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

Page 3 of 3 First 123

  1. 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...

  2. 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:


    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.

  3. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    The Solution's Avatar

    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.


    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.
    Scivation/Primaforce Anabolic Minds Rep
    Anabolic Minds Site Rep

  4. 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?
  5. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    The Solution's Avatar

    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?

    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


    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.


    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.

    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.



    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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

    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.
    Scivation/Primaforce Anabolic Minds Rep
    Anabolic Minds Site Rep

  6. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    The Solution's Avatar

    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.


    Scivation/Primaforce Anabolic Minds Rep
    Anabolic Minds Site Rep

  7. 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).
  8. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    The Solution's Avatar

    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
    Scivation/Primaforce Anabolic Minds Rep
    Anabolic Minds Site Rep

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

  10. 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
  11. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    The Solution's Avatar

    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
    Scivation/Primaforce Anabolic Minds Rep
    Anabolic Minds Site Rep

  12. Quote Originally Posted by The Solution View Post
    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

  13. 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...
  14. AnabolicMinds Site Rep
    The Solution's Avatar

    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...
    Scivation/Primaforce Anabolic Minds Rep
    Anabolic Minds Site Rep

  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. 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
    FeFiFo.com support
    DIESEL TEST = Underground Kings of Test elevation!

  18. 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

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


Similar Forum Threads

  1. Why do people look down on us?
    By IronMarc in forum General Chat
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 03-13-2017, 06:29 AM
  2. Replies: 44
    Last Post: 03-26-2010, 05:53 PM
  3. What is PCT and why do you need it?
    By steolis in forum Supplements
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-09-2007, 10:13 AM
  4. Why do people use fat burners in PCT?
    By juggernaut2005 in forum Post Cycle Therapy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-02-2005, 10:08 AM
Log in
Log in