What feels better: BCAAs 2:1 or 4:1 ratio?
- Thread starter Captn_the
- Start date
ForceOfNature
Member
Definitely 2:1:1@10g
The Solution
Legend
You won't feel a BCAA product different at a 2:1:1 or 4:1:1 ratio, but 2:1:1 is the most heavily researched for BCAA products. More leucine is not always better because once you a reach a maximum leucine threshold more will not help activate MPS (Muscle Protein Synthesis to a larger degree)
If you get around 3g of leucine at a given meal you are going to stimulate MPS to its furthest degree. Getting 10of Leucine may not provide any additional benefits which may cost more in a 8:1:1 or 10:1:1 Ratio
Scientists from Baylor University gave college-aged men either a leucine supplement, a 2:1:1 BCAA supplement, or a placebo before and after a leg workout. They discovered that while leucine increased MPS after the workout better than the placebo did, the BCAAs increased protein synthesis even better than leucine and the placebo.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
If you get around 3g of leucine at a given meal you are going to stimulate MPS to its furthest degree. Getting 10of Leucine may not provide any additional benefits which may cost more in a 8:1:1 or 10:1:1 Ratio
Scientists from Baylor University gave college-aged men either a leucine supplement, a 2:1:1 BCAA supplement, or a placebo before and after a leg workout. They discovered that while leucine increased MPS after the workout better than the placebo did, the BCAAs increased protein synthesis even better than leucine and the placebo.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Mkgain1
Member
I saw a research paper a while back, wish I could remember the link but it showed that a 2:1:1 ratio with leucine being dosed at 6g, followed by 6g of a whey isolate. The leucine at 6g accelerated protein synthesis to the extent where the 6g of isolate registered basically as 24g. I don't know how that compares to just the 3g of leucine, that wasn't part of the study (which makes zero sense they should have used multiple doses). but that's just the study I saw, who knows who paid for that study to be done lol
ForceOfNature
Member
Yea. I don't like that guy. He just doesn't seem legit.
hsk
Active member
2:1:1 has worked fine for me. It is the most studied ratio and is the closest ratio to natural food sources high in BCAAs such as And as others have mention no need to overdo any one particular amino acid. Save the extra money and put it towards some extra Whey, Casein, Eggs, Beef, Chicken, Pork...etc.
VaughnTrue
Well-known member
I agree 2:1:1 is the most studied, no arguing that. I'm partial to 4:1:1 myself due to the added benefit of slightly higher Leucine content. I am not a fan of the 8-12:1 ratios though as I feel you reach a diminishing point of returns with Leucine
The Solution
Legend
Some info from Layne:
"What people don’t realize is that the metabolism of leucine requires the other two amino acids in a 2:1:1 ratio, if you give leucine along you will actually deplete the blood levels of the other 2 BCAAs. Our experiment supported this and actually showed that even though we gave leucine, we actually saw a depletion of the other two amino acids because we gave leucine by itself.The levels of the isoleucine and valine started to be decrease and we believed that over time that it could actually short circuit protein synthesis because you’ll have a lack of substrate, something my advisor Dr.Layman actually showed a long time ago back in the 80s. We think that having a balanced BCAA blend may be superior because you are providing it in a 2:1:1 ratio which is going to prevent that depletion of isoleucine and valine. Additionally, the studies in humans that have shown beneficial body composition effects of BCAA supplementation use a 2:1:1 ratio and Scivation always wants to put out products that are supported by research.Now, could I be wrong on this? Does 4:1:1 cause depletion? Does 10:1:1 cause depletion? We don’t know because they haven’t been used in studies"
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
comes off layne's write up for Carbon which has a 2:1:1 Ratio as well
"If 4:1:1 were superior more companies would spend more money to prove it
2:1:1 is preferred due to how leucine is metabolized. Layne has done research and posted his findings that support this"
- Mike McCandless the Scivation owner
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
just some things i have read and just adding to the thread
but as OP asked what would you feel better? a 2:1:1 or a 4:1:1 you wont feel a difference in a BCAA ratio because you do not feel bcaa's
^^ Agree 100%
"What people don’t realize is that the metabolism of leucine requires the other two amino acids in a 2:1:1 ratio, if you give leucine along you will actually deplete the blood levels of the other 2 BCAAs. Our experiment supported this and actually showed that even though we gave leucine, we actually saw a depletion of the other two amino acids because we gave leucine by itself.The levels of the isoleucine and valine started to be decrease and we believed that over time that it could actually short circuit protein synthesis because you’ll have a lack of substrate, something my advisor Dr.Layman actually showed a long time ago back in the 80s. We think that having a balanced BCAA blend may be superior because you are providing it in a 2:1:1 ratio which is going to prevent that depletion of isoleucine and valine. Additionally, the studies in humans that have shown beneficial body composition effects of BCAA supplementation use a 2:1:1 ratio and Scivation always wants to put out products that are supported by research.Now, could I be wrong on this? Does 4:1:1 cause depletion? Does 10:1:1 cause depletion? We don’t know because they haven’t been used in studies"
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
comes off layne's write up for Carbon which has a 2:1:1 Ratio as well
"If 4:1:1 were superior more companies would spend more money to prove it
2:1:1 is preferred due to how leucine is metabolized. Layne has done research and posted his findings that support this"
- Mike McCandless the Scivation owner
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
just some things i have read and just adding to the thread
but as OP asked what would you feel better? a 2:1:1 or a 4:1:1 you wont feel a difference in a BCAA ratio because you do not feel bcaa's
^^ Agree 100%
MidwestBeast
Legend
I can say that I've never felt a difference between them.
I've used both and to be honest, I don't waste much time thinking/worrying about it.
I've used both and to be honest, I don't waste much time thinking/worrying about it.
VaughnTrue
Well-known member
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
RE: Laynes quote
He starts by saying leucine depletes the other aminos and cites some work that shows this. Ok... but what does this have to do with ratios? This is an argument against leucine taken independently (i.w. dont take leucine on its own cause it depletes other aminos)
So that is really a bad argument against blend ratios but for the sake of discussion lets pretend that makes sense. Now what? How does thins effect lbm gains? Answer.. we dont know. He even admits this much - "we believe that over time that it could actually short circuit protein synthesis because you’ll have a lack of substrate". Or in other words, we think it could hurt MPS but arent sure. So even after pretending the first part was relevant, the argument is at best, shaky.
The end of that quote by Layne's pretty much sums up the answer here - "We don’t know"
We don't know if higher ratio blends will deplete other amino substrates and we dont know if it does, what the consequence of that is, especially on MPS.
and again, all those studies you linked are essentially meaningless , unless you wanna point out any specific takeways from them that are applicable here
He starts by saying leucine depletes the other aminos and cites some work that shows this. Ok... but what does this have to do with ratios? This is an argument against leucine taken independently (i.w. dont take leucine on its own cause it depletes other aminos)
So that is really a bad argument against blend ratios but for the sake of discussion lets pretend that makes sense. Now what? How does thins effect lbm gains? Answer.. we dont know. He even admits this much - "we believe that over time that it could actually short circuit protein synthesis because you’ll have a lack of substrate". Or in other words, we think it could hurt MPS but arent sure. So even after pretending the first part was relevant, the argument is at best, shaky.
The end of that quote by Layne's pretty much sums up the answer here - "We don’t know"
We don't know if higher ratio blends will deplete other amino substrates and we dont know if it does, what the consequence of that is, especially on MPS.
and again, all those studies you linked are essentially meaningless , unless you wanna point out any specific takeways from them that are applicable here
De__eB
Well-known member
Oh yeah well <appeal to authority> and did you even consider <quotes from people I'm a fan of>. Additionally <arbitrary> pullquotes that support my perspective>
<Irrelevant links>
The Solution
Legend
it is just discussion thats all. If you wanted to question Layne you could always email him
[email protected] or [email protected] (Scivation Owner)
A few have addressed OP's question The Difference in feel from a 4:1:1 Blend and 2:1:1 Blend is not even noticed. not to mention the difference may be negligible.
Which i agree with ^^^
Jiigzz
Legend
I'm struggling to find which study you posted The Solution that shows that the other two aminos are reduced with Leucine administration. I've skimmed over them all, but I can't find it.
Does anyone have more information on this? More specifically I'd like to know whether the depletion was transient and how long after administration the effects were monitored for, because those factors are key to understanding whether or not it actually matters.
Does anyone have more information on this? More specifically I'd like to know whether the depletion was transient and how long after administration the effects were monitored for, because those factors are key to understanding whether or not it actually matters.
DennisTheDane
Well-known member
More does not always mean better... The only thing i can say.. Is i kinda "feel" it.. In my energy levels when i combine it with a few other compounds...
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
The study Norton is referring to is -> Leucine stimulates clearance of indispensable amino acids. FASEB Journal. 1999;13:A908, but I cant find it anyone. It is cited in his dissertation. The author of it is Layman who was Norton's mentor so maybe he never got a pubbed and just gave Norton a copy? The gist of it was that they hooked rats up to a IV of leucine and saw that MPS increased but then as time went on the other aminos concentrations started to decrease. So really they takeaway here is about PROLONGED leucine and not really against amount. At least not directly but I can see how you can base some hypotheses from this against more leucine.
There is however this paper Invalid Link Removed Again they did a leucine infusion and saw aminos decrease but this time it was in pigs (which believe it or not is a pretty good animal model for humans) what they found was that leucine alone can not stimulate MPS in meaningful way without other amino substrates. Again, not an argument against higher blend amino mixes.
Mkgain1
Member
Yes I agree on hype.. Leucine gets a lot of hype from people so companies know they can make that $$$ of newbies on outrageous formulas.. I do like 1 product that's a 10:1:1 but really due to the surplus of extra goodies in the product
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
But to answer the original question, both "feel" the same.
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
or.. and this is just an idea.. but perhaps you can refrain from link bombing studies and quoting authors, until you at least have an understanding of what you are talking about.
You cant say something in a definitive manner and then when get questioned quote someone and say, take it up with them not me. If you can't defend the position, don't perpetuate said position. If you think 2:1:1 is better that's fine but dont pretend to say this opinion is based on research or science when you dont understand the science or research behind, say you feel 2:1:1 is better, because Norton says so. Posting links to studies insinuates those papers support your position and the majority of people on this board are just gonna assume they do and wont read them and then as a result think 2:1:1 is better because science when reality doesnt really reflect this
The Solution
Legend
Lets ask you this then. Take PES Amino Based product
Can you explain why the Amino matrix in Amino IV has no links or research to your 10:1:1 Amino Blend in the product? The only studies you link are based off Glutamine & Betaine?
How would this support others to utilize your product compared to 2:1:1 or 4:1:1 based products available on the market? Why would your 10:1:1 Ratio persuade others to purchase your product compared to those that use the 2:1:1 or 4:1:1 Ratio?
10:1:1 BCAAMatrix (L-Leucine, L-Isoleucione, L-Valine),
Amino IV | The Last Amino Acid Supplement You Will Ever Need
References
1. Trepanowski, John F., Tyler M. Farney, Cameron G. Mccarthy, Brian K. Schilling, Stuart A. Craig, and Richard J. Bloomer. "The Effects of Chronic Betaine Supplementation on Exercise Performance, Skeletal Muscle Oxygen Saturation and Associated Biochemical Parameters in Resistance Trained Men." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 25.12 (2011): 3461-471. Web.
2. Lee, Elaine C., Carl M. Maresh, William J. Kraemer, Linda M. Yamamoto, Disa L. Hatfield, Brooke L. Bailey, Lawrence E. Armstrong, Jeff S. Volek, Brendon P. Mcdermott, and Stuart As Craig. "Ergogenic Effects of Betaine Supplementation on Strength and Power Performance." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 7.1 (2010): 27. Web.
3. Pryor, J. Luke, Stuart As Craig, and Thomas Swensen. "Effect of Betaine Supplementation on Cycling Sprint Performance." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 9.1 (2012): 12. Web.
4. Hoffman, Jay R., Nicholas A. Ratamess, Jie Kang, Adam M. Gonzalez, Noah A. Beller, and Stuart A S Craig. "Effect of 15 Days of Betaine Ingestion on Concentric and Eccentric Force Outputs During Isokinetic Exercise." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 25.8 (2011): 2235-241. Web.
5. Apicella, Jenna M., Elaine C. Lee, Brooke L. Bailey, Catherine Saenz, Jeffrey M. Anderson, Stuart A. S. Craig, William J. Kraemer, Jeff S. Volek, and Carl M. Maresh. "Betaine Supplementation Enhances Anabolic Endocrine and Akt Signaling in Response to Acute Bouts of Exercise." European Journal of Applied Physiology 113.3 (2013): 793-802. Web.
6. Candow, Darren, Philip Chilibeck, Darren Burke, Shawn Davison, and Truis Smith-Palmer. "Effect of Glutamine Supplementation Combined with Resistance Training in Young Adults." European Journal of Applied Physiology 86.2 (2001): 142-49. Web.
7. Phillips, George C. "Glutamine: The Nonessential Amino Acid for Performance Enhancement." Current Sports Medicine Reports 6.4 (2007): 265-68. Web.
8. Harris, Roger C., Jay R. Hoffman, Adrian Allsopp, and Naomi B.h. Routledge. "L-glutamine Absorption Is Enhanced after Ingestion of L-alanylglutamine Compared with the Free Amino Acid or Wheat Protein." Nutrition Research 32.4 (2012): 272-77. Web.
9. Hoffman, Jay R., David R. Williams, Nadia S. Emerson, Mattan W. Hoffman, Adam J. Wells, Daniele M. Mcveigh, William P. Mccormack, Gerald T. Mangine, Adam M. Gonzalez, and Maren S. Fragala. "L-alanyl-L-glutamine Ingestion Maintains Performance during a Competitive Basketball Game." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 9.1 (2012): 4. Web.
10. Hoffman, Jay R., Nicholas A. Ratamess, Jie Kang, Stephanie L. Rashti, Neil Kelly, Adam M. Gonzalez, Michael Stec, Steven Anderson, Brooke L. Bailey, Linda M. Yamamoto, Lindsay L. Hom, Brian R. Kupchak, Avery D. Faigenbaum, and Carl M. Maresh. "Examination of the Efficacy of Acute L-alanyl-L-glutamine Ingestion during Hydration Stress in Endurance Exercise." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 7.1 (2010): 8. Web.
11. Cruzat, Vinicius Fernandes, and Julio Tirapegui. "Effects of Oral Supplementation with Glutamine and Alanyl-glutamine on Glutamine, Glutamate, and Glutathione Status in Trained Rats and Subjected to Long-duration Exercise." Nutrition 25.4 (2009): 428-35. Web.
De__eB
Well-known member
You're completely missing his point.
You can't conclusively say that either is better, I'm very much confident given the current published research that you can't, especially in an adequately fed context in terms of your all-day nutrition.
If you're consuming adequate protein all-day, then I'd like to see you or anybody else demonstrate that any temporary reduction in plasma Isoleucine/Valine levels is even relevant with a higher ratio BCAA.
If you don't actually understand the underlying mechanics of why one or the other *might* be better, you shouldn't just be linkbombing the opinions of others authoritatively, and then just saying 'oh take it up with the guy I quoted' when questioned on it.
You can't conclusively say that either is better, I'm very much confident given the current published research that you can't, especially in an adequately fed context in terms of your all-day nutrition.
If you're consuming adequate protein all-day, then I'd like to see you or anybody else demonstrate that any temporary reduction in plasma Isoleucine/Valine levels is even relevant with a higher ratio BCAA.
If you don't actually understand the underlying mechanics of why one or the other *might* be better, you shouldn't just be linkbombing the opinions of others authoritatively, and then just saying 'oh take it up with the guy I quoted' when questioned on it.
tin gorilla
Member
^ This
The Solution
Legend
Why do others in this thread agree about the 2:1:1 ratio then?
Then why does layne back his Carbon product with his own BCAA research and other pubmed research?
Why does Stoppani back his products that use a 2:1:1 Ratio blend with his own research as well?
Why don't other companies provide studies that create 8:1:1 or 10;1:1 products to show how effective they are, or why they would be superior to other BCAA products on the market?
If those 8:1:1/10:1:1 companies want to market their product and teach consumers why their product is superior don't you think they would put forth the time and money to back the product, its claims, and the reasoning behind the decision on their BCAA blend?
De__eB
Well-known member
Show me a study showing that 2:1:1 BCAAs are superior to 8:1:1 BCAAs?
Show me a study demonstrating that in a high protein diet BCAAs do anything at all?
All I see are studies showing that with no diet control, 2:1:1 BCAAs work better than nothing.
Oh right, nobody would ever even consider funding a study as stupid as 2:1:1 vs. 8:1:1 because any differences that there might be either way are not going to be statistically significant on anything under thousands of participants.
Layne and Stoppani back their products with the most studied ratio for BCAAs only in isolation.
There are however a plethora of studies which would indicate that an EAA (Which includes BCAAs) products are effective and that Leucine products are also effective.
In the end, there is no conclusive way to say which is better short of directly comparing them, which as I said before is never going to happen.
The Solution
Legend
now you agree..
the solution said:
This goes back to Post #1 + the others in this thread that said the same thing.
De__eB
Well-known member
Did I say they are better?
Pretty sure I said repeatedly that neither you or anybody else can actually say which is better because it is impossible to state conclusively. I would welcome you or anybody else to try.
So stop sitting here like a ****ing parrot on Layne Norton's shoulder, repeatedly copy and pasting his OPINIONS as if they are FACTS.