Hydrolized Whey vs. Hydrolyzed Casein

Diet and Nutrition
1

Currently there are only three supplements that I am dedicating regular purchase to. Protein, bcaa, and creatine. I did a shit-ton of research on what I believe to be the best products for myself and the last time I named them by brand, the mods booted my post. Oh well. Brands aren’t important to me anyway. But at this moment in time what IS important to me is if I’m using the right protein for after my workouts. I’m using a very pure and simple, and very expensive, hydrolyzed whey isolate. And this is the T-Nation so it’s hard avoid the talk about this “casein hydrolosate” stuff. Post-workout, is there a huge difference between the two in terms of uptake and absorbtion? Is casein hydrolosate useless to a person who’d consider themselves an advanced beginner?

I’m really just looking for the pros/cons of either products and maybe a really good reason as to why one is better than the other. Thanks in advance for your help.

2

Not exactly sure what you are asking.

are you asking if casein Hydro is better then Whey Hydro?

3

They both are absorbed in opposite ways. So you really cant compare. They both are most beneficial in certain times. Both are equally effective imo. I havent bought straight up whey or casein in yrs. I prefer matrixes

4

in what different ways are they absorbed?

5

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
They both are absorbed in opposite ways. So you really cant compare. They both are most beneficial in certain times. Both are equally effective imo. I havent bought straight up whey or casein in yrs. I prefer matrixes[/quote]

You dont know the difference between micellar casein and casein hydrolysate

6

I thought he was saying their is a difference in how whey hydro and casein hydro are absorbed. i know how micelular casein and casein hydro differ in absorbtion.

7

CH absorbs faster and thus is better for spiking blood aminos… your decision whether its worth the potential extra cost… also leucine is the shit

8

What would you define as a ‘huge difference’?

Vague term is vague.

9

I’m asking if it’s worth spending the extra dough for CH. That’s all. I was always under the impression that hydrolyzed whey was the protein that your body assimilated fastest. If there is really no difference, which seems to be the case, than I’ll just stick with the hydro-whey. I just wanted to see if there was some secret that made CH better than H-W.

After all, TC gave CH something like a “Ten Nutsack Rating” last week so obviously HE thinks it’s especially awesome…

10

[quote]silverhydra wrote:

What would you define as a ‘huge difference’?

Vague term is vague.[/quote]

Forty-five minutes to an hour…

11

If I may…the “secret” is in the specific blend of di and tripeptides (which are absorbed intact) as well as the amino acid profile of Biotest’s CH. It’s tops in the industry, no question about it. As I’ve said before though, the only sample size that matters is an “N of 1”. IOW, how YOU feel when you use it. The answer is simple - take CH for a test drive for a month and see how you like it.

TZ

[quote]ens-perfectum wrote:
I’m asking if it’s worth spending the extra dough for CH. That’s all. I was always under the impression that hydrolyzed whey was the protein that your body assimilated fastest. If there is really no difference, which seems to be the case, than I’ll just stick with the hydro-whey. I just wanted to see if there was some secret that made CH better than H-W.

After all, TC gave CH something like a “Ten Nutsack Rating” last week so obviously HE thinks it’s especially awesome…[/quote]

12

[quote]Tim Ziegenfuss PhD wrote:
If I may…the “secret” is in the specific blend of di and tripeptides (which are absorbed intact) as well as the amino acid profile of Biotest’s CH. It’s tops in the industry, no question about it. As I’ve said before though, the only sample size that matters is an “N of 1”. IOW, how YOU feel when you use it. The answer is simple - take CH for a test drive for a month and see how you like it.

TZ

[/quote]

Dr. Z,
I am currently using 2 scoops Anaconda, 2 SWF and 1 scoop (20g) PeptoPro. Can the fact that PeptoPro has a slightly different profile than the CH in Anaconda be a problem? Should I, for example, have 2 scoops Anaconda and 2 SWF before/during training and 20g PeptoPro after?

Thanks,
B.

13

[quote]Tim Ziegenfuss PhD wrote:
If I may…the “secret” is in the specific blend of di and tripeptides (which are absorbed intact) as well as the amino acid profile of Biotest’s CH. It’s tops in the industry, no question about it. As I’ve said before though, the only sample size that matters is an “N of 1”. IOW, how YOU feel when you use it. The answer is simple - take CH for a test drive for a month and see how you like it.

TZ

[quote]ens-perfectum wrote:
I’m asking if it’s worth spending the extra dough for CH. That’s all. I was always under the impression that hydrolyzed whey was the protein that your body assimilated fastest. If there is really no difference, which seems to be the case, than I’ll just stick with the hydro-whey. I just wanted to see if there was some secret that made CH better than H-W.

After all, TC gave CH something like a “Ten Nutsack Rating” last week so obviously HE thinks it’s especially awesome…[/quote]
[/quote]
I don’t get the ‘see how you like it’ comment… there’s an obvious difference (both in the effects and how it feels in your stomach) between a low quality and high quality protein powder, or between a whey concentrate and hydrolyzed whey, but I don’t see how anyone would see/feel the difference between whey hydrolysate or casein hydrolysate.

14

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]Tim Ziegenfuss PhD wrote:
If I may…the “secret” is in the specific blend of di and tripeptides (which are absorbed intact) as well as the amino acid profile of Biotest’s CH. It’s tops in the industry, no question about it. As I’ve said before though, the only sample size that matters is an “N of 1”. IOW, how YOU feel when you use it. The answer is simple - take CH for a test drive for a month and see how you like it.

TZ

[quote]ens-perfectum wrote:
I’m asking if it’s worth spending the extra dough for CH. That’s all. I was always under the impression that hydrolyzed whey was the protein that your body assimilated fastest. If there is really no difference, which seems to be the case, than I’ll just stick with the hydro-whey. I just wanted to see if there was some secret that made CH better than H-W.

After all, TC gave CH something like a “Ten Nutsack Rating” last week so obviously HE thinks it’s especially awesome…[/quote]
[/quote]
I don’t get the ‘see how you like it’ comment… there’s an obvious difference (both in the effects and how it feels in your stomach) between a low quality and high quality protein powder, or between a whey concentrate and hydrolyzed whey, but I don’t see how anyone would see/feel the difference between whey hydrolysate or casein hydrolysate.[/quote]

Simple: some people have undiagnosed food intolerances to whey or casein. Aside from paying $ to have the blood work done, the other option is to take it for a test run.

Also, let’s say a WH has 2-3 grams of leucine per serving and Biotest’s CH has double that, plus other key aminos to spike insulin. Each of those factors would make a big difference in how a person responds to the protein.

Make sense?

15

If you would ask any neutral scientific authority, they would say that there is little difference between them two aside from moderately different amino acid profiles. We are talking of percentage points in difference here, and one is not really clearly more positive/negative than the other.

16

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:
If you would ask any neutral scientific authority, they would say that there is little difference between them two aside from moderately different amino acid profiles. We are talking of percentage points in difference here, and one is not really clearly more positive/negative than the other.[/quote]

Agreed.

17

[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:
If you would ask any neutral scientific authority, they would say that there is little difference between them two aside from moderately different amino acid profiles. We are talking of percentage points in difference here, and one is not really clearly more positive/negative than the other.[/quote]

Agreed.[/quote]

Er um maybe. Also, I am not being argumentative here, I enjoy a good debate.

The way I see it, CH and WH are either equal in their effects on body comp, or the edge goes to an amped up version of CH (b/c of the additional stim on protein synthesis via leucine and the additional reduction in protein breakdown via enhanced insulin secretion). To be honest, no research has ever compared the two head-to-head, so we are merely speculating here. But from my perspective, the guys I work with (NFL, NHL, MMA) are looking for every possible advantage they can get. That’s why this version of CH gets the nod unless as I mentioned earlier they have a food intolerance to it. Now if you take WH and add extra leucine to it, etc…that’s a different story. Then its a bona fide crapshoot. Agreed!

BTW, I asked 3 “neutral scientific authorities” their opinion, and it looks like we are all going to “agree to disagree”. This is what they said:

Authority #1. answer - Hard to say but probably the amped up version of CH since it has more leucine and also casein hangs around longer in the bloodstream which can be very beneficial during resistance training in the post-exercise recovery period.

Darryn S. Willoughby, Ph.D., FACSM, FISSN, CSCS, CISSN, CNC, CPS
Associate Professor of Exercise/Nutritional Biochemistry and Molecular Physiology
Associate Professor, Baylor Biomedical Science Institute
Department of Health, Human Performance, and Recreation
Director, Exercise and Biochemical Nutrition Laboratory
Director, Exercise Nutrition and Resistance Training Research Unit
Director, Exercise and Healthy Aging Research Unit
Baylor University

Authority #2. answer - WH
Joey Antonio, PhD, CSCS, FASCM, FISSN
CEO of the International Society of Sports Nutrition

Authority #3. answer - they are the same
Douglas S. Kalman PhD, RD, FACN
Director, Business Development
Phase I Unit & Applied Clinical Trials
Miami Research Associates

It looks like we may need TP to fund a clinical…! :slight_smile:

18

I for one will be glad to volunteer my body for this science.

19

[quote]byukid wrote:
I for one will be glad to volunteer my body for this science.[/quote]

I dare you to say that in GAL.

More seriously, it sounds like a good experiment to conduct. The only problem being that it would then have to be independently repeated, so it would have to be more than just Biotest doing it.

20

[quote]ens-perfectum wrote:

[quote]silverhydra wrote:

What would you define as a ‘huge difference’?

Vague term is vague.[/quote]

Forty-five minutes to an hour…[/quote]

45-60 minute difference in absorption between two hydroslates? Where did you hear that?