Dr. Berardi,
I read the book Nutrient Timing it was excellent!!!. Can you tell me why the authors recommend using whey instead of whey hydrolysate? Additionally, their recommended drink is quite low in protein content.
John
bump
Don’t worry about it. During a workout the protein content of your shake will be low relative to carbs. This allows insulin to be released and taking in 60g of protein during a workout doesn’t help any more than 15-20g. As far as recommending whey, don’t sweat it. Whey hydrolysate is theoretically superior, and if you wanna spend the money get it. Otherwise, you won’t notice much of a difference if you use whey concentrate and some malto/dextrose or gatorade powder.
The key is to eat a big meal(whole foods) after your workout w/ carbs&proteins. Make sure the proteins come from lean proteins and the carbs can vary from oats, yams, rice, potatoes, pasta, bananas, honey, cereal,etc. Just make sure it’s your biggest meal of the day.
The lack of distinction is probably an oversight by the authors. Whey sucks unless it’s hydrolyzed, and you’re better off using whole foods if you’re not going to use the highest quality protein.
Cheers
[quote]John DiBenedetto wrote:
I read the book Nutrient Timing it was excellent!!!. Can you tell me why the authors recommend using whey instead of whey hydrolysate? Additionally, their recommended drink is quite low in protein content.
John[/quote]
[quote]David Barr wrote:
The lack of distinction is probably an oversight by the authors. Whey sucks unless it’s hydrolyzed, and you’re better off using whole foods if you’re not going to use the highest quality protein.
Cheers
[/quote]
So the Whey concentrate is in Grow! for what reason?
“GROW! provides the ideal ratio of the most technically advanced blend of whey-protein concentrate, casein, and milk-protein isolate in a highly concentrated, great-tasting, easy-to-mix shake. The unique product design, and superior quality of ingredients, plus unsurpassed flavor, texture, and aroma, make the Grow! formula truly unbeatable!”
???
[quote]cycomiko wrote:
So the Whey concentrate is in Grow! for what reason?
[/quote]
Speaking of oversights… I should have specified that I was referring to the stimulation of protein synthesis. Whey concentrate is in Low-Carb Grow! because it is a moderate speed protein, which is what we’d want as in a meal replacement. There are other benefits, like increasing glutathione concentrations, but that’s another article altogether.
Cheers
Do you have any evidence that whey hydrolysate results in higher protein synthesis than other whey sources?
I figured there’d be a question about this. It really has to do with the rapidity of absorption, in that you basically have more aminos in a given time to stimulate PS.
We’ve applied so much practice on amino acid data, but whey just isn’t the same. The extent to which will become more evident over the next few years.
Cheers
[quote]cycomiko wrote:
Do you have any evidence that whey hydrolysate results in higher protein synthesis than other whey sources?[/quote]
[quote]David Barr wrote:
We’ve applied so much practice on amino acid data, but whey just isn’t the same. The extent to which will become more evident over the next few years.
[/quote]
I have seen research, both published and unpublished showing no difference in absorbtion (rate of appearance) between WPC/WPH or WPI/WPH. Do you have any otherwise, as it would be (very) useful to me.
[quote]cycomiko wrote:
I have seen research, both published and unpublished showing no difference in absorbtion (rate of appearance) between WPC/WPH or WPI/WPH. Do you have any otherwise, as it would be (very) useful to me.[/quote]
Let me ask, when you saw the findings you mentioned, did you find them curious? It seems quite odd that there would be no difference between absorption of the different types of whey. In fact, there is a report that a high degree of hydrolysis can yield even better absorption than pure amino acids -Di Pasquale, M.G. (1997) Amino acids and proteins for the athlete: The anabolic edge. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press (I must re-read or buy this book, as I’d like specific pages to reference). This agrees with what many of the experts think; that the di-tri-peptide transporters must be used for best effect (before you ask, I won’t name names). The relatively high rate of absorption is also shown in a study by Calbet and MacLean (2002). In contrast, two studies by Dangin et al., show much slower rates of appearances with different types of whey (2001 and 2003). This is confirmed by research from our lab, most recently, Tipton et al. (2004). Aside from an anomalous van Loon et al. (2000) study, everything seems to support the hypothesis that hydrolysate is absorbed faster.
Looking forward to continuing this discussion with you!
Cheers
[quote]David Barr wrote:
cycomiko wrote:
Let me ask, when you saw the findings you mentioned, did you find them curious? It seems quite odd that there would be no difference between absorption of the different types of whey. In fact, there is a report that a high degree of hydrolysis can yield even better absorption than pure amino acids -Di Pasquale, M.G. (1997) Amino acids and proteins for the athlete: The anabolic edge. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press (I must re-read or buy this book, as I’d like specific pages to reference). This agrees with what many of the experts think; that the di-tri-peptide transporters must be used for best effect (before you ask, I won’t name names). [/quote]
I have seen others quote Mario’s book, but do not have it myself so I dont know where that comes from. I understand the effect of di-tri transporters and the like, but it doesnt appear to make much of a difference. I am also surrounded by whey.casein and amino acid experts, who dont think it shows much difference.
they compared glucose, pea protien hydrolysate, whey protein hydrolysate and milk protein. Doenst allow comparison to a whey proteine isolate/concentrate.
Direct comparison between the research of Dangin et al (borie and all that) and the others is difficult from their raw data (with the isotopic work being better). Becuase you are comparing with different populations, at different times with different composition (dangins work was pure protien, calbet and maclean used a protein carbohyrate and electrolyte solution). For a direct comparison they have to be done at the same time under the same conditions to have a good effect.
comparing casein to whey… and one that found “Acute ingestion of both WH and CS after exercise resulted in similar increases in muscle protein net balance, resulting in net muscle protein synthesis despite different patterns of blood amino acid responses.” ie no significant difference between casein and whey… (if you can get Kevin to redo it but instead of casein use Soy, and get a positive result for whey. I would be happy !!)
[quote] Aside from an anomalous van Loon et al. (2000) study, everything seems to support the hypothesis that hydrolysate is absorbed faster.
Looking forward to continuing this discussion with you!
Cheers[/quote]
van loon was also with carbohydrate, but either way, hydrolysates are absorbed fast, but so are intact whey’s.
But this is the way I think of it, and others seem to agree with. Dumping whey into the gut, it will pass into duodenum relatively quickly with the first liquid phase from the stomach. Even with hydrolysis (it also depends on the level of hydrolysis) there is a maximal rate of uptake from the GI tract. And its not until the later period of uptake that hte ability of hydrolysis in the gut of the intact whey outstrips the ability of the amino acid transporters to get them across the gut. Which is likely why there is a dip before (intact) whey peaks out. Enzymes are just not breaking apart the intact whey quick enough. Whereas with the hydrolysate, its this point right at the top that makes the difference between the two… but it doesnt appear to be significant
Is that John Berardi? I’m reading one of his books now, and I know he believes in phases – Energy phase, Anabolic phase, Growth phase, and Recover phase. I’m not completely finished with the book, but from what I’ve read so far, during your workout and right after, your body will accept 100% of the protein and carbs that you throw at it – but they have to be fast-acting protein…maybe that is why he recomends whey.
Contrary to what someone mentioned above, he doesn’t recomend (at least not in this book) to eat whole foods until about two hours after your workout – which is the recovery phase. Immediately after, the growth phase, you’re looking for 1:1 protein to carbs and a fast acting protein. After that point, he recommends a 2:1 protein:carbs and a slower acting protein like whole foods.
Yeah, I know I’m not an expert in this area, but this quote strikes me as a bit questionable…
I’m not sure that the result shows no differences in absorption and impact, but instead an overall net equality over total time. In fact, the language around this statement acknowledges different absorption and amino acid profiles.
Beyond that, it would be good to know how trained the individuals were that participated in that study. As we all know, untrained individuals will gain, end of story. A trained individual will be more resistant to hypertrophy and quite potentially require a more extreme amino acid absorption profile to kickstart anabolic activity.
As a non-expert, my current belief is that faster absorption combined with fast acting carbohydrates is very helpful post workout. On the other hand, caseine is aborbed more slowly and hence helps in a different manner, keeping the amino pool in the bloodstrem stocked so that an anabolic state or non-catabolic state can be maintained.
It is quite possible the studies in question support more than one conclusion, based on what you are looking for and the level of training of the subjects involved.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sure there are differences in absorbtion, but the research shows no significant (there is a reason there is statistics, to remove some of the effect of chance out of the equation) difference in protein balance INSPITE of the differences in leucine (one of the prime stimulators of protien synthesis) and the differences in absorbtion between casein/whey. and the resultant net balance over a time period after the resistance training session.
to quote the paper
“The blood amino acid pattern of appearance differs for casein and whey proteins,likely resulting in greater oxidation of leucine when whey protein was ingested. Our results do not clearly demonstrate a difference in the response of net muscle protein synthesis
between casein and whey proteins.”
Most of the work in this area involves novices, otherwise the measurement becomes nearly impossible (PS decreases in trained subjects)
[quote]As we all know, untrained individuals will gain, end of story.[/quote] this piece of research is no about gains, its about the acute affect of training+supplement on measures of protein balance. tipton has not done a more chronic effect of supplementation on protein balance, and a lot of the research in the area is equivicol.
[quote]So A trained individual will be more resistant to hypertrophy and quite potentially require a more extreme amino acid absorption profile to kickstart anabolic activity.[/quote]Not really. they require a larger stimuli’ in terms of training, than amino acid mixture.
But there is little to support this assertation. Do a pubmed search for supplemental trials, weed out the ones that used creatine, adn the results are rather sad.
We already know significant increases in trained individuals are difficult to achieve, this is why most use novice lifters. More anything does not always indicate better. without evidence you are ASSuming something, which opens another can of worms
Yes, yes, everyone has heard the lame old assume cliche.
The trick is, if I was a scientist, I have just pointed out where research is required.
Get trained people and test these things out, to determine the answer. Right now we are interpolating based on research that wasn’t quite geared towards the conclusions we are trying to make.
I have a theory. I’ll use the word theory if it makes you more comfortable and avoids cliches… 
I’ve spent plenty of time on pubmed, and Dave Barr actually has a nice article on this site concerning post workout nutrition, which I imagine you’ve seen.
deapee:
Which book are you reading of JB’s?
Mufasa
[quote]vroom wrote:
Yes, yes, everyone has heard the lame old assume cliche.
The trick is, if I was a scientist, I have just pointed out where research is required.[/quote]yes, but if you were a scientist, with a limited budget, you would research something that you could actually measure. Otherwise you may as well flush ~20grand down the toilet.
[quote]Get trained people and test these things out, to determine the answer. Right now we are interpolating based on research that wasn’t quite geared towards the conclusions we are trying to make.[/quote]thats the way the cookie crumbles. A huge proportion of the research in this area is based around novice subjects. And even the trained subjects may not be as ‘extreme’ as some on this forum. If you are looking at elite, then are it starts getting possibly closer, although a lot less of htem are willing to be tested, biopsied and the likes.
[quote]I’ve spent plenty of time on pubmed, and Dave Barr actually has a nice article on this site concerning post workout nutrition, which I imagine you’ve seen.[/quote]This area is a major part of my day job (which is probably why I am a research scientist). I spend a vast amount of time each day on pubmed (and other search engines) as well as reading piles of research within this area.
Yes I have read Davids article, which contains some of the research we are going through on this thread.
Where is the good Dr?
CM I think I can clear things up right away, because we’re looking for different things. I am quite happy to extrapolate data from different studies in order to reach a conclusion. Not only do they all support the theory, the trend is consistent among each study -despite the differences in protocol you pointed out. In fact, one could argue that this only strengthens the point.
I’m sure I’d have a different perspective had I not worked in the lab that helped support the theory, and in a lab that contradicted it.
I’m really looking forward to your data.
BTW-I’m sad to say that Dr. Tipton is no long with our lab group (he’s on your side of the pond now).
Cheers
TEASER WARNING: I’ll have an article about this in detail (in a month or so), but the evidence I’ve seen shows that during a workout and immediately after are the times when the body is most resistant to the ingestion of anything.
Cheers