Christian,
I am going ahead and ordering some Casein Hydrolysate b/c who knows when Biotest’s Anaconda/CH will be released.
Do I need to buy some leucine to add to the CH for pulsing during the day? How bout during workouts?
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
TRU76 wrote:
Why do you use whey and not Anaconda post workout?
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Quadforce wrote:
Christian, if this is not too much to ask for, what does your current diet look like on workout days?
I normally train at 3:30pm…
Wake up at 6am: 1 scoop Anaconda
6:30: 1 FINiBAR
9:00: 1 scoop Anaconda
9:30: 300-400g of fruits
12:00: Low-fat fish (tilapia, sole) 200-300g
14:45: 2 FINiBARS
15:00: 2 scoops workout fuel
15:15: 2 scoop SURGE RECOVERY
15:30 - 17:00 (during workout): 2 scoops Anaconda
18:00: 1-2 scoops whey
18:30: 200-300g red meat, green veggies, fish oil
21:00: 200-300g chicken, green veggies, fish oil
Before bed: Low-carbs Metabolic Drive (2 scoops)
Anaconda is expensive an in limited quantities, even for us! So I limit my use to the best possible times.
I’ve heard through the branches that Biotest may come up with a pure casein hydrolysate product which would change a lot of things[/quote]
what does that mean “change a lot of things”?
CT, I like to make my whey shakes with xanthan gum, so each shake has 5-7g. of fiber. Does this completely negate the protein pulse effect? You say even isolate isn’t enough…so is the shake with fiber any worse than isolate?
[quote]sarah1 wrote:
CT, I like to make my whey shakes with xanthan gum, so each shake has 5-7g. of fiber. Does this completely negate the protein pulse effect? You say even isolate isn’t enough…so is the shake with fiber any worse than isolate?[/quote]
Yes it’s worse and no it will not work.
G’day CT,
I was curious what your general recomendations are in terms of macronutrients for an individual who can’t follow your protein pulse plan and is in a muscle growth phase?
I just wanna say i follow your para-workout nutrition(except Finibars as there unavailable in Aus) and love the intense pumps i get now while i am training. Just as i’m walking into the gym i get this real surge of energy flowing through, almost like adrenaline and i get all hot n start sweating before i even warm up. I really like the effect its having on the intensity of my training and my strength is continually going up.
Appreciate all you do.
[quote]xsquatx wrote:
G’day CT,
I was curious what your general recomendations are in terms of macronutrients for an individual who can’t follow your protein pulse plan and is in a muscle growth phase?
I just wanna say i follow your para-workout nutrition(except Finibars as there unavailable in Aus) and love the intense pumps i get now while i am training. Just as i’m walking into the gym i get this real surge of energy flowing through, almost like adrenaline and i get all hot n start sweating before i even warm up. I really like the effect its having on the intensity of my training and my strength is continually going up.
Appreciate all you do.[/quote]
NOT INCLUDING PARA-WORKOUT
1.25g of protein per pound
60-80g of fat
200g of carbs (increase or decrease depending on how body is reacting) consumed mostly in the AM
is there an aritcle here on tnation that explains protein pulsing?
Thanks
[quote]FlyersFan18 wrote:
is there an aritcle here on tnation that explains protein pulsing?
Thanks[/quote]
Not yet. We are still fine tuning the system.
Thib, I’ve read enough to drive myself crazy on this and have talked with at least 4 different PhD’s and PhD candidates on this issue.
I feel that if you space meals out about 5 hours apart, then WPC is fast “enough” to give a spike off of the previous mixed meal and then allow PS to decline after 2 hours to allow the next meal to elicit the usual post-prandial anabolism it should. Because WPC is slower than aminos, the amplitude of the spike will be somewhat compromised but it will last a bit longer too. And considering we can enjoy maximized PS for about 2 hour before it becomes refractory, I’m speculating that WPC should work here just fine. Oral aminos will spike and decline after about 60 mins which is why Dr. DiPasquale and Dave Barr believe in a double hit around the workout to give an especially powerful double spike of blood amino levels. Again absolute levels being irrelevant with respect to anabolism since it’s the actual rise triggering PS.
I know that it is thought by some that di and tri peptides are possibly “fastest” but that has to do with transporter availablity primarily. Things like BCAA, which bypass the liver, are excellent to induce hyperaminoacidemia and as long as you’ve eaten a meal a few hours before, then at least 3 of the experts I’ve talked with all agree that there is enough substrate from the previous meal to allow maximum anabolism without the other aminos being ingested with BCAA.
I will attach a graph from a study comparing whey vs WHY and cas vs CH in HUMANS and in the same study. Most recommendations are taken from bit and pieces of research taken together and extrapolated to give answers. Sometimes done in rats, which does not always correlate strongly with humans.
the graph shows no real “significant” difference between whey, WHY and CH. Now we both know that the term “significant” in research can be a bit misleading. But the graph will show what show what we can all agree on.
Hopefully I get the graph to come through properly. I stink on computers.
Best,
DH
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Kal-El wrote:
Hey Coach,
Sorry if this has been asked. But what about Whey Concentrate? Is it a bad idea pulsing or any part of the protocol? Thanks so much.
You know what. I talked to some protein experts and it seems that I’m actually wrong about regular whey.
The only protein that is absorbed fast enough for a pulse is casein hydrolysate and MAYBE whey hydrolysate.
This is a whole new world as far as sports nutrition is concerned, I’m still putting all the pieces together.[/quote]
I thought it had to do with the amount of time from a low level of blood aminos to a high level. It looks like whey and CH have close to the same peak, but the whey takes about 60min and the CH takes about 20min. (I might be reading it wrong)
Does the PS get turned on by the level (the peak) or how fast you get to the peak? Does that make sense? I am just trying to figure this stuff out. This is by far the most interesting place on this website.
[quote]DH wrote:
…
I will attach a graph from a study comparing whey vs WHY and cas vs CH in HUMANS and in the same study. Most recommendations are taken from bit and pieces of research taken together and extrapolated to give answers. Sometimes done in rats, which does not always correlate strongly with humans.
the graph shows no real “significant” difference between whey, WHY and CH. Now we both know that the term “significant” in research can be a bit misleading. But the graph will show what show what we can all agree on.
Hopefully I get the graph to come through properly. I stink on computers.
Best,
DH
[/quote]
It is interesting, though, that a fast drop after a peak is seen only in CH (between 20-30 minutes), and that drop is the MOST significant value (i.e., lowest variability) anywhere on the graph. Everything else takes much longer to get an equivalent drop, even when you account for the variability.
Not to say that you couldn’t still get good PS with fewer, slower peaks and valleys, but it certainly would be interesting if there were a mechanism sensitive to that CH rate of change. It wouldn’t be the only such mechanism. There are neurons in the visual system, for example, that respond to second or even third derivatives.
Well we get a few things from this study. First WHY and CHY are nearly identical in thier speed and magnitude of synthesis. Second, plain old whey gets the job done a little slower, but if we space it about 2.5 hours between meals then we will still be able to get a pulsatile effect.
So, if you took whey 30 mins before your workout, you will hit a PS peak during your workout. If you’ve maxed out protein syntheis (speculated to be at about .005g/kg of Leucine)then you let it begin to drop as you progress during the session and then hit another bolus of whey/bcaa when you finish your workout you will create a second higher spike that piggy backs off of the first one. All you have to do is let the spike begin to fall and then launch off of this new higher baseline to get what Dr DiPasquale calls a “square-wave effect”.
We repeatedly hear that whey is too slow and that it must be it’s hydrolysate to get the effect, but this graph doesn’t support that premise.
It looks to me that you can use any or all of the following to get the effect IF you just time it right: whey, WHY, CHY, EAA, BCAA
Aminos will cause a faster rise than whey but whey will get there in decent time. Faster means a faster rise AND a faster fall. For the purposes of between meals pulses, I find it to be a moot point. Use aminos to get a faster rise BUT a faster fall, use whey to get a slower rise but a slower fall. In the end both did the job of pulsing PS and both allow ample time for the next meal to elicit it’s effects too. As the graph shows, it will spike and fall significantly in the span of two hours which will allow the next meal to create it’s own anabolic and anti-catabolic effects.
Something to consider regarding this new and fascinating niche in sport nutrition.
Best,
DH
[quote]greggio wrote:
I thought it had to do with the amount of time from a low level of blood aminos to a high level. It looks like whey and CH have close to the same peak, but the whey takes about 60min and the CH takes about 20min. (I might be reading it wrong)
Does the PS get turned on by the level (the peak) or how fast you get to the peak? Does that make sense? I am just trying to figure this stuff out. This is by far the most interesting place on this website.[/quote]
I believe it has to do with the peak in amino levels. David Barr even said that the faster the protein the less you needed to get the same effect when pulsing. I would have to assume this is because a faster protein will get amino acid levels peaked more quickly (more total amino acids hit the blood at once rather than spread out), as shown in the chart.
Good eye. And IF this is key, rather than just an intellectual curiosity, then we see the same thing with free form aminos too. The graph certainly shows how one can justify useing only whey as a pulsing tool between meals and then if one wants to speculate a bit it could be argued that hydrolysates and/or aminos would offer some para-workout advantages but just how significant are we talking? Using whey between meals and maybe adding a litte free form LEU would appear to do the job quite nicely.
Dr. DiPasquale just simplified the whole thing into using whey as a pre and then using aminos as a post to get a spike off of the orignial spike.
Compliance, simplicity, and cost are all significant and real factors. After all, there are limits as to the rate at which you can build muscle. All else is substrate storage etc… Heck even Dianabol won’t exceed 15-20lbs in a month. And you urniate some of that away as soon as you come off! 
This is fascinating stuff for sure.
Best,
DH
[quote]andersons wrote:
DH wrote:
…
I will attach a graph from a study comparing whey vs WHY and cas vs CH in HUMANS and in the same study. Most recommendations are taken from bit and pieces of research taken together and extrapolated to give answers. Sometimes done in rats, which does not always correlate strongly with humans.
the graph shows no real “significant” difference between whey, WHY and CH. Now we both know that the term “significant” in research can be a bit misleading. But the graph will show what show what we can all agree on.
Hopefully I get the graph to come through properly. I stink on computers.
Best,
DH
It is interesting, though, that a fast drop after a peak is seen only in CH (between 20-30 minutes), and that drop is the MOST significant value (i.e., lowest variability) anywhere on the graph. Everything else takes much longer to get an equivalent drop, even when you account for the variability.
Not to say that you couldn’t still get good PS with fewer, slower peaks and valleys, but it certainly would be interesting if there were a mechanism sensitive to that CH rate of change. It wouldn’t be the only such mechanism. There are neurons in the visual system, for example, that respond to second or even third derivatives.
[/quote]
This is good stuff!
Has anyone come across any research looking at the different proteins (whey, ch, why) effect on insulin production. I read paper that had a few examples of carb vs carb + pro, vs carb + pro + leucine. It seemed as if carb + pro + leucine was the clear winner, but I think they only used WHY. I would like to see if anyone has looked at the different proteins and how they may effect the insulin spike. If other things are equal, that may make a difference, at least from what I understand about insulin being a factor for anabolism.
I’ve got a paper somewhere that shows that whey causes a 28% increase in insulin by itself and WHY causes a 43% increase alone.
See if I can find it.
DH
[quote]greggio wrote:
This is good stuff!
Has anyone come across any research looking at the different proteins (whey, ch, why) effect on insulin production. I read paper that had a few examples of carb vs carb + pro, vs carb + pro + leucine. It seemed as if carb + pro + leucine was the clear winner, but I think they only used WHY. I would like to see if anyone has looked at the different proteins and how they may effect the insulin spike. If other things are equal, that may make a difference, at least from what I understand about insulin being a factor for anabolism.[/quote]
Here we go. Actually it shows that WHY causes a 28% increase over WP. 26 vs 31. Not too sure just how significant that really is though to be honest.
Plain whey is quite insulinogenic itself as the study shows. It also states point blank that there is NO connection between the insulin levels and gastric emptying of each solution.
1: Amino Acids. 2008 Aug 5. [Epub ahead of print] LinksHuman insulinotropic response to oral ingestion of native and hydrolysed whey protein.
Power O, Hallihan A, Jakeman P.
Human Science Research Unit, Department of Physical Education and Sports Science, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland, orla.power@ul.ie.
The insulinotropic response to the ingestion of whey protein and whey protein hydrolysate, independent of carbohydrate, is not known. This study examined the effect of protein hydrolysis on the insulinotropic response to the ingestion of whey protein. Sixteen healthy males ingested a 500 mL solution containing either 45 g of whey protein (WPI) or whey protein hydrolysate (WPH). The estimated rate of gastric empting was not altered by hydrolysis of the protein [18 (3) vs. 23 (3) min, n = 16; P = 0.15]. Maximum plasma insulin concentration (C (max)) occurred later (40 vs. 60 min) and was 28% [234 (26) vs. 299 (31) mM, P = 0.018] greater following ingestion of the WPH compared to the WPI leading to a 43% increase [7.6 (0.9) vs. 10.8 (2.6) nM, P = 0.21] in the AUC of insulin for the WPH. Of the amino acids with known insulinotropic properties only Phe demonstrated a significantly greater maximal concentration [C (max); 65 (2) vs. 72 (3) muM, n = 16; P = 0.01] and increase (+22%) in AUC following ingestion of the WPH. In conclusion, ingestion of whey protein is an effective insulin secretagogue. Hydrolysis of whey protein prior to ingestion augments the maximal insulin concentration by a mechanism that is unrelated to gastric emptying of the peptide solution.
PMID: 18679613 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Thib,
I sent you a PM. Just wanted to give you a heads up in case you don’t check them very often.
thank you,
DH
[quote]DH wrote:
Thib,
I sent you a PM. Just wanted to give you a heads up in case you don’t check them very often.
thank you,
DH
[/quote]
I actually never check them 
Coach what about midnight pulsings??
For example while waking up for restroom, can we pulse a shake?? I mean the times we wake up not on purpose??