Leucine Ratios vs. Marketing

HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
So, after recently looked at a whole bunch of intra-workout products, I have realized that many different companies are playing the "leucine ratio" game. First it was 2:1:1, then 4:1:1, then 8:1:1 and even 10:1:1. It just so happens the ONLY product I've actually tried is 10:1:1 and it works fine in my opinion - but it also has a larger dose of leucine than most of the other brands.

Having said this, it seems to me the ratio thing is a way to skimp on adding in isoleucine and valine. I can buy that leucine is the more important amino. I don't know why the ratio has taken on such important. What does it matter if it is 2:1:1 or 10:1:1 when you should be concerned about how much you are actually getting? i.e. - I can have a 2:1:1 ratio of BCAAs where I get 8 grams of leucine, 4 grams of isoleucine and 4 grams of valine - or a 10:1:1 ratio where I get 8 grams of leucine, 0.8 grams of isoleucine and 0.8 grams of valine. All that is really happening in that formula is they are giving me less valine and isoleucine.

Granted, if I'm getting 5 grams of BCAA's, I can see wanting 3-4 of them coming from leucine. But, it's really the amount of leucine that I'm looking for, not the lower valine/isoleucine values.

Does the valine/isoleucine actually hinder BCAA performance? Or is this just rather obvious marketing to keep costs down and spin it as a benefit?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mw1
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
Well, as far as MPS, you want Leucine without (if possible) the other two, due to competition for absorption. So in that case, I'd think the higher the Leucine, comparatively, the better. See:

Because BCAAs share a common intestinal trans-
porter, differences in amino acid appearance profiles between
W6+BCAAs and W6+High-Leu treatments likely represents
antagonism between BCAAs for uptake from the gut, which is
congruent with data showing that isoleucine and valine compete
with and can impede leucine absorption (47).
Now, I know BCAA's can be used for other things, like energy, etc - on that, I have no idea about ratios.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Hey, that makes some sense - I hadn't thought about them competing for absorption.
 
Jackedjack

Jackedjack

Well-known member
Awards
0
I personally think 10:1:1 or 2:1:1 ratios are the best. I have no scientific evidence but I'm sure mrcooper69 and Synapsin could shine some light. That being said I recomend aminoIV which is pes's 10:1:1 or our new Mtor pro which is 2:1:1 bcaa ratio and then the all new time release (really delayed released) leucine which releases an extra 3 grams three hours later
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Well, as far as MPS, you want Leucine without (if possible) the other two, due to competition for absorption. So in that case, I'd think the higher the Leucine, comparatively, the better. See:



Now, I know BCAA's can be used for other things, like energy, etc - on that, I have no idea about ratios.
I disagree. Yes, there is competition at the transports BUT this is overcome within 60 minutes due to the absorption of the competing amino freeing up the transporters in the intestines. Generally, Leucine inhibits isoleucine as the dose of Leucine rises and competes with more tranporters -

Harper however, believes that 'the very great absorptive capacity of the small intestine argues against this being a major effect in vivo. Even though the absorption of isoleucine or valine may be delayed by an excess of leucine, as more leucine is absorbed, the ratio of leucine to isoleucine and valine will fall and competition for absorptive sites would diminish.'
We can also take a step back - if protein synthesis was obscured to any significant effect from competitive inhibition, then data like this simply would not exist:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16365096
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/2/E365.short
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/287/1/E1.short
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/1/264S.short

Which seems to agree that on the whole, the effect is negligible - or at least not enough to warrant AVOIDING the other BCAAs.
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
...or at least not enough to warrant AVOIDING the other BCAAs.
Thanks for the links. I can wholeheartedly agree that even if better on paper, it may not matter. I don't know though, I just re-read that Churchward-Venne study at McMaster's and I'm sticking with just getting my Iso-L and Valine from food/protein powder, and bolus'ing 3g of bulk Leucine prior. I train fed, so I see no downside.
 
Synapsin

Synapsin

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
I personally think 10:1:1 or 2:1:1 ratios are the best. I have no scientific evidence but I'm sure mrcooper69 and Synapsin could shine some light. That being said I recomend aminoIV which is pes's 10:1:1 or our new Mtor pro which is 2:1:1 bcaa ratio and then the all new time release (really delayed released) leucine which releases an extra 3 grams three hours later
IMO if you are eating well then leucine is the primary concern when supplementing BCAAs, so the more leucine the better.
 

Nyrin

Member
Awards
0
IMO if you are eating well then leucine is the primary concern when supplementing BCAAs, so the more leucine the better.
Up to a point, right? I can't imagine there being much benefit to exceeding 3-5g leucine bolus.

I've been popping a cap or three of AS Leucine 1000 (thanks, NP) with my lower-protein meals/snacks; there's no "aha!" evidence of it doing much, but I like to think it's helping the big plate of broccoli and cabbage do my muscles some good.
 

Big Papi

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Well, as far as MPS, you want Leucine without (if possible) the other two, due to competition for absorption. So in that case, I'd think the higher the Leucine, comparatively, the better. See:



Now, I know BCAA's can be used for other things, like energy, etc - on that, I have no idea about ratios.
you're overthinking this. you'd be fine dosing all 3 bcaas together.
 

Big Papi

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Up to a point, right? I can't imagine there being much benefit to exceeding 3-5g leucine bolus.

I've been popping a cap or three of AS Leucine 1000 (thanks, NP) with my lower-protein meals/snacks; there's no "aha!" evidence of it doing much, but I like to think it's helping the big plate of broccoli and cabbage do my muscles some good.
yea, up to a point. pretty sure syn meant a > leucine ratio is preferable when choosing a bcaa sup.
 
Synapsin

Synapsin

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Up to a point, right? I can't imagine there being much benefit to exceeding 3-5g leucine bolus.

I've been popping a cap or three of AS Leucine 1000 (thanks, NP) with my lower-protein meals/snacks; there's no "aha!" evidence of it doing much, but I like to think it's helping the big plate of broccoli and cabbage do my muscles some good.
yea, up to a point. pretty sure syn meant a > leucine ratio is preferable when choosing a bcaa sup.
Yeah of course. Depends on BW but yeah 3-5 grams is fine, no need to exceed 5 unless you're quite heavy.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Thanks for the links. I can wholeheartedly agree that even if better on paper, it may not matter. I don't know though, I just re-read that Churchward-Venne study at McMaster's and I'm sticking with just getting my Iso-L and Valine from food/protein powder, and bolus'ing 3g of bulk Leucine prior. I train fed, so I see no downside.
You wont notice any difference :D
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
you're overthinking this. you'd be fine dosing all 3 bcaas together.

I think that's what we're trying to hash out here - the IRL (in the real world) effects of the research. The research says it *does* matter (well, the latest...there's others that say it doesn't re: Jiigzz's links).

I tend to lend more credence to some researchers over others. To me, anything with Stuart Phillips' name on it, gets my attention. This isn't an "Appeal to Authority" - he ain't Jesus, but he has a stellar rep.

Anyway, that Churhward-Venne research - which I've seen no one poo-poo the methodology yet, says 6g of Whey+BCAA isn't as good as 6g Whey+Solo Leucine (without BCAA). Almost to the point of being as good as 25g of Whey as far as MPS goes.

But like Jiigzz said, (paraphrasing) - at the end of the year, how much more muscle will you have? Maybe a lot, maybe not much - no one's looked at that yet.

Since I have plenty of BCAA in my system from my PrWO meal (2% Milk, Oats, Protein Powder) - I don't use stand alone BCAA products, just 3g Leucine 30 minutes before my PWO protein and other meals (within reason, I can't afford to dose it every time I eat something :))
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
You wont notice any difference :D
I know, what with the other products taken, who the heck knows :) Was it the Leucine, or the Amentoflavone? Or the Ostarine? :) It's cheap, I look at it like Soy Lecithin or Creatine - and I put faith in that study I'm always harping about :)
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
I think that's what we're trying to hash out here - the IRL (in the real world) effects of the research. The research says it *does* matter (well, the latest...there's others that say it doesn't re: Jiigzz's links).

I tend to lend more credence to some researchers over others. To me, anything with Stuart Phillips' name on it, gets my attention. This isn't an "Appeal to Authority" - he ain't Jesus, but he has a stellar rep.

Anyway, that Churhward-Venne research - which I've seen no one poo-poo the methodology yet, says 6g of Whey+BCAA isn't as good as 6g Whey+Solo Leucine (without BCAA). Almost to the point of being as good as 25g of Whey as far as MPS goes.

But like Jiigzz said, (paraphrasing) - at the end of the year, how much more muscle will you have? Maybe a lot, maybe not much - no one's looked at that yet.

Since I have plenty of BCAA in my system from my PrWO meal (2% Milk, Oats, Protein Powder) - I don't use stand alone BCAA products, just 3g Leucine 30 minutes before my PWO protein and other meals (within reason, I can't afford to dose it every time I eat something :))
Anything with added leucine in larger bolus will stimulate MPS more so long as ot reaches the threshold. Whey + BCAA is a pointless addition as the amount of leucine isnt as much as the total with Leucine itself. I havent read the whole paper but if the total leucine isnt matched then its not hard to see why the results favour additional leucine.

But to say that BCAAs fight for competition as much as is being implied is a far stretch given the data on BCAA and mTOR. One study should provide insight, not outweigh multitudes of data showing protein synthesis is increased with BCAA supplementation.

There is a reason why PES adds leucine to Select as the amount of leucine in not enough to meet the threshold required to maximise MPS- so again, as far as it goes, its not hard to see why added leucine stimulates MPS more.

But total protein intake for the day outweighs just that of MPS. And BCAAs are in all animal protein, but you eat them as a whole and you still grow?

With research, statistical significance does not mean clinical relevance as statistical significance implies that the results, regardless of magnitude, were less likely to occur as a result of chance; it does not mean it makes a huge difference results wise.

As always, you can do things however you deem fit, but what you notice will be insignificant.

Ill have a look over the FT in the next few days and see if I can make sense of what it means. If total leucine is not matched between the groups then I can already guess the outcome. If leucine is matched, then it warrants future investigation as to clinical significance
 

DarthGainer

Member
Awards
0
But total protein intake for the day outweighs just that of MPS. And BCAAs are in all animal protein, but you eat them as a whole and you still grow?
I'm a big fan of fasting not because I believe its magic pill for fat loss but Because I prefer training fasted and enjoy eating large amounts at a time later on in the evening.

Lately I've been thinking more of and have been using Hica, Leucine in the fasting stage and I'm wondering if its going to make much difference If I'm reaching my protein intake for the day as you say, Difference is I take all mine in 1-2 meals within about 4-5hours. I could add Leucine in these meals.
 
kbayne

kbayne

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I'm a big fan of fasting not because I believe its magic pill for fat loss but Because I prefer training fasted and enjoy eating large amounts at a time later on in the evening.

Lately I've been thinking more of and have been using Hica, Leucine in the fasting stage and I'm wondering if its going to make much difference If I'm reaching my protein intake for the day as you say, Difference is I take all mine in 1-2 meals within about 4-5hours. I could add Leucine in these meals.
Spreading protein doses out throughout the day is far superior then getting in your total protein intake in 1-2 meals.

It certainly can only help to supplement with Leucine/BCAA during your periods of fasting for so long.
 
JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Spreading protein doses out throughout the day is far superior then getting in your total protein intake in 1-2 meals.

It certainly can only help to supplement with Leucine/BCAA during your periods of fasting for so long.
Just came across a paper that did a really good job designing a study to test this. I will post it when I'm at a computer again
 

kisaj

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I'd love to see a picture comparison of people training with added leucine and not. Not to question the science, but rather what is actually realized.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
I'd love to see a picture comparison of people training with added leucine and not. Not to question the science, but rather what is actually realized.
Me too. If total protein is equated, the difference IMO would be negligible.

Thats also assuming the diets are rich in animal proteins and not plant protein
 

kisaj

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I say either way. Having been in the game for as long as I have, there are very few things that surprise me and this is not one of them.
 
JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Me too. If total protein is equated, the difference IMO would be negligible.

Thats also assuming the diets are rich in animal proteins and not plant protein
The paper I am referencing matched not only total protein intake but also total leucine intake. The difference was distribution patterns. Again, was a mouse study but interesting still IMO. Hoping someone follows up with a human one soon
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
The paper I am referencing matched not only total protein intake but also total leucine intake. The difference was distribution patterns. Again, was a mouse study but interesting still IMO. Hoping someone follows up with a human one soon
Protein distribution makes sense. Ive seen the study and the discussions which are interesting.

I mean more from a leucine protein spaced out with added leucine to one and none added with the other but total protein equated and then the training plan and history standardised.
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
Human study done on EVEN vs SKEWED consumption:

wwwDOTncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4018950/

Remove DOT and replace with .

The "Bro" way is better than IF according to this one. Cons: n=8. Older, Untrained, Higher BF%. Pros: They ate for a week, not just a couple days.

Edit: Hey Admins - I'm getting a message saying I need 5000 posts in order to post a link????? That's a BIG change.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Great info guys - just sitting back and learning....thanks!
 
JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Human study done on EVEN vs SKEWED consumption:

wwwDOTncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4018950/

Remove DOT and replace with .

The "Bro" way is better than IF according to this one. Cons: n=8. Older, Untrained, Higher BF%. Pros: They ate for a week, not just a couple days.

Edit: Hey Admins - I'm getting a message saying I need 5000 posts in order to post a link????? That's a BIG change.
You mean -> http://anabolicminds.com/forum/showthread.php?t=241569

;)

The big difference between this one and the Layman/Norton study (besides mice v human) is they controlled leucine in the later. In the first study the skew group got 10g and then 15g whey, which is hardly enough leucine. Although I am not sure what the leucine threshold for MPS is in mice so not sure if they hit it in the unbalanced pattern group or not.

Most people who follow an IF style of eating also ingest BCAAs during the day so leucine intake is rather high.

What would make a really cool study is if they would replicate this style of eating. Wake and get 10g BCAAs and than another 10g a little later and then their meals and match that to a "bro" feeding pattern (of course matching nutrient and kcal intakes) and see if a difference reveals itself.

I would also like to see a similar study done but instead of 10g BCAAs they give them 10g whey with added leucine and see how that pans out.
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
Ah CRAP! :) (Note to self - SEARCH!) Sorry bud!
 
JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Ah CRAP! :) (Note to self - SEARCH!) Sorry bud!
Na, I didn't mean it as a "next time search" comment but to share with you some thoughts myself and others had on that paper. Feel free to discuss it further her or there if you have anything to add.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Human study done on EVEN vs SKEWED consumption:

wwwDOTncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4018950/

Remove DOT and replace with .

The "Bro" way is better than IF according to this one. Cons: n=8. Older, Untrained, Higher BF%. Pros: They ate for a week, not just a couple days.

Edit: Hey Admins - I'm getting a message saying I need 5000 posts in order to post a link????? That's a BIG change.
That's just for MPS though, and this test - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026156141200266X - concludes that
there is no practical upper limit to the anabolic response to protein or amino acid intake in the context of a meal.
The_Old_Guy - do you have that tesxt you were referring to earlier? I just want to see if the doses would be enough to hit MPS for all groups or not.
 
The_Old_Guy

The_Old_Guy

Well-known member
Awards
0
For the McMasters study? Best source is a .pdf from here: (I don't know if the link snafu is fixed, so bear with me - yup, I guess those of us with less than 5000 posts, can't paste links...)

Remove DOT, replace with .

wwwDOTresearchgate.net/profile/Stuart_Phillips/publication/258957787_Leucine_supplementation_of_a_low-protein_mixed_macronutrient_beverage_enhances_myofibrillar_protein_synthesis_in_young_men_a_double-blind_randomized_trial/links/00b49530ddfe508deb000000.pdf

If not that, what other text were you thinking of?
 

Similar threads


Top