans to get people to achieve their goals. Just because someone eats 3 x a day or 6x a day but yet some individuals get better results utilizing different aspects, (intra-workout carbs, different amounts of protein per meal) etc does not mean one way is better than the other.

    This information was just food for thought and fuel for the fire. Either way its always interesting to see what works for others, and what others may be able to learn from and implement it themsleves to see how it treats them. From massive refeeds, cheat meals, TKD's, CKD's, Carb cycling etc.
    Team Inov8 Elite Performance
  5. Board Sponsor
    USPlabsRep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,596
    Rep Power
    1712030
    Level
    56
    Lv. Percent
    48.68%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by The Solution View Post
    90% of the post had to deal with your protein intake, timing, and relevance to the entire scenario (from Alan's and Erics perspective) I could also link Lyle McDonald and his work from bodyrecomposition and his thoughts as well. martin I did towards the bottom and his popular top 10 fasting myths article found here:

    http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top...-debunked.html

    It goes to show even with a smaller meal frequency optimal results can still be found even if someone is not slamming a protein shake after their last set of bro curls and running to the locker room.

    Since you were slamming me about post-workout carbs, and intra-workout BCAA's. Are these things really that necessary if one has an adequate pre-workout meal? Those in contest prep may not be able to get post-workout carbs, so is that saying that is not optimal? absolutely not. Some people who run Keto even in an .
    right on....
  6. New Member
    Philosophy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    110
    Rep Power
    100131
    Level
    17
    Lv. Percent
    5.94%

    Quote Originally Posted by nattydisaster View Post
    But what if your results could have been even greater than impressive?
    I highly doubt it would've made such a dramatic difference, considering I mainly take it post workout with added leucine. Also for the most part I train fasted in the afternoon and consume ~1,500 calories post workout which includes the shake, eggs, chicken, kangaroo meat, cottage cheese, etc. Thus my diet already contains various sources of protein.
  7. Pro Virili Parte
    JudoJosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Age
    30
    Posts
    8,995
    Rep Power
    2646729
    Level
    80
    Lv. Percent
    77.84%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Holy copy and paste...
    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
  8. Senior Member
    Touey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,844
    Rep Power
    3205965
    Level
    71
    Lv. Percent
    51.85%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Philosophy View Post
    I highly doubt it would've made such a dramatic difference, considering I mainly take it post workout with added leucine. Also for the most part I train fasted in the afternoon and consume ~1,500 calories post workout which includes the shake, eggs, chicken, kangaroo meat, cottage cheese, etc. Thus my diet already contains various sources of protein.
    I have never tried kangaroo meat what is that have a taste similar to?
    "To your wife you should kiss try today"-Touey

    Brotato's bark brings shakes to the pups in the yard
  9. New Member
    Philosophy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    110
    Rep Power
    100131
    Level
    17
    Lv. Percent
    5.94%

    Quote Originally Posted by Touey View Post
    I have never tried kangaroo meat what is that have a taste similar to?
    The taste is very similar to other meats, say chicken. However the texture is different as it is rubbery and very chewy. There are kangaroo patties also that my mum purchases which are very easy to eat, very lean and have a sweetish meaty flavour.
  10. Elite Member
    kbayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,871
    Rep Power
    5862795
    Level
    89
    Lv. Percent
    31.96%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProActivity VeteranPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by 3clipseGT View Post

    So then you would just make your meals larger in order to hit macros and utilize BCAAs between those meals? How many meals? 3-4?
    I remember reading from Layne Norton talking about taking in Leucine/BCAA in between meals. I believe he was simply stating by doing this it would allow you to not have to get in as much protein per meal throughout the day.

    http://spotmebro.com/layne-norton-ph...and-how-often/

    http://www.biolayne.com/wp-content/u...-Tech-2008.pdf
    PES Representative
    http://www.pescience.com/insider
    http://www.selectprotein.com
  11. Board Sponsor
    USPlabsRep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,596
    Rep Power
    1712030
    Level
    56
    Lv. Percent
    48.68%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by The Solution View Post
    Which many do not understand, and some people still abide by that stupid ass muscle and fitness i must throw down a shake and eat a meal 45-60 minutes later when in reality that has no proper benefits to MPS or allowing protein levels to reach their refractory stages at all. Hence Layne's MPS Research regarding less meals and BCAA useage.

    Some people just dont get it and think every 2-3 hours is a must when in reality there is no benefit towards protein synthesis due to the constant overlap of food .
    You can thank Bill Phillips and the body of life...

    every 2-3 hours is not relevant but what is, is what is consumed and how much...
  12. Board Sponsor
    USPlabsRep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,596
    Rep Power
    1712030
    Level
    56
    Lv. Percent
    48.68%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    a good read..

    This full text version gives us the answer to what to use if going with EAA only and not using any whey:

    http://jp.physoc.org/content/590/11/2751.long

    There is a dose-dependent relationship between amino acid (Bohe et al. 2003; Cuthbertson et al. 2005) and protein (Moore et al. 2009a) provision and muscle protein synthesis. We previously reported that ∼20 g of isolated egg protein (containing ∼8.6 g EAAs and ∼1.7 g leucine) stimulated muscle protein synthesis after resistance exercise above that observed with both 5 g and 10 g of protein but was not further stimulated with ingestion of 40 g of protein, indicating that 20 g of egg protein is saturating for muscle protein synthesis after resistance exercise (Moore et al. 2009a). These data are consistent with previous reports of a dose-dependent relationship between EAA ingestion and myofibrillar protein synthesis (MPS) up to a maximal stimulation at ∼10 g EAAs (containing ∼2.1 g leucine; Cuthbertson et al. 2005). These dose–response data may provide insight into why other studies (Koopman et al. 2008; Tipton et al. 2009; Glynn et al. 2010) did not report a benefit of additional leucine on muscle protein synthesis when a sufficient amount of EAAs and/or leucine is provided.


    Previous reports have demonstrated that ∼10 g of EAAs is sufficient to maximally stimulate MPS under both resting and post-exercise conditions in young healthy subjects (Cuthbertson et al. 2005; Moore et al. 2009a). We observed that LEU resulted in an early (1–3 h post-exercise) stimulation of MPS equal to that of WHEY, despite containing only ∼45% of the total EAA content (11.5 g vs. 5.1 g). This suggests that leucine can potently stimulate MPS; however, we observed a similar rise in MPS in the EAA-LEU treatment as that seen with LEU and WHEY despite containing only ∼25% of the leucine of LEU and WHEY (WHEY = 3.0 g; LEU = 3.0 g; vs. EAA-LEU = 0.75 g leucine). Thus, we speculate that in young healthy individuals, the leucine content provided by ∼6.25 g of whey protein (∼0.75 g) appears to be sufficient to activate and induce a maximal stimulation of MPS provided adequate amounts of the other EAAs are provided (i.e. amounts equivalent to ∼25 g whey protein or ∼8.5 g EAAs). Alternatively, there may be other EAAs, in addition to leucine, that can stimulate MPS. For example, valine, phenylalanine and threonine have been shown to increase human muscle protein synthesis when administered as a flooding dose (Smith et al. 1998). Further, the effect of each individual EAA on mTORC1 signalling in C2C12 myotubes showed that EAAs in addition to leucine can enhance both p70S6k and rpS6 phosphorylation (Atherton et al. 2010b), suggesting that other EAAs in addition to leucine can activate proteinsd synthetic signalling pathways.
    We previously reported that a sustained elevation of MPS occurs when resistance exercise is followed by the immediate provision of 25 g of whey protein (Moore et al. 2009b; West et al. 2011) despite aminoacidaemia equivalent to basal levels. In agreement with these findings, WHEY was able to sustain the EX-FED response over 3–5 h post-exercise recovery in the present study while MPS in both LEU and EAA-LEU had declined to resting values. These results suggest that the ability of amino acids to sustain the contraction mediated increase in MPS is not solely dependent on leucine availability as leucine AUC was matched between LEU and WHEY. However, WHEY was associated with a protracted aminoacidaemia as compared to LEU and EAA-LEU (Fig. 2A–D), which may have acted as a signal to extend the EX-FED response of MPS. Alternatively, while non-essential amino acids (NEAAs) are not necessary to ‘turn on' MPS and/or direct the magnitude of the response (Smith et al. 1998; Tipton et al. 1999b; Borsheim et al. 2002; Volpi et al. 2003), there were large differences in the amount of total NEAAs provided in each treatment (WHEY = 13.0 g; LEU = 3.3 g; EAAs = 3.3 g). Hence, it is conceivable that NEAAs may be required to sustain elevated rates of MPS under conditions of a higher ‘anabolic drive' stimulated by resistance exercise compared to feeding alone. Under such conditions, more NEAAs may be required to serve as substrates necessary for the synthesis of new muscle proteins or other functions; further studies are necessary to examine this hypothesis.
  13. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    The Solution's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    10,772
    Rep Power
    7360990
    Level
    100
    Lv. Percent
    66.33%
    Achievements Posting VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityActivity VeteranActivity Royalty

    Quote Originally Posted by USPlabsRep View Post
    You can thank Bill Phillips and the body of life...

    every 2-3 hours is not relevant but what is, is what is consumed and how much...
    and i have already pointed that out, but it seems like nobody read that.

    http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-n...a-single-meal/

    Research examining speed of absorption

    A thorough literature review by Bilsborough and Mann compiled data from studies by various investigators who measured the absorption rates of various protein sources [6]. Oddly, an amino acid mixture designed to mimic the composition of pork tenderloin made the top spot, at 10 g/hour, while whey took a close second at 8-10 g/hour. Other proteins fell in their respective spots below the top two, with little rhyme or reason behind the outcomes. As a matter of trivia, raw egg protein was the most slowly absorbed of them all at 1.3 g/hour.

    It’s important to note that these data have some serious limitations. A major one is the variance of the methods used to determine the absorption rates (i.e., intravenous infusion, oral ingestion, ileal ingestion). Most of the methods are just too crude or far-fetched for serious consideration. Another limitation is that these figures could be skewed depending upon their concentration in solution, which can affect their rate of gastric evacuation. Another factor to consider is the timing of ingestion relative to exercise and how that might differentially affect absorption rates. Finally, short-term data leaves a lot open to question.

    Short-term research supporting the magic limit

    I’ve heard many folks parrot that the maximal anabolic effect of a single protein dose is limited to 20 grams, citing recent work by Moore and colleagues [7]. In this study’s 4-hour post-exercise test period, 40 g protein did not elicit a greater anabolic response than 20 g. I’d interpret these outcomes with caution. Fundamentally speaking, protein utilization can differ according to muscle mass. The requirements of a 140-lb person will differ markedly from someone who’s a lean 200. Additionally, a relatively low amount of total volume was used (12 sets total). Typical training bouts usually involve more than one muscle group and are commonly at least double that volume, which can potentially increase the demand for nutrient uptake. Finally, the conclusion of the authors is questionable. They state explicitly,

    “…we speculate that no more than 5-6 times daily could one ingest this amount (~20 g) of protein and expect muscle protein synthesis to be maximally stimulated.”

    So, they’re implying that 100-120 grams of protein per day is maximal for promoting muscle growth. Wait a minute, what? Based on both the bulk of the research evidence and numerous field observations, this is simply false [8,9].

    In another recent study, Symons and colleagues compared the 5-hour response of a moderate serving of lean beef containing 30 g protein with a large serving containing 90 g protein [10]. The smaller serving increased protein synthesis by approximately 50%, and the larger serving caused no further increase in protein synthesis, despite being triple the dose. The researchers concluded that the ingestion of more than 30 g protein in a single meal does not further enhance muscle protein synthesis. While their conclusion indeed supports the outcomes of their short-term study, it’s pretty easy to predict the outcomes in muscle size and strength if we compared a total daily protein dose of 90 g with 30 g over a longer trial period, let alone one involving a structured exercise protocol. This brings me to the crucial point that acute outcomes merely provide grounds for hypothesis. It’s not completely meaningless, but it’s far from conclusive without examining the long-term effects.

    Longer-term research challenging the magic limit

    If we were to believe the premise that a 20-30 g dose of protein yields a maximal anabolic effect, then it follows that any excess beyond this dose would be wasted. On the contrary, the body is smarter than that. In a 14-day trial, Arnal and colleagues found no difference in fat-free mass or nitrogen retention between consuming 79% of the day’s protein needs (roughly 54 g) in one meal, versus the same amount spread across four meals [11].

    Notably, this study was done on young female adults whose fat-free mass averaged 40.8 kg (89.8 lb). Considering that most non-sedentary males have considerably more lean mass than the female subjects used in the aforementioned trial, it’s plausible that much more than 54 g protein in a single meal can be efficiently processed for anabolic and/or anti-catabolic purposes. If we extrapolated the protein dose used in this study (79% of 1.67g/kg) to the average adult male, it would be roughly 85-95 g or even more, depending on just how close someone is to the end of the upper limits of muscular size.

    When Arnal and colleagues applied the same protocol to the elderly population, the single-dose treatment actually caused better muscle protein retention than the multiple-dose treatment [12]. This raises the possibility that as we age, larger protein feedings might be necessary to achieve the same effect on protein retention as lesser amounts in our youth.

    IF research nailing the coffin shut?

    Perhaps the strongest case against the idea of a dosing limit beyond which anabolism or muscle retention can occur is the recent intermittent fasting (IF) research, particularly the trials with a control group on a conventional diet. For example, Soeters and colleagues compared two weeks of IF involving 20-hour fasting cycles with a conventional diet [13]. Despite the IF group’s consumption of an average of 101 g protein in a 4-hour window, there was no difference in preservation of lean mass and muscle protein between groups.
    In another example, Stote and colleagues actually reported an improvement in body composition (including an increase in lean mass) after 8 weeks in the IF group consuming one meal per day, where roughly 86 g protein was ingested in a 4-hour window [14]. Interestingly, the conventional group consuming three meals spread throughout the day showed no significant body composition improvements.

    Keep in mind that bioelectrical impedance (BIA) was used to determine body composition, so these outcomes should be viewed with caution. I’ve been highly critical of this study in the past, and I still am. Nevertheless, it cannot be completely written off and must be factored into the body of evidence against the idea of a magic protein dose limit.
    Team Inov8 Elite Performance
  14. Professional Member
    kissdadookie's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,567
    Rep Power
    2778424
    Level
    68
    Lv. Percent
    91.17%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting Pro

    Wasn't the superiority of casein + whey vs single source protein demonstrated some time ago by that company that made soy protein? Or is this another study altogether being discussed here?
  15. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    The Solution's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    10,772
    Rep Power
    7360990
    Level
    100
    Lv. Percent
    66.33%
    Achievements Posting VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityActivity VeteranActivity Royalty

    Quote Originally Posted by kissdadookie View Post
    Wasn't the superiority of casein + whey vs single source protein demonstrated some time ago by that company that made soy protein? Or is this another study altogether being discussed here?
    http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/5

    Cliff Notes:
    Milk Protein > whey or casein isolates > hydrolysates (the absurdly expensive ****)
    Fat is fine PWO, and may increase PWO protein synthesis
    Insulin spikes PWO arent beneficial, only small amounts are needed to get max effects
    You dont need sugar PWO, just some carbs

    An Objective Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surge Recovery.
    By Alan Aragon

    INTRODUCTION TO CENSORSHIP

    Recently, a member of the t-nation.com forums posted a question about whether or not it’s safe for her 12 year-old son to have a postexercise product called Surge instead of chocolate milk. Bill Roberts, a product formulator for Biotest (the supplement company behind t-nation.com), said essentially that the carb source in chocolate milk (sucrose) was inferior to the carb source in Surge (dextrose). I then challenged him to justify his position. My position was that using sucrose isn’t any more of a nutritional compromise than using dextrose. His answer was that “everyone knows” dextrose is superior to sucrose for postworkout glycogen resynthesis, and that sucrose is inherently unhealthier than dextrose. I countered his position by presenting scientific research refuting his claims. He then got all bent out of shape and started hurling ad hominems at me, obviously frustrated that he was losing a public battle.
    “Everyone knows”

    In one of Bill’s posts, he literally said “everyone knows” more than a dozen times – while failing to provide a single trace of scientific research supporting his claims. If indeed everyone knew, and was in agreement with him, he would have had at least a handful of cronies sticking up for him, if for nothing else but to pad his fall to the mat. But alas, he received support from no one except one moderator, who I’ll quote as saying, “I refuse to back up my claims, so sue me”.
    To Bill’s credit, the soccer mom who asked the original question wouldn’t listen to anyone but him, so kudos to Bill on his politician-like rhetorical skills. In the mean time, several members expressed their disappointment in Bill’s neglect for citing research evidence to back his stance. I also know for a fact that a good handful of posts from innocent observers (supporting my side of the debate) were censored from posting in the thread. This was presumably because their posts made Bill look even more uninformed.

    It’s not surprising that people’s posts were blocked from appearing in the thread because eventually, my own posts never made it into the thread. At that point, I knew that continuing the debate was just not going to happen. Nevertheless, all of the key posts made it through; all of the posts that clearly showed Bill’s inability (and unwillingness) to engage in scientific debate were right there, plain as day. Ultimately, Bill ended up looking as prideful as he was ignorant. In order to save face, either Bill or administrators of t-nation.com had the thread deleted.

    Ironically, I recently wrote an article for t-nation.com (A Musclehead’s Guide to Alcohol). If I may say so myself, it was a hit, judging by the reader feedback and frequent links back to the article. Given that, it was downright humorous to be censored by the forum administrators shortly after contributing to their library of wisdom. In the following sections, I’ll compare the components of Surge with chocolate milk for postexercise recovery. For the sake of simplicity and context-specificity, I’ll judge the application of the two products to the target market of Surge, which consists of general fitness and bodybuilding fans.

    MEET THE COMPETITORS

    In the brown corner, we have chocolate milk. The ingredients of chocolate milk vary slightly across brands, but in general, the ingredients are: milk, sugar (or high fructose corn syrup), cocoa processed with alkali, natural and artificial flavors, salt, carrageenan, vitamin A palmitate, vitamin D3. Like regular milk, chocolate milk is available in varying levels of milk fat. For the purposes of this comparison, I’ll use the one most consumers are most likely to choose, the low-fat variety.
    In the red corner, we have Surge Recovery (which I’ll continue to abbreviate as Surge). The ingredient list is as follows: d-glucose (dextrose), whey-protein hydrolysate, maltodextrin, natural and artificial flavors, sucralose. Other ingredients include L-leucine and DL-phenylalanine.
    Research behind the products

    What’s exciting about this comparison is that both of these products have been highly heralded and hyped in their respective arenas. Surge in its exact formulation doesn’t have any peer-reviewed research behind it. However, Berardi et al reported that a solution of similar construction to Surge (33% whey hydrolysate, 33% glucose and 33% maltodextrin) was slightly superior for glycogen resynthesis at 6 hrs postexercise compared to a 100% maltodextrin solution[1]. Effects on muscle protein flux were not measured.

    e run in the research examining its applications to various sporting goals [2,3]. It has performed equally well for rehydration and glycogen resynthesis compared to carb-based sports drinks, and it has outperformed them (and soy-based drinks) for protecting and synthesizing muscle protein. A standout study in this area was a comparison of chocolate milk, Gatorade, and Endurox R4 (a sports drink with a 4:1 carb to protein ratio) [4]. Chocolate milk was equally effective as Gatorade for total work output and prolonging time to exhaustion. Interestingly, both of the latter products outperformed Endurox R4 in both tests. The researchers speculated that the use of maltodextrin rather than sucrose (yes, you read that correctly) as the dominant carbohydrate source was the Achilles heel of Endurox R4. More on the virtues of sucrose instead of straight glucose for exercise applications will be covered.
    QUANTITATIVE MACRONUTRIENT COMPARISON

    Product Serving Kcal Protein Carbohydrate Fat
    Surge 3 scoops 340 25 grams 46 grams 2.5 grams
    Chocolate Milk 17.3 oz 340 17.3 grams 56.3 grams 6.5 grams

    When isocalorically matched, Surge and lowfat chocolate milk have the expected similarities and differences. The suggested serving of Surge has 7.7 g more protein than chocolate milk, while chocolate milk has 10.3 g more carbohydrate. While the lesser protein content of chocolate milk might on the surface seem like a point scored for Surge, this is actually a non-issue.

    Recent research by Tang et al found that as little as 10g whey plus 21 g fructose taken after resistance exercise was able to stimulate a rise in muscle protein synthesis [5]. Considering that an isocaloric serving of lowfat chocolate milk has 17.3 g protein plus 56.3 g carbohydrate, a hike in muscle protein synthesis (as well as inhibition of protein breakdown) would be easily achieved. Chocolate milk has 4g more fat than Surge. Again, this might be viewed as a detriment for those conserving fat calories, but it’s still a low absolute amount of fat. This also may have a potential benefit which I’ll discuss in a minute. Bottom line: there’s no clear winner in this department; there’s too many contingencies to make a blanket judgement.

    QUALITATIVE MACRONUTRIENT COMPARISON

    Protein

    Surge uses whey protein hydrolysate (WPH). In theory, WPH is favorable because it’s already broken down into peptide fragments. This spurred the assumption that it would have faster absorption and uptake by muscle, which in turn would result in greater net anabolism. However, a recent study by Farnfield et al observed the exact opposite when WPH was compared with whey protein isolate (WPI), which consists of intact whole protein [6]. WPH not only was absorbed more slowly, but its levels in the blood also declined more rapidly, resulting in a much weaker response curve. Leucine and the rest of the BCAAs were significantly better absorbed from WPI than WPH. The researchers concluded that total amino acid availability of WPI was superior to WPH.

    Of note, Surge is fortified with leucine, a branched chain amino acid (BCAA) that plays a critical role in muscle protein synthesis. An isocaloric serving of chocolate milk has 1.7g leucine. This may or may not have any impact, especially within the context of a high protein intake typical of the athletic population. It’s important to keep in mind that most high-quality animal-based protein is 18-26% BCAA [7]. Adding a few grams of supplemental BCAA to a pre-existent high intake within the diet is not likely to yield any magic. Surge is also fortified with phenylalanine, presumably for the purpose of enhancing the insulin response. Again, this is an unnecessary tactic since insulin’s primary action is the inhibition of muscle protein breakdown. This antiproteolytic effect of nutrient-mediated insulin response is maximal at elevations just slightly above fasting levels [8].

    Chocolate milk’s protein is no different than that of regular milk. Milk protein is roughly 20% whey and 80% casein. Thus far in the scientific literature, comparisons of casein-dominant proteins with whey for sports applications are evenly split. Some studies show casein as superior (in spite of a higher leucine content in the whey treatments) [9,10], while others point to whey as the victor [11,12]. The only certainty is that it can’t be assumed that faster is better when it comes to promoting net anabolism. An acute study on post-ingestion amino acid kinetics by LaCroix suggests that milk protein is best left as-is rather than isolating its protein fractions [13]. Compared to total milk protein, whey’s amino acid delivery was too transient, and underwent rapid deamination during the postprandial period. The authors concluded that milk proteins had the best nutritional quality, which suggested a synergistic effect between its casein and whey. Bottom line: chocolate milk gets the edge; WPH has thus far bit the dust compared to WPI in a head-to-head comparison, and whey has not been consistently superior to total milk protein.

    Carbohydrate

    Surge has dextrose (synonymous with glucose) as its sole carbohydrate source, while chocolate milk has an even mix of sucrose (in the form of either sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup) and lactose. While it’s common to assume that dextrose is superior to sucrose for postexercise glycogen resynthesis, research doesn’t necessarily agree. A trial by Bowtell et al showed a glucose polymer to synthesize more glycogen by the 2-hr mark postworkout [14]. However, two other trials whose postexercise observation periods were 4 and 6 hours respectively saw no significant difference in glycogen storage between sucrose and glucose [15,16].
    Perhaps the most overlooked advantage of a fructose-containing carbohydrate source (sucrose is 50% fructose) is that it supports liver glycogen better than a glucose-only source, as in the case of Surge. A little-known fact is that hepatic glycogenolysis (liver glycogen use) occurs to a significant degree during exercise, and the magnitude of glycogenolysis is intensity-dependent [17]. Illustrating the potential superiority of sucrose over glucose, Casey et al saw no difference in muscle glycogen resynthesis 4 hrs postexercise [15]. However, there was more liver glycogen resynthesis in the sucrose group, and this correlated with a slightly greater exercise capacity.

    One of the potential concerns of consuming a large amount of sucrose instead of glucose is how the 50% fructose content in sucrose might be metabolized from a lipogenic standpoint. Answering this question directly, McDevitt saw no difference in de novo lipogenesis (conversion to fat) between the massive overfeeding of either glucose or sucrose at 135g above maintenance needs [18]. Another potential concern is the use of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in chocolate milk. The common fear of HFCS being some sort of special agent that undermines health is simply not grounded in science. HFCS is virtually identical to sucrose both in chemical structure and metabolic effect [19]. Independent researcher John White eloquently clarified HFCS misconceptions in a recent review, which I’ll quote [20].
    “Although examples of pure fructose causing metabolic upset at high concentrations abound, especially when fed as the sole carbohydrate source, there is no evidence that the common fructose-glucose sweeteners do the same. Thus, studies using extreme carbohydrate diets may be useful for probing biochemical pathways, but they have no relevance to the human diet or to current consumption. I conclude that the HFCS-obesity hypothesis is supported neither in the United States nor worldwide.”

    It bears mentioning that lactose intolerance can prohibit regular milk use for certain susceptible individuals. However, this can be remedied by using Lactaid brand milk, or by using lactase pills or drops. Bottom line: For those who can digest lactose or are willing to take the extra step to make it digestible, chocolate milk wins. But since there are those who can’t or won’t do what’s required to tolerate lactose, I’m calling this a tie.
    Fat

    Coincidentally, Surge and chocolate milk have identical proportions of saturated fat. Lowfat chocolate milk has more fat than Surge, which would cause some folks to call a foul for postworkout purposes. However, a trial by Elliot et al found that postexercise ingestion of whole milk was superior for increasing net protein balance than fat-free milk [21]. The most striking aspect about this trial was that the calorie-matched dose of fat free milk contained 14.5g protein, versus 8.0 g in the whole milk. Apparently, postworkout fat intake (particularly milk fat) is nothing to fear, and may even be beneficial from the standpoint of synthesizing muscle protein. Bottom line: it’s a tie, since there is very little evidence favoring one fat profile/amount versus the other. On one hand, you can be saving fat calories by going with Surge. On the other hand, postworkout milk fat might potentially enhance protein synthesis. Things come out even.

    MICRONUTRIENT COMPARISON (per 340 kcal serving)*

    Surge Recovery Chocolate Milk
    Calcium 180 mg 624 mg
    Cholesterol 75 mg 16 mg
    Leucine 4000 mg 1714 mg
    Magnesium 20 mg 70 mg
    Phenylalanine 2000 mg 844 mg
    Phosphorous 120 mg 558 mg
    Potassium 400 mg 920 mg
    Sodium 200 mg 329 mg

    *This comparison is limited to the micronutrients on the Surge label. And yes, I realize that not all of the above are technically micronutrients.
    A quick glance at the above chart shows that chocolate milk is markedly more nutrient-dense, with the exception of a higher content of leucine and phenylalanine in Surge, whose significance (or lack of) I discussed earlier. As an interesting triviality, both have a low cholesterol content, but Surge has 4.6 times more. Chocolate milk has more sodium, but it also has a significantly higher potassium-to-sodium ratio. Bottom line: chocolate milk wins this one decisively.

    OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
    Price
    Chocolate milk by the half gallon (64oz, or about 2000 ml) is approximately $3.00 USD. Sticking with our 340 kcal figure, this yields 3.7 servings, which boils down to $0.81 per serving. A tub of Surge costs $36.00 and yields 16 servings (3 scoops, 340 kcals per serving). This boils down to $2.25 per serving. That’s 277% more expensive than chocolate milk. Even on a protein-matched basis, Surge is still roughly double the price. Bottom line: chocolate milk is many times easier on your wallet.

    Convenience & taste
    Convenience is the single area where Surge wins. Being a powder, it’s non-perishable, requiring no refrigeration. This makes it more easily portable. Taste will always be, well, a matter of taste. I highly doubt that in a blinded test that Surge would win over chocolate milk. Bottom line: Surge is more convenient, but I’ll go out on a limb and guess that chocolate milk would taste better to most people.

    CONCLUSION
    I have no vested interest in glorifying chocolate milk, nor do I stand to benefit by vilifying Surge. My goal was to objectively examine the facts. Using research as the judge, chocolate milk was superior or equal to Surge in all categories. The single exception was a win for Surge in the convenience department. So, if the consumer were forced to choose between the two products, the decision would boil down to quality at the expense of convenience, or vice versa. I personally would go for the higher quality, lower price, and strength of the scientific evidence. Chocolate milk it is

    REFERENCES CITED:
    Berardi JM, et al. Postexercise muscle glycogen recovery enhanced with a carbohydrate-protein supplement. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006 Jun;38(6):1106-13.
    Roy BD. Milk: the new sports drink? a review. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2008 Oct 2;5:15.
    McDonald L. (Review of) Milk the new sports drink? a review. Bodyrecomposition.com, 2008.
    Karp JR. Chocolate milk as a post-exercise recovery aid. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006 Feb;16(1):78-91. [
    Tang JE, et al. Minimal whey protein with carbohydrate stimulates muscle protein synthesis following resistance exercise in trained young men. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2007 Dec;32(6):1132-8.
    Farnfield MM, et al. Plasma amino acid response after ingestion of different whey protein fractions. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2008 May 8:1-11.
    Millward DJ, et al. Protein quality assessment: impact of expanding understanding of protein and amino acid needs for optimal health. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 May;87(5):1576S-1581S.
    Rennie MJ, et al. Branched-chain amino acids as fuels and anabolic signals in human muscle. J Nutr. 2006 Jan;136(1 Suppl):264S-8S.
    Demling RH, Desanti L. Effect of a hypocaloric diet, increased protein intake and resistance training on lean mass gains and fat mass loss in overweight police officers. Ann Nutr Metab. 2000;44(1):21-9.
    Kerksick CM, et al. The effects of protein and amino acid supplementation on performance and training adaptations during ten weeks of resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 2006 Aug;20(3):643-53.
    Lands LC, et al. Effect of supplementation with a cystein donor on muscular performance. J Appl Physiol 1999;87:1381-5.
    Cribb PJ, et al. The effect of whey isolate and resistance training on strength, body composition, and plasma glutamine. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006 Oct;16(5):494-509.
    LaCroix M, et al. Compared with casein or total milk protein, digestion of milk soluble proteins is too rapid to sustain the anabolic postprandial amino acid requirement. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Nov;84(5):1070-9.
    Bowtell JL, et al. Effect of different carbohydrate drinks on whole body carbohydrate storage after exhaustive exercise. J Appl Physiol 2000; 88 (5): 1529-36.
    Casey A, et al. Effect of carbohydrate ingestion on glycogen resynthesis in human liver and skeletal muscle, measured by (13)C MRS. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2000 Jan;278(1):E65-75.
    Blom PC, et al. Effect of different post-exercise sugar diets on the rate of muscle glycogen synthesis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1987 Oct;19(5):491-6.
    Suh SH, et al. Regulation of blood glucose homeostasis during prolonged exercise. Mol Cells. 2007 Jun 30;23(3):272-9.
    McDevitt et al. De novo lipogenesis during controlled overfeeding with sucrose or glucose in lean and obese women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Dec;74(6):737-46.
    Melanson KJ, et al. High-fructose corn syrup, energy intake, and appetite regulation. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Dec;88(6):1738S-1744S.
    White JS. Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain’t. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Dec;88(6):1716S-1721S.
    Elliot TA, et al. Milk ingestion stimulates net muscle protein synthesis following resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006 Apr;38(4):667-74.
    Team Inov8 Elite Performance
  16. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    The Solution's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    10,772
    Rep Power
    7360990
    Level
    100
    Lv. Percent
    66.33%
    Achievements Posting VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityActivity VeteranActivity Royalty

    A Aragon: First off, I’d like to thank Jamie for inviting me to this roundtable. It’s definitely an honor to be among a carefully chosen few. If I come off too long-winded in this, it’s because I made Jamie wait for months for me to participate, so I figured I might as well show some gratitude and babble for aeons.

    Ah, the good ol’ phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-mammalian target rapamycin signaling pathway. There, that should take care of any lack of technical jargon I contribute to this roundtable right off the bat. mTOR research is not likely to have a significant impact on the furthering of what bodybuilders can physically achieve, but it certainly is giving us some understanding of how these achievements occur. Let’s face it, the majority of the biggest, most ripped guys on the planet haven’t even heard of mTOR. The first thing most folks think about in relation to mTOR and bodybuilding is leucine, and rightly so, since leucine phosphorylates/activates the downstream metabolites of mTOR. But alas, there’s a caveat. A lot of folks who place an excessive focus on leucine will indiscriminately dose the hell up on it. They’ll tank down isolated leucine, BCAA, and/or whey, thinking they’ve found the ticket to net anabolism. There’s also this false implication that whey, being higher in leucine than casein, is superior. Not true, at least according to the current body of research, which indicates that casein, or at the very least, a blend of casein & whey, is superior to whey alone for affecting a number of parameters bodybuilders care about. What people seem to constantly forget is that net gains in muscle are the result of not just protein synthesis, but the inhibition of protein breakdown. Casein’s antiproteolytic effect is more profound than whey or leucine’s protein-synthetic effect. Hence its lead spot in the current body of research. The name of the game seems to revolve back to the old cliché of mixing things up, and achieving a variety of sources of protein from whey to casein, to flesh, to the range of sea & land flesh, to Asian women. Just kidding, I wanted to make sure everyone was awake. In sum, mTOR activation is just a piece of the puzzle. Thus, the beloved leucine is a mere cog in the complex engine of variables that cause net gains in muscle.

    Bold

    http://alanaragon.com/bodybuilding-n...ne-norton.html
    Team Inov8 Elite Performance
  17. Professional Member
    kissdadookie's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,567
    Rep Power
    2778424
    Level
    68
    Lv. Percent
    91.17%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting Pro

    Thanks Bob! This is indeed different from the study I was thinking of (the Solae funded study where they found a combination of protein sources was superior for anabolism than single source proteins such as all whey).
  18. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    The Solution's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    10,772
    Rep Power
    7360990
    Level
    100
    Lv. Percent
    66.33%
    Achievements Posting VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityActivity VeteranActivity Royalty

    Quote Originally Posted by kissdadookie View Post
    Thanks Bob! This is indeed different from the study I was thinking of (the Solae funded study where they found a combination of protein sources was superior for anabolism than single source proteins such as all whey).
    At least someone is reading what i write in here
    Team Inov8 Elite Performance
  19. Diamond Member
    T-Bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,317
    Rep Power
    5738161
    Level
    98
    Lv. Percent
    40.14%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProActivity VeteranActivity RoyaltyPosting Pro

    Too much dang reading. Screw it, I'm just gonna eat some steak, chicken, or eggs post workout.
    S.N.S. Rep

    T-bone@seriousnutritionsolutions .com
  20. Senior Member
    Touey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,844
    Rep Power
    3205965
    Level
    71
    Lv. Percent
    51.85%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Bone View Post
    Too much dang reading. Screw it, I'm just gonna eat some steak, chicken, or eggs post workout.
    “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
    ― Albert Einstein
    "To your wife you should kiss try today"-Touey

    Brotato's bark brings shakes to the pups in the yard
  21. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    The Solution's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    10,772
    Rep Power
    7360990
    Level
    100
    Lv. Percent
    66.33%
    Achievements Posting VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityActivity VeteranActivity Royalty

    Quote Originally Posted by Touey View Post
    “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
    ― Albert Einstein
    BURNED
    Team Inov8 Elite Performance
  22. Senior Member
    Touey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,844
    Rep Power
    3205965
    Level
    71
    Lv. Percent
    51.85%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by The Solution View Post
    BURNED
    lol what is that mean Chief Chef Bob?
    "To your wife you should kiss try today"-Touey

    Brotato's bark brings shakes to the pups in the yard
  23. Diamond Member
    T-Bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,317
    Rep Power
    5738161
    Level
    98
    Lv. Percent
    40.14%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProActivity VeteranActivity RoyaltyPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Touey View Post
    lol what is that mean Chief Chef Bob?

    What you posted sounded like an insult to me Touey. I don't think you meant it that way though as things get lost in translation easily...
    S.N.S. Rep

    T-bone@seriousnutritionsolutions .com
  24. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    The Solution's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    10,772
    Rep Power
    7360990
    Level
    100
    Lv. Percent
    66.33%
    Achievements Posting VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityActivity VeteranActivity Royalty

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Bone View Post
    What you posted sounded like an insult to me Touey. I don't think you meant it that way though as things get lost in translation easily...
    Team Inov8 Elite Performance
  25. Senior Member
    Touey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,844
    Rep Power
    3205965
    Level
    71
    Lv. Percent
    51.85%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Bone View Post
    What you posted sounded like an insult to me Touey. I don't think you meant it that way though as things get lost in translation easily...
    Not insult only the opposite to try saying some times getting on technicalities we should not pontificate for making a complication of things that not nor need be. Only jesting a little some previous post unseriously. I like the post you made maybe should have made posting of other version of quote to say,

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
    "To your wife you should kiss try today"-Touey

    Brotato's bark brings shakes to the pups in the yard
  26. Diamond Member
    T-Bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,317
    Rep Power
    5738161
    Level
    98
    Lv. Percent
    40.14%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProActivity VeteranActivity RoyaltyPosting Pro

    I took no offense to it Touey. I know you love everyone and life is too short to dwell on anything said or typed on forums/message boards.
    S.N.S. Rep

    T-bone@seriousnutritionsolutions .com
  27. Elite Member
    Piston Honda's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    5,250
    Rep Power
    8004962
    Level
    92
    Lv. Percent
    86.28%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityActivity VeteranPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Touey View Post

    "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
    - Albert Einstein
    BOARD TYRANT
  28. Senior Member
    Touey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,844
    Rep Power
    3205965
    Level
    71
    Lv. Percent
    51.85%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting Pro

    Honda am thinking if you are not having hands full keeping loggers sorted then bother to following around Touey
    "To your wife you should kiss try today"-Touey

    Brotato's bark brings shakes to the pups in the yard
  29. New Member
    Mikeyjd's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    337
    Rep Power
    70306
    Level
    19
    Lv. Percent
    70.18%

    Good thread. I learned some things. Thanks to those who contributed
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 44
    Last Post: 03-26-2010, 06:53 PM
  2. What is PCT and why do you need it?
    By steolis in forum Supplements
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-09-2007, 11:13 AM
  3. Why do people look down on us?
    By IronMarc in forum General Chat
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-06-2006, 09:58 PM
  4. Why do people use fat burners in PCT?
    By juggernaut2005 in forum Post Cycle Therapy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-02-2005, 11:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in