I think I just dicovered my roadblock

[imported_dkm1987]

First off, I think protein ingestion as a whole is important but I feel too many people go overboard in worrying about it. If the average person is eating 10 to 20% while the active person is getting as high as 30% of Kcal/day in protein they are probably getting enough (based on other macro's and calories). My point was mostly that the studies looking at the increases in the anabolic environment with pre and post protein show pretty conclusively that these are very very important. As far as how much, the studies mostly used a mixture of 6g EAA (Essential Amino Acids) not a protein mixture per se.

Now I just posted what I think is a good rule of thumb at my forum so I'm just copying it over here.

Quote[/b] ]Before
16 to 25 grams fast protein (whey), 25 to 35 grams Cho, 5 grams Creatine

After
16 to 25 grams slow protein (if you won't be eating within the next 6 hours), fast if you will be eating soon after your workout. Cho can be skipped post workout but be sure that carbs are eaten throughout the rest of the day.

Now this isn't exact by any stretch and others may use/recommend differing amounts or substitutes this is just an estimate, nothing more.

 

[Fausto]

Thanks, you guys

Seems like my education is on track.

Aaron, that picture says it all

lift, eat and sleep.

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (shakeel @ Sep. 19 2005,4:43)]dkm
Rennie supports the intake of AA pre and post, so timing is very imoprtant and in my OPINION only, more important than worrying taking in 1-2g/lb of protein

No.

Tipton hasnt really researched pre and post (more pre or post) and his research is only applicable to the fasted state, he provides no evidence for anyone in the fed state, or anything other than acute.

Its far more important to get adequate protein than it is to worry about timing around training.

 

[Jester]

Adequate protein throughout the day? Or just adequate when you sum it all up?

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Sep. 19 2005,11:31)]

Quote[/b] ]No.

Yes

Quote[/b] ]Its far more important to get adequate protein than it is to worry about timing around training.

Not disagreeing with you there Aaron as I said before, but I think the fact that most people involved in Body Building ARE already getting "ADEQUATE" amounts. So as I said.

Quote[/b] ]First off, I think protein ingestion as a whole is important but I feel too many people go overboard in worrying about it. If the average person is eating 10 to 20% while the active person is getting as high as 30% of Kcal/day in protein they are probably getting enough.

Now we can pretty much rule out the "ADEQUATE" part of this conversation, since for the most part (as noted in my other comment concerning the average consumption) most "Bloody Americans" are, and when looking at people who actively participate in body building, I bet surely are. The only other aspect to increase potential anabolic response to training would be to worry more about the timing.

Quote[/b] ]Tipton hasnt really researched pre and post (more pre or post)

Are you saying Tipton hasn't researched pre and post or are you saying he hasn't researched whether there is a difference between amounts pre and post. If the later I made no distinction between amounts pre and post. As a matter of fact I used the same amounts, the only variance was the type based on post workout consumption of meals.

If you are saying he hasn't researched pre and post period, I would say I totally disagree.

Tipton KD, Elliott TA, Cree MG, Wolf SE, Sanford AP, Wolfe RR.
Ingestion of casein and whey proteins result in muscle anabolism after resistance exercise.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Dec;36(12):2073-81.

Miller SL, Tipton KD, Chinkes DL, Wolf SE, Wolfe RR.
Independent and combined effects of amino acids and glucose after resistance exercise.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003 Mar;35(3):449-55.

Borsheim E, Tipton KD, Wolf SE, Wolfe RR.
Essential amino acids and muscle protein recovery from resistance exercise.
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2002 Oct;283(4):E648-57.

Tipton KD, Rasmussen BB, Miller SL, Wolf SE, Owens-Stovall SK, Petrini BE, Wolfe RR.
Timing of amino acid-carbohydrate ingestion alters anabolic response of muscle to resistance exercise.
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Aug;281(2):E197-206.

Rasmussen BB, Tipton KD, Miller SL, Wolf SE, Wolfe RR.
An oral essential amino acid-carbohydrate supplement enhances muscle protein anabolism after resistance exercise.
J Appl Physiol. 2000 Feb;88(2):386-92.

Tipton KD, Ferrando AA, Phillips SM, Doyle D Jr, Wolfe RR.
Postexercise net protein synthesis in human muscle from orally administered amino acids.
Am J Physiol. 1999 Apr;276(4 Pt 1):E628-34.

Quote[/b] ]and his research is only applicable to the fasted state, he provides no evidence for anyone in the fed state or anything other than acute.

Sure and they noted that, but the below study pretty much sums up that the acute changes can be representative.

Tipton KD, Borsheim E, Wolf SE, Sanford AP, Wolfe RR.
Acute response of net muscle protein balance reflects 24-h balance after exercise and amino acid ingestion.
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Jan;284(1):E76-89

Quote[/b] ]in our previous studies, the large acute changes were measured in the fasting state. A recent study showed that the response of muscle PS may become refractive to hyperaminoacidemia in certain situations. Thus it is possible that changes in net muscle protein balance resulting from hyperaminoacidemia after exercise would be diminished by a meal before the exercise or may diminish the response to a subsequent meal. Either scenario would affect the total response of muscle over a full 24-h day, possibly diminishing the total response.

However, the question remained as to whether this acute response reflected the response of muscle over a longer time period. In this study, we confirmed that muscle protein balance is increased, primarily because of an increase in muscle PS, when measured acutely and found that this response is additive to the basal response over a full 24-h period.

Looking at work by others it's still a safe bet to say that even in the fed state timing a portion of your protein intake around your workouts shows an additive response to the net balance.

Just one parting passage from Tipton in the J Sports Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79.
Protein and amino acids for athletes.
Tipton KD, Wolfe RR.

The main determinants of an athlete's protein needs are their training regime and habitual nutrient intake. Most athletes ingest sufficient protein in their habitual diet.....Given sufficient energy intake, lean body mass can be maintained within a wide range of protein intakes.......if muscle hypertrophy is the goal, a higher protein intake within the context of an athlete's overall dietary requirements may be beneficial. However, there are few convincing outcome data to indicate that the ingestion of a high amount of protein (2-3 g x kg(-1) BW x day(-1), where BW = body weight) is necessary........ Acute studies suggest that for any given amount of protein, the metabolic response is dependent on other factors, including the timing of ingestion in relation to exercise and/or other nutrients, the composition of ingested amino acids and the type of protein.

Peace out, I got to go get ready for hurricane Rita.

 

[faz]

just read this on another site..does this mean casien is as good as whey


Here are some facts about protein (facts in terms of generally accepted scientific ideas). These are just a few, but will help to illustrate the differences between whey and casein.

1) Whey protein is a quickly digested protein. It will stimulate amino acid oxidation and protein synthesis. It has no effect on proteolysis (the breakdown of bodily proteins).

2) Casein is more slowly digested and also stimulates amino acid oxidation and protein synthesis, but to a lesser degree than whey. Casein strongly inhibits proteolysis. These properties result in casein consumption increasing the net gain of protein when compared to whey. In other words, you end up with more protein in your system when you consume whey.


Many of the facts in number 2 are not mentioned by the proponents of whey only powders. The primary thrust for whey only products is the idea that one should consume it directly after a workout due to its quick absorbtion property. In theory this is a good idea, but it fails in real life.

When we consume anything it is travels to our stomach. Once there, the stomach provides mechanical digestion by churning the foods. The only appreciable chemical digestion that occurs in the stomach is from pepsin which begins breaking down protein molecules. To make a long story short, depending on what was consumed it can take up to 4 hours for our stomach to empty.

The stomach turns our food into "chyme". This chyme is then dumped into the duodenum for further digestion and absorbtion to begin. The duodenum controls the rate of stomach emptying by chemical and stretch mechanisms. Fatty foods can slow this process to a great degree and cause our stomach to take 6 hours or more to empty.

So, we are looking at 6 or more hours for our stomach to empty when we consume a highly fatty meal. Most Americans consume a fair amount of fat in their diets and that includes off-season bodybuilders. Even meals with low fat can take 2-3 hours to empty the stomach.

Now, most bodybuilders eat up to 6 times per day. That means their stomach is almost never empty throughout the day. Thus, when they consume a post-workout whey shake they are not going to receive the purported benefits of the whey shake because their stomach is not totally empty and this will slow down the absorbtion of the whey.

It has been shown by Boirie et. al that the addition of fats and carbohydrates to a whey protein meal will attenuate (slow down ) the absorbtion of whey. This will essentially nullify the unique benefits of the whey only shake.

So, don't believe the hype ladies and gentlemen

 

[faz]

btw dan
(Peace out, I got to go get ready for hurricane Rita.)
hope you and everyone over there is ok

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (faz @ Sep. 21 2005,1:00)]btw dan
(Peace out, I got to go get ready for hurricane Rita.)
                                                                                     hope you and everyone over there is ok

Thanks,
she's still undecided on where she's going but she has been upgraded to a Cat 5 storm. I live 80 miles from the coast so if she hits anywhere from Port Lavaca to Freeport or Galveston Texas, I'll definately feel her.

So anyone in her path, watch her close, better yet get out of her way.

Take Care Dan

 

[Tcup]

Dont get youself killed, you hear!

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (dkm1987 @ Sep. 22 2005,4<!--emo&amp;

)]

Quote[/b] ]Tipton hasnt really researched pre and post (more pre or post)

Are you saying Tipton hasn't researched pre and post or are you saying he hasn't researched whether there is a difference between amounts pre and post. If the later I made no distinction between amounts pre and post. As a matter of fact I used the same amounts, the only variance was the type based on post workout consumption of meals.

Tipton hasnt specifically research pre and post (he has done pre, he has done post, he has done 2 post workout feedings, but not the pre.post setup.)
To get an accurate representation of what is going to happen he has to do the analysis within the same group. Otherwise you enter bias into the research

Quote[/b] ]If you are saying he hasn't researched pre and post period, I would say I totally disagree.
Tipton KD, Elliott TA, Cree MG, Wolf SE, Sanford AP, Wolfe RR.
Ingestion of casein and whey proteins result in muscle anabolism after resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Dec;36(12):2073-81.

Post workout

Quote[/b] ]Miller SL, Tipton KD, Chinkes DL, Wolf SE, Wolfe RR.
Independent and combined effects of amino acids and glucose after resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003 Mar;35(3):449-55.p

2 post workout feedings

Quote[/b] ]Borsheim E, Tipton KD, Wolf SE, Wolfe RR.
Essential amino acids and muscle protein recovery from resistance exercise. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2002 Oct;283(4):E648-57.

2 post workout feedings

Quote[/b] ]Tipton KD, Rasmussen BB, Miller SL, Wolf SE, Owens-Stovall SK, Petrini BE, Wolfe RR.
Timing of amino acid-carbohydrate ingestion alters anabolic response of muscle to resistance exercise.
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Aug;281(2):E197-206.

Pre OR Post

Quote[/b] ]Rasmussen BB, Tipton KD, Miller SL, Wolf SE, Wolfe RR.
An oral essential amino acid-carbohydrate supplement enhances muscle protein anabolism after resistance exercise.
J Appl Physiol. 2000 Feb;88(2):386-92

Post workout 1 hr or 3 hr later

Quote[/b] ]Tipton KD, Ferrando AA, Phillips SM, Doyle D Jr, Wolfe RR.
Postexercise net protein synthesis in human muscle from orally administered amino acids.
Am J Physiol. 1999 Apr;276(4 Pt 1):E628-34.

Post workout
so where is the Pre AND post workout study?

Quote[/b] ]Sure and they noted that, but the below study pretty much sums up that the acute changes can be representative.
Tipton KD, Borsheim E, Wolf SE, Sanford AP, Wolfe RR.
Acute response of net muscle protein balance reflects 24-h balance after exercise and amino acid ingestion.
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Jan;284(1):E76-89

Quote[/b] ]in our previous studies, the large acute changes were measured in the fasting state. A recent study showed that the response of muscle PS may become refractive to hyperaminoacidemia in certain situations. Thus it is possible that changes in net muscle protein balance resulting from hyperaminoacidemia after exercise would be diminished by a meal before the exercise or may diminish the response to a subsequent meal. Either scenario would affect the total response of muscle over a full 24-h day, possibly diminishing the total response.
However, the question remained as to whether this acute response reflected the response of muscle over a longer time period. In this study, we confirmed that muscle protein balance is increased, primarily because of an increase in muscle PS, when measured acutely and found that this response is additive to the basal response over a full 24-h period.

Looking at work by others it's still a safe bet to say that even in the fed state timing a portion of your protein intake around your workouts shows an additive response to the net balance.

There is a major issue taking that assumption from this study
Rest - ie nothing at 88grams protein
vs
Training + 30grams of essential amino acids + the same protien as above.
the training group was getting an additional ~35% protein and a training session. Of course its going to show up.
What they didnt show is that taking in
118g of protein per day + training session = less than taking in 118g of protien per day, with specific pre/post workout nutrition.
Doesnt mean it wont, but at this stage it doesnt look overly promising.

Quote[/b] ]Just one parting passage from Tipton in the J Sports Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79.
Protein and amino acids for athletes.
Tipton KD, Wolfe RR.
The main determinants of an athlete's protein needs are their training regime and habitual nutrient intake. Most athletes ingest sufficient protein in their habitual diet.....Given sufficient energy intake, lean body mass can be maintained within a wide range of protein intakes.......if muscle hypertrophy is the goal, a higher protein intake within the context of an athlete's overall dietary requirements may be beneficial. However, there are few convincing outcome data to indicate that the ingestion of a high amount of protein (2-3 g x kg(-1) BW x day(-1), where BW = body weight) is necessary........ Acute studies suggest that for any given amount of protein, the metabolic response is dependent on other factors, including the timing of ingestion in relation to exercise and/or other nutrients, the composition of ingested amino acids and the type of protein.

Having read this ages ago, it provides only his research which doesnt provide specific evidence of this (as above) and his later research shows that composition and type (casein/whey) is not as important as he had thought.
and the thought on timing is also interesting becuase if you look at hte charts he provides in the above review, feeding at 3hr provides an apparent advantage to feeding 1hr

Quote

]Peace out, I got to go get ready for hurricane Rita.

Good luck

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Tcup @ Sep. 22 2005,12:55)]Dont get youself killed, you hear!

Not planning on it.

Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Sep. 22 2005,4:27)]Tipton hasnt specifically research pre and post (he has done pre, he has done post, he has done 2 post workout feedings, but not the pre.post setup.)  
To get an accurate representation of what is going to happen he has to do the analysis within the same group.  Otherwise you enter bias into the research

I see what you are saying now, BTW, why didn't you just say this to begin with, it would have saved me a whole bunch of typing


Even though I agree it might change if the same group is done pre and post, I don't see how it will change the fact that the anabolic potential is elevated. It may show how both would interact but that's it. Also looking at recenct work (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Apr;288(4):E761-7) by another UTMB (who BTW had to evacuate for the first time ever) group, shows that regular mixed meals ([protein, 23.4 +/- 1.0 g (essential amino acids, 14.7 +/- 0.7 g); carbohydrate, 126.6 +/- 4.0 g; fat, 30.3 +/- 2.8 g] every 5 h (0830, 1330, 1830) still had a lower NB than regular mixed meals with additional supplementation ([30 g of carbohydrate and 15 g of essential amino acids] given at 1100, 1600, 2100). At first it would appear that this reaffirms your point but taking this with how the increase of blood flow changes AA availability (Journal of Physiology (2001), 532.2, pp. 575-579 and Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 273: E122-E129, 1997 among others) and the stimulation of MPS from reistance training I would think it reaffrims that Timing does make a big difference (previously cited).

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (dkm1987 @ Sep. 23 2005,5:43)]Even though I agree it might change if the same group is done pre and post, I don't see how it will change the fact that the anabolic potential is elevated. It may show how both would interact but that's it. Also looking at recenct work (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Apr;288(4):E761-7) by another UTMB (who BTW had to evacuate for the first time ever) group, shows that regular mixed meals ([protein, 23.4 +/- 1.0 g (essential amino acids, 14.7 +/- 0.7 g); carbohydrate, 126.6 +/- 4.0 g; fat, 30.3 +/- 2.8 g] every 5 h (0830, 1330, 1830) still had a lower NB than regular mixed meals with additional supplementation ([30 g of carbohydrate and 15 g of essential amino acids] given at 1100, 1600, 2100). At first it would appear that this reaffirms your point but taking this with how the increase of blood flow changes AA availability (Journal of Physiology (2001), 532.2, pp. 575-579 and Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 273: E122-E129, 1997 among others) and the stimulation of MPS from reistance training I would think it reaffrims that Timing does make a big difference (previously cited).

If there wasnt greater nitrogen balance on a diet containing ~50% more amino acids (and essentials at that), you would be worried. But this isnt anything new, we know higher protein diets lead to greater nitrogen balance.

But we are not discussing that. That paper doesnt show timing around training at all.

Adding in data from two IV trials doesnt clarify it any more.

Timing may matter, but whether it matters outside of copius amino acids to start with (because fasted state is a compeltely different situation to normal fed state, especially in a nutter bbr eating 7x a day..)

What we want to know if for Joe Bbr, who is eating maintanenace calories and eating 180g of protein, whether it would make a difference if

he ate 180g spread out over say 4 meals per day
or
he ate 140grams spread out over 4 meals plus another 40grams specifically around training

Unfortunately the data does not support this at this stage.

Tipton needs to do research where the subjects consume the same quantity of amino acids per day, but change that one variable. He has started to work to that point, but hasnt got there yet.

We know that in a fasted state, pre training is better than post

We know that in the mixed meal setting, if you resistance train and take in a higher protein diet, you get more positive protein balance than if you sit on your @$$ and eat lower protien (obvious)

he has to take it that next step,

and from the chronic supplementation studies, there is a relative lack of evidence showing an advantage, outside of taking in additional calories.

Theres potential, but its not looking good.

 

[Fausto]

Aaaron, Dan

Quote[/b] ]What we want to know if for Joe Bbr, who is eating maintenance calories and eating 180g of protein, whether it would make a difference if he ate 180g spread out over say 4 meals per day or he ate 140grams spread out over 4 meals plus another 40grams specifically around training.

Unfortunately the data does not support this at this stage.

&quot;BBer Joe Fausto&quot;

, happens to believe that he ate incorrectly and would have benefited from drinking protein shakes before and after training, Bryasn seems to support and recommend this practice too, so he must have gotten it from somewhere, right?

There seems to be a window of opportunity consisting of +/- 3 hours post exercise that can benefit the athlete if the ingestion of proteins happens around or between that time.

Makes some sense too as the blood circulation would be elevated and insulin sensitivity would be heightened at that point due to exercise, am I right? So one could take advantage of it by ingesting protein and then the absorption ratios would increase

Ciao

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Aaron makes some very very good points but I still have to say it hasn't swayed my thinking as I personally can see (when combining the science) that timing has been shown as very important. I think future work will prove the case but, I could be proven wrong in the end though.

I do have to thank Aaron though for the insight and input

 

[Aaron_F]

It possibly is important, but the level of importance seems to be very minor, and difficult to measure.

Timing is also a funny thing... this is from one of tiptons reviews. Feedings were all done fasted and some of the differences are not significant.

Pre is the highest... becuase amino acids are always around, but 1hr post workout is higher than directly after the workouts

shouldnt direct timing achieve more?

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Sep. 24 2005,11:44)]

Quote[/b] ]It possibly is important

I would say probably more than possibly

Quote[/b] ]Pre is the highest... becuase amino acids are always around, but 1hr post workout is higher than directly after the workouts shouldnt direct timing achieve more?

It did, several times over. I would suspect that the latency seen with ingestion immediately after is one reason why Pre showed not only higher values during but also nearly double that seen with post.

Lastly and finally, since obviously neither of us will change our minds until some research provides us with evidence to the contrary, one must remember we are talking about people in the realm of trying to gain muscle mass. Right now the general consensus is &quot;timing is important&quot; when trying to optimize intake. Just about all of the reviews on the subject say something along these lines, From J. Nutr. 132:3219S-3224S Protein Metabolism in Response to Ingestion Pattern and Composition of Proteins:
Regulation of Muscle Protein by Amino Acids
Robert R. Wolfe

Quote[/b] ]The results presented here establish a direct role of amino acids in regulating net muscle protein balance. Furthermore, the response is directly affected by the exact composition and amount of mixture of amino acids ingested, the timing of ingestion in relation to exercise and the amount and nature of nonprotein energy ingested with amino acids.

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (dkm1987 @ Sep. 26 2005,3:18)]

Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Sep. 24 2005,11:44)]

Quote[/b] ]It possibly is important

I would say probably more than possibly

No, possibly - because there are a number of chonic trials showing nil effect of protein supplementation around training.

Quote[/b] ]It did, several times over. I would suspect that the latency seen with ingestion immediately after is one reason why Pre showed not only higher values during but also nearly double that seen with post.

wasnt commenting on the pre, I was commenting on the differences between the post, directly afterwards which should be better, and the 1hr afterwards.

Quote[/b] ]Lastly and finally, since obviously neither of us will change our minds until some research provides us with evidence to the contrary, one must remember we are talking about people in the realm of trying to gain muscle mass. Right now the general consensus is &quot;timing is important&quot; when trying to optimize intake. Just about all of the reviews on the subject say something along these lines, From J. Nutr. 132:3219S-3224S Protein Metabolism in Response to Ingestion Pattern and Composition of Proteins:
Regulation of Muscle Protein by Amino Acids
Robert R. Wolfe

Quote[/b] ]The results presented here establish a direct role of amino acids in regulating net muscle protein balance. Furthermore, the response is directly affected by the exact composition and amount of mixture of amino acids ingested, the timing of ingestion in relation to exercise and the amount and nature of nonprotein energy ingested with amino acids.

And wolfe can keep saying that until he spews it out of his butt, but even then he cannot prove that timing has any effect in fed individuals, with iso caloric, iso nitrogeous supplements.  because even he hasnt done the work.  Even Kevin who no longer works with Robert has said it multiple times in the past.

And its also important to note that Wolfe hasnt looked into the 'exact composition' of a protein supplemnet. Tehy took a EAA product that was similar ot muscular composition, a far cry from looking for 'optimal'. In terms of Quantity, he has looked at it from an IV perspective, but hasnt done the oral work yet. Timing they still havent provided evidince of the influence of isonitrogenous feedings on the effect around training. He also hasnt looked into the 'amount' or 'nature' of the non nitrogen energy. They routinely use sucrose.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Sep. 25 2005,5:14)]

Quote[/b] ]No, possibly - because there are a number of chonic trials showing nil effect of protein supplementation around training.

What chronic trials? Please fill me in.

Quote[/b] ]wasnt commenting on the pre, I was commenting on the differences between the post, directly afterwards which should be better, and the 1hr afterwards.

Why should the immediatley after be any better when it's already been established that a latency effect exists?

Quote[/b] ]In terms of Quantity, he has looked at it from an IV perspective, but hasnt done the oral work yet.

Since oral and infusion differences where next to nil and oral supplementation even proved better back in their stuff from the late 90's I'm not seeing what difference this will show. The studies looking at quantity during infusion show that there are limits and you are only going to piss off any excess anyhow.

Quote[/b] ]He also hasnt looked into the 'amount' or 'nature' of the non nitrogen energy. They routinely use sucrose.

Ok I see your point there but before the sucrose studies they also showed increases in muscle protein synthesis without any additional non nitrogen energy and when compared to resting values, all showed above 100%. I know I know these were infusion studies, who's on first, I dunno, I dunnos on 3rd.

Also didn't Bell et al. just release their findings that amino acid availability is an important factor in the regulation of muscle protein synthesis in response to insulin. Even when excess energy was provided, decreased blood amino acid concentrations reduced the positive effect of insulin on muscle protein synthesis.

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (dkm1987 @ Sep. 26 2005,3:53)]what chronic trials? Please fill me in.

Not from tipton, just generic protein research
Usually when they show a result, they are adding additional protein to hte diet, which makes it difficult to see the overall effect.

Quote[/b] ]Why should the immediatley after be any better when it's already been established that a latency effect exists?

Latency? reference?

Quote[/b] ]Since oral and infusion differences where next to nil and oral supplementation even proved better back in their stuff from the late 90's I'm not seeing what difference this will show. The studies looking at quantity during infusion show that there are limits and you are only going to piss off any excess anyhow

His early stuff with IV was lower doseage than his later amino acid work. but his later work shows little difference. There is differences in response with the gastrointestinal uptake of amino acids.

Quote[/b] ]Ok I see your point there but before the sucrose studies they also showed increases in muscle protein synthesis without any additional non nitrogen energy and when compared to resting values, all showed above 100%. I know I know these were infusion studies, who's on first, I dunno, I dunnos on 3rd.
Also didn't Bell et al. just release their findings that amino acid availability is an important factor in the regulation of muscle protein synthesis in response to insulin. Even when excess energy was provided, decreased blood amino acid concentrations reduced the positive effect of insulin on muscle protein synthesis.

? insulin by itself has little effect on protien synthesis with adequate supplies of amino acids. Thats old news. Even some of wolfes old work showed that extracelluar levels of amino acids were important for the overall control of protein synthesis. Also helps to look at what they are looking at. Some of wolfe/tiptons earlier work was looking at leucine balance within the tissues, which isnt the greatest becuase leucine can be oxidised off in the muscle, which cannot really be seen easily with their old methods. The new way is phenylalanine balance.
In some of Stuart Phillips latest work he is showing a great increase in protein synthesis with whey, but unlike the latest tipton research, he looked into breakdown as well. Whey increased both particularly well. He also looked at a micellar casein which showed a significant increase in synthesis, but without the breakdown effect.
There is one study on protein timing in humans, in a chronic setting. But unfortunately 74year old men are not a good model for young humans

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Sep. 26 2005,4:51)]

Quote[/b] ]Not from tipton, just generic protein research

If you know of more other than the Esmark study in the aged or the Anderson 2005, Rankin 2004 work released please point them out.

Quote[/b] ]Latency? reference?

Journal of Physiology (2001), 532.2, pp. 575-579

Quote[/b] ]Thats old news.

Exactly, my point is, you mentioned other energy outside of protein, this has been looked at over the years and seems to show that insulin is permissive but the main stimulatory effect is seen with AA availability. Sucroses impact therefore helps but I don't see where changing the non nitrogenic energy changes the fact that AA availabilty is what is needed.

Quote[/b] ]The new way is phenylalanine balance.

And it hasn't changed the the results.

Quote[/b] ]In some of Stuart Phillips latest work

He also concurs that even strength trained men need only 12 to 15% of energy from protein, so a 200 Lb man eating isoenergetically at 3000Kcals a day should maintain fine @ .5g/lb. Now just extrapolating that out if they need an additional 500 Kcals for growth/day that relates to .7g/Lb. So I say again the need to worry about getting 1 or 2 g/lb a day is to worry about nothing but the vast majority of the science shows an anabolic edge if you time the ingestion around your training.

Quote[/b] ]There is one study on protein timing in humans, in a chronic setting. But unfortunately 74year old men are not a good model for young humans

I agree Rennie even makes that clear when regarding Esmark's results (assuming you are speaking of Esmark's work).

As I mentioned above a study by Aagard this year shows that with 14 weeks of training and Isoenergetic supplementation PRE and POST protein vs. carbs. Hypertrophy only increased in the protein group. This to me shows that pre and post timing is important even in chronic. Granted it doesn't show which was the cause (pre or post) and since I only have the abstract I don't know what age the subjects were.

Another chronic study by Rankin shows the same thing when looking at foods containing protein vs those that don't in the Young 18-25 yrs.