[quote]guitarlifter wrote:
Costco77 wrote:
007, just wondering if it would be even worth it to use hydrolized whey instead of CH, knowing that it’s a slower protein but also cheaper. 37$ for 30 servings 3 times per day not including 20g during workout = less than 10 servings. Which will really hurt the wallet, should I suck it up and go with the CH? WH will be less effective but if timed right I should still see results right?
I’d like to see the scientific reports that it is slower by any appreciable amount. Then, even before that, I’d like to see the scientific reports that conclude that a protocol such as amino acid pulsing is more effective at building muscle.[/quote]
Costco77,
It’s a fair question. I haven’t encountered any research claiming it superior or inferior to it’s casein counterpart. Thibaudeau did post that there was some debate whether WH was in fact any use for pulsing and that CH might be the only substance suitable. However, this was never verified.
I use CH but only sparingly due to costs, i.e. during the workout. Pre and post workout, as well as upon waking, I use WH. I have been quite religious in following this for 3 months and can report better recovery and improved training gains - nothing dramatic but gains nonetheless. However, I’ve recently made a few changes to the rest of my diet in a bid to increase it’s effectiveness further. I have lowered my daily fat intake as CT recommends to 60-90g per day (majority at night post-workout).
Guitarlifter,
Jerry Brainum quoted some research in the recent Ironman concerning CH, which showed some avantages for the group ingesting it while training. It was not, however, compared to WH.
Like you, I would like to see the research that hyperaminoacidemia can be induced with this protocol. I am hopeful this will happen on the back of the launch of Anaconda.
Until then I am content to continue to experiment with it.