Casein Hydrolysate

I’ve been reading Lyle’s work for quite some time and have recently been reading Alan Aragorn’s material. Both are very well educated and highly knowledgeable and have built a following much like John Berardi. But recently I’ve browsed a couple of articles of theirs that go against principals of the Anaconda Protocol.

I remember a long time ago someone asked Thibs a question and they referenced Charles Poliquin. Thibs said in a nutshell, “Poliquin is a great trainer, but he isn’t the the gospel” So yes Aragorn and McDonald are great in their fields, but they are not the be all, end all in knowledge regarding every subject in their area.

My friends and I buy mostly Biotest supplements, but are wondering about their arguments about the use of casein hydrolysate contained in Anaconda and MAG-10.

I understand if this post is deleted, but can someone PM me an answer that explains the use of
casein hydrolysate.

I know there is a study out there that Lyle discussed that takes a shot at casein hydrolysate (this might be what you are referring to?). I didn’t bother to post it here as I figured it might get deleted.

I tried doing some quick research on my own, but there doesn’t seem to be a heckuva lot of information out there about hydrolyzed casein for athletes (at least, from what I’ve seen). Most of the other ingredients, however, have plenty of information about them, and I’m sure before long we will have plenty of testimonials about the Anaconda protocol.

edit: fuckit, I’ll post it here and hopefully someone (Bill Roberts?) might be able to step in and offer some perspective on the study and it’s review. I get what the study is saying, but my research “expertise” is in microbiology, so I can’t speak intelligently in regards to this study and - despite liking some of Lyle’s work - won’t take this piece as gospel.

[quote]anonym wrote:
I know there is a study out there that Lyle discussed that takes a shot at casein hydrolysate (this might be what you are referring to?). I didn’t bother to post it here as I figured it might get deleted.

I tried doing some quick research on my own, but there doesn’t seem to be a heckuva lot of information out there about hydrolyzed casein for athletes (at least, from what I’ve seen). Most of the other ingredients, however, have plenty of information about them, and I’m sure before long we will have plenty of testimonials about the Anaconda protocol.[/quote]

True. I remember when doctors said steroids didn’t work. Thibs had real world accomplishments but Aragorn takes a shot at that too.
I did read the article I believe you are referring to.

I am curious too. Lyle Mcdonald is very informative and has done some decent work on investigating the use of casein hydrolysate. Specifically he uses this article:

Deglaire et al. Hydrolyzed dietary casein as compared with the intact protein reduces postprandial peripheral, but not whole-body, uptake of nitrogen in humans. Am J Clin Nutr. (2009) 90(4):1011-22.

BACKGROUND: Compared with slow proteins, fast proteins are more completely extracted in the splanchnic bed but contribute less to peripheral protein accretion; however, the independent influence of absorption kinetics and the amino acid (AA) pattern of dietary protein on AA anabolism in individual tissues remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the postprandial regional utilization of proteins with similar AA profiles but different absorption kinetics by coupling clinical experiments with compartmental modeling. DESIGN: Experimental data pertaining to the intestine, blood, and urine for dietary nitrogen kinetics after a 15N-labeled intact (IC) or hydrolyzed (HC) casein meal were obtained in parallel groups of healthy adults (n = 21) and were analyzed by using a 13-compartment model to predict the cascade of dietary nitrogen absorption and regional metabolism.

RESULTS: IC and HC elicited a similar whole-body postprandial retention of dietary nitrogen, but HC was associated with a faster rate of absorption than was IC, resulting in earlier and stronger hyperaminoacidemia and hyperinsulinemia. An enhancement of both catabolic (26%) and anabolic (37%) utilization of dietary nitrogen occurred in the splanchnic bed at the expense of its further peripheral availability, which reached 18% and 11% of ingested nitrogen 8 h after the IC and HC meals, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: The form of delivery of dietary AAs constituted an independent factor of modulation of their postprandial regional metabolism, with a fast supply favoring the splanchnic dietary nitrogen uptake over its peripheral anabolic use. These results question a possible effect of ingestion of protein hydrolysates on tissue nitrogen metabolism and accretion.

My Comments (Lyle): Ever since the pioneering work in the 90�s on fast and slow proteins, there has been continued interest in the digestion speed of proteins and how that impacts on metabolism, performance and, of course, muscle growth. In recent years, there have been many claims made for the superiority of faster proteins to slower in terms of �speeding amino acids to muscle� in terms of promoting growth.

As well, as many may note, a recent commercial product (T-nations Anaconda), who�s anabolic claims were analyzed in perhaps the most commented article on the site in Alan�s Aragon�s guest article Supplement Marketing on Steroids, has recently been released to the market.

For background, hydrolysates are simply whole proteins that have been pre-digested (through the addition of enzymes during production) to some degree. The theory being that, due to this pre-digestion, the hydrolysate will be digested in the stomach faster, getting aminos into the bloodstream faster and, presumably, having a better effect on skeletal muscle than slower proteins.

But is it true? Guess.

The above study examined this issue by feeding 21 subjects 2 test meals containing ~26.5 grams of either intact casein or it�s hydrolysate; the protein had been marked with radioactive nitrogen so that it�s fate after ingestion could be tracked over the next 8 hours. The test meals also contained 96 grams of carbohydrate and 23 grams of fat; this is worth noting as adding other nutrients to fast proteins often makes them behave more like slow proteins. I�ll spare you the methodology, sufficed to say that tracking protein after it enters the body is brutally complicated and involves a lot of modelling and various measurements of blood amino acid levels and such.

Here�s what the study found. Over the time course studied (8 hours after ingestion), the hydrolyzed casein product showed greater losses from digestion (that is, less was absorbed). As well, a greater amount of the hydrolysate was oxidized for energy through deamination (a process by which the amino group is stripped off the carbon backbone). Finally, a larger amount of the casein hydrolysate was used by the splanchnic bed (gut and intestines) with significantly less of the total protein reaching the bloodstream or peripheral tissues (muscles).

To quote the researchers:

Quote:
Despite similar overall net postprandial protein utilization, our results indicate important differences in metabolic partitioning and kinetics between protein sources characterized by a preferential utilization of dietary nitrogen by for splanchnic protein syntheses after HC [hydrolyzed casein] ingestion at the expense of the incorporation into peripheral tissues.

Translating that into English: hydrolyzed casein is digested more poorly, gets burned for energy to a greater degree and gets used more by the gut than intact casein; the end result of this is that hydrolyzed casein provides LESS amino acids to skeletal muscle after ingestion than intact casein protein.

So not only is the claim that hydrolysates are better at providing aminos faster to skeletal muscle wrong, the reality is actually exactly reversed: intact casein is better for providing aminos to the muscle. I�d note that other studies have found this as well: in one, intact protein provided MORE branched-chain amino acids into the bloodstream than a hydrolyzed form.

I�d add to this that, as I discussed in The Protein Book, other data supports the idea that slower proteins may actually be superior to faster proteins for muscle growth; in one set of studies, for example, milk protein (a mix of slow and fast proteins) resulted in greater hypertophy than soy (a fast protein) over 8 weeks of training and supplementation. As well hydrolyzed proteins tend to taste like bleach; it�s no coincidence that Anaconda has to come with a separate flavoring intensifier: hydrolysates are gag-inducing. They can�t be consumed straight.

Summing up: Hydrolysates are not only not superior to intact protein in terms of providing amino acids to skeletal muscle, they are distinctly inferior. Their fast digestion speed leads to greater digestive losses, more oxidation via deamination and provides less amino acids to skeletal muscle. That�s on top of tasting like vomit. Or at least making you want to.

I’d like to see what Biotest’s studies or what information they had researched before marketing their products containg CH. Biotest has come out with some great products and the comments I have heard about the products seem to be mostly positive so im curious to see what inspired them to use this product in two different supplements (i.e. MAG-10 and Anaconda)…

I think time will tell whether the Anaconda Protocol works or not. So far it looks promising from what people are reporting. From the little research I have seen, everything looks like it should work in the way it says it does.

whey protein has been said to digest too quickly (as a stand alone food source) to be fully usable. I’m incline to believe the same thing about CH

So what exactly is the mechanism behind Casein Hydroslate that makes it so much more impressive than an a regular isolate?

I haven’t read what Aragon has to say. But keep in mind that he believes that high fructose corn syrup is the carb of choice for post-workout.

Briefly: First, there are transporters in the gut which specifically transport di and tri peptides. Providing protein in this form allows much more rapid absorption and spiking of blood levels than providing longer chain proteins which must be broken down.

Secondly, amino acids are transported in the blood not only as free-form aminos, but as di and tripeptides as well.

Additionally, certain of these also have effects such as increasing growth factors. I first became interested in this aspect when a study quite some time back – early 90s I think – showed that administration of di and tripeptides gave quite different effects than administration of free-form aminos. But it just wasn’t remotely economically possible to do this as a supplement back then.

Aragon is free to continue thinking that adding large amounts of HFCS to milk yields the optimal post-workout beverage. Different people have differing qualities of judgment.

Some posts have appeared in the interim while I was typing the above.

I’ve responded at length before with regard to using post-exercise protein synthesis as a supposed determinant of results. Brief answer: invalid method.

Lyle is an intelligent guy, and I enjoyed talking with him the one time I met him and enjoyed my correspondences with him, but if his study-based advice and critiques have helped one person get big and strong I don’t know of it. While on the other hand, Thibaudeau’s advice has helped many in this respect, and a number have felt helped by mine as well (including outside of performance-enhancing drug use.)

This is because practical results in these things are of more importance than wank sessions to Pubmed abstracts or full-text articles, and here at Biotest while we indeed take science findings into account, we take outcomes in actual use as the prime factor. Many people have felt helped by Lyle’s fat-loss advice, though.

I saw the study linked on Lyle’s site.
What seems to be the case is that there is very little in the way of scientific studies surrounding the use of Casein Hydrolysate.

The study above only states the effectiveness of CH when used alone (and as Bill mentioned, only studies post exercise protein synthesis - as spurious an argument as looking at mid workout oxygen consumption alone and ignoring EPOC when looking at the merits of different types of cardio).

What Thibs has recommended from the outset is the use of CH as a ‘pulse’ before a meal. Or as a component of peri work-out nutrition. This is not the same thing as taking CH by itself. (just like eating a steak by itself will not yield the same result as eating it with carbs or fats added).

Personally, I can say that whilst using CH (be it peptopro or MAG-10) I have seen positive results and for this reason will continue to use it.

If you’re basing your training/ supplement decisions on scientific studies alone, assuming that a study’s method has lead to an exact replication of your personal scenario, you’re kind of missing the point.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Some posts have appeared in the interim while I was typing the above.

I’ve responded at length before with regard to using post-exercise protein synthesis as a supposed determinant of results. Brief answer: invalid method.

Lyle is an intelligent guy, and I enjoyed talking with him the one time I met him and enjoyed my correspondences with him, but if his study-based advice and critiques have helped one person get big and strong I don’t know of it. While on the other hand, Thibaudeau’s advice has helped many in this respect, and a number have felt helped by mine as well (including outside of performance-enhancing drug use.)

This is because practical results in these things are of more importance than wank sessions to Pubmed abstracts or full-text articles, and here at Biotest while we indeed take science findings into account, we take outcomes in actual use as the prime factor. Many people have felt helped by Lyle’s fat-loss advice, though.[/quote]

Thanks Bill. Like I said above, I guess they aren’t the gospel!
I just found it strange that two respected and seemingly unbiased writers would take their shots at Biotest.

“Seemingly” unbiased only if not happening to know track record.

From reading the comments after those articles, it is very apparent they have an agenda. Their “facts” were as bad as what they claim to be happening here. They would dismiss any Biotest “whores” while ignoring valid opinions and facts presented. They present some valid arguments at times, but it made me question their prerogative.

That being said I find it to be dumb to use ONE study to completely dismiss Anaconda and MAG-10 (before they were even out)

[quote]jarvis wrote:
I saw the study linked on Lyle’s site.
What seems to be the case is that there is very little in the way of scientific studies surrounding the use of Casein Hydrolysate.

The study above only states the effectiveness of CH when used alone (and as Bill mentioned, only studies post exercise protein synthesis - as spurious an argument as looking at mid workout oxygen consumption alone and ignoring EPOC when looking at the merits of different types of cardio).

What Thibs has recommended from the outset is the use of CH as a ‘pulse’ before a meal. Or as a component of peri work-out nutrition. This is not the same thing as taking CH by itself. (just like eating a steak by itself will not yield the same result as eating it with carbs or fats added).

Personally, I can say that whilst using CH (be it peptopro or MAG-10) I have seen positive results and for this reason will continue to use it.

If you’re basing your training/ supplement decisions on scientific studies alone, assuming that a study’s method has lead to an exact replication of your personal scenario, you’re kind of missing the point.
[/quote]

I haven’t really heard of taking CH before a meal. What are it’s advantages as a component preceding a meal? Is it it’s effect on insulin levels? Or the possible increased protein synthesis from the hyperaminoacidemia?

[quote]lbarb151 wrote:

[quote]jarvis wrote:
I saw the study linked on Lyle’s site.
What seems to be the case is that there is very little in the way of scientific studies surrounding the use of Casein Hydrolysate.

The study above only states the effectiveness of CH when used alone (and as Bill mentioned, only studies post exercise protein synthesis - as spurious an argument as looking at mid workout oxygen consumption alone and ignoring EPOC when looking at the merits of different types of cardio).

What Thibs has recommended from the outset is the use of CH as a ‘pulse’ before a meal. Or as a component of peri work-out nutrition. This is not the same thing as taking CH by itself. (just like eating a steak by itself will not yield the same result as eating it with carbs or fats added).

Personally, I can say that whilst using CH (be it peptopro or MAG-10) I have seen positive results and for this reason will continue to use it.

If you’re basing your training/ supplement decisions on scientific studies alone, assuming that a study’s method has lead to an exact replication of your personal scenario, you’re kind of missing the point.
[/quote]

I haven’t really heard of taking CH before a meal. What are it’s advantages as a component preceding a meal? Is it it’s effect on insulin levels? Or the possible increased protein synthesis from the hyperaminoacidemia?
[/quote]

Check out CT’s thread on protein pulsing for his discussion on this.

I think there were also some prior threads in this forum about this.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I haven’t read what Aragon has to say. But keep in mind that he believes that high fructose corn syrup is the carb of choice for post-workout.
[/quote]

QFT