which bcaa powder is good?

[SarcoPlato]

The 2/1/1/ versus 4/1/1/ debate is ridiculous.

It's like asking wether a transvestite or a coke snorting Amy Winehouse is more attractive.

If you ask protein metabolism experts they'll tell you there is no evidence for the benefits of BCAA supplementation on top of a protein rich diet. Wether it's a 2/1/1 or a 1000000000/1/1 formula doesn't matter jack ****.

[str8flexed]

The 2/1/1/ versus 4/1/1/ debate is ridiculous.

It's like asking wether a transvestite or a coke snorting Amy Winehouse is more attractive.

If you ask protein metabolism experts they'll tell you there is no evidence for the benefits of BCAA supplementation on top of a protein rich diet. Wether it's a 2/1/1 or a 1000000000/1/1 formula doesn't matter jack ****.

I'll let our lab know that they are not protein metabolism experts in then

If you look at the actual raw data regarding MPS if you add leucine on top of protein you don't get significant differences typically because you are dealing with small groups... and that's no hate on study design... studies are expensive and volunteers are hard to recruit. However, if you look at the actual data and not just read the conclusions, though there are not statistical differences, almost every time the supplemented group has higher rates of MPS. We saw this when we did a multitude of studies using egg & whey at isonitrogenous amounts (amongst other sources of protein). Whey was never STATISTICALLY different than egg, but in every single study we ran whey was always about 5-10% greater response than egg. The problem is when measuring MPS, it is not a sensitive measure at all because you are looking at small differences (about 30-40% absolute max from fasted to fed) between small #s (fractional synthesis rate of muscle is typically less than 1% per day in humans) and so picking out fine differences is very difficult unless you have huge groups which just aren't feasible when you are talking timing stable isotope tracers and taking biopsies. The max that is feasible per group for that kind of study is typically around 8-12, with 12 per group being A LOT. So you never get the STATISTICAL difference which may only be a few %s. However, just because you don't see statistical difference doesn't mean there isn't a physiological difference. For the average person you are right, BCAA supplementation is way overkill for putting on muscle on top of protein & sufficient calories. However, when you are talking people who absolutely want to max out muscle mass, while ~5% difference may be very negligible on a daily basis to the average person, to someone who is trying to squeeze every little bit out they can, it's a different story. Additionally, BCAAs are very useful when dieting down because they provide greater 'bang' for your caloric 'buck'. You can keep overall calories & protein lower by supplementing with BCAAs allowing for better fat loss while still maintaining muscle because 5g of BCAA are equivalent to about 20-25g of regular protein in terms of impact on MPS.

Just some thoughts. I'd never recommend someone spend their last dime on BCAA supplements, but if you have the cash and optimizing your muscle mass is important to you goal wise, then it's a supplement I do recommend

[SarcoPlato]

I'll let our lab know that they are not protein metabolism experts in then

Kevin Tipton is not a protein metabolism expert?

[SarcoPlato]

I'll let our lab know that they are not protein metabolism experts in then

Ah, know I see. You mean your lab. Either way, where is the actual evidence supporting the use of BCAA supplements?

I'm aware of your hypothesis, but it's acute data in rats. I also believe there is indirect evidence you don't need to overcome the supposed refractory period with ffleucine.

[str8flexed]

Ah, know I see. You mean your lab. Either way, where is the actual evidence supporting the use of BCAA supplements?

I'm aware of your hypothesis, but it's acute data in rats. I also believe there is indirect evidence you don't need to overcome the supposed refractory period with ffleucine.

Please see the rest of my above comments. It is not MY lab. I am no longer there. It is the lab I did my PhD in and it is run by Dr. Don Layman. Please feel free to google him if you want to see his credentials.

As for you stating our data in rats, Paddon-Jones has validated much of our rat data in humans. Rennie repeated our refractory experiment in humans and documented the same response almost down to how the time course responded. So discounting a study because it was in rats is a pretty weak argument. If it wasn't a valid model, then we wouldn't get published. If it wasn't a valid model then our results would not be repeated in humans... but they are.

As far as your comments on protein synthetic refractoriness being able to be overcome by something other than leucine, this is true. We found that a large carbohydrate bolus was able to overcome the refactory response. Pretty incredible considering no one else has ever shown carbohydrate having an impact on MPS in adults. supplementing with leucine/BCAA also provided the same results. What we have found with our recent results is that protein synthesis is so energetically demanding that it actually causes a depletion of ATP within the muscle and this shuts down MPS through activation of AMPK. Thus supplementing with carbohydrate can overcome this by providing more ATP and BCAA are unique amongst the amino acids in their ability to overcome refractoriness because they can be metabolized in the muscle cells, producing ATP. So yes, you can overcome the response with something other than leucine/BCAA. However, if you are talking about optimizing body composition, supplementing with a few grams of leucine to overcome refractoriness vs. 50-75g of carbohydrate, I think most people would prefer the leucine, especially when dieting. You are welcome to your opinion and your interpretation of the data. Just my thoughts, I'm sure we'll learn more as this research is expanded upon. We are currently in the process of trying to publish these results. I'm not the only one who feels this way however. But trying to get the academic community to accept the validity of a 'supplement' is like trying to get a 5 year old to eat their vegetables. They resist it pretty harshly at times. But like I said, you are welcome to your opinion, these are just my thoughts and what I have gleaned from our research and others

[SarcoPlato]

I'll let our lab know that they are not protein metabolism experts in then

If you look at the actual raw data regarding MPS if you add leucine on top of protein you don't get significant differences typically because you are dealing with small groups... and that's no hate on study design... studies are expensive and volunteers are hard to recruit. However, if you look at the actual data and not just read the conclusions, though there are not statistical differences, almost every time the supplemented group has higher rates of MPS. We saw this when we did a multitude of studies using egg & whey at isonitrogenous amounts (amongst other sources of protein). Whey was never STATISTICALLY different than egg, but in every single study we ran whey was always about 5-10% greater response than egg. The problem is when measuring MPS, it is not a sensitive measure at all because you are looking at small differences (about 30-40% absolute max from fasted to fed) between small #s (fractional synthesis rate of muscle is typically less than 1% per day in humans) and so picking out fine differences is very difficult unless you have huge groups which just aren't feasible when you are talking timing stable isotope tracers and taking biopsies. The max that is feasible per group for that kind of study is typically around 8-12, with 12 per group being A LOT. So you never get the STATISTICAL difference which may only be a few %s. However, just because you don't see statistical difference doesn't mean there isn't a physiological difference. For the average person you are right, BCAA supplementation is way overkill for putting on muscle on top of protein & sufficient calories. However, when you are talking people who absolutely want to max out muscle mass, while ~5% difference may be very negligible on a daily basis to the average person, to someone who is trying to squeeze every little bit out they can, it's a different story. Additionally, BCAAs are very useful when dieting down because they provide greater 'bang' for your caloric 'buck'. You can keep overall calories & protein lower by supplementing with BCAAs allowing for better fat loss while still maintaining muscle because 5g of BCAA are equivalent to about 20-25g of regular protein in terms of impact on MPS.

Just some thoughts. I'd never recommend someone spend their last dime on BCAA supplements, but if you have the cash and optimizing your muscle mass is important to you goal wise, then it's a supplement I do recommend

Thanks for your elaboration Layne. I was not aware of the (non-statistical) physiological differences in MPS you observed. But it's still acute data and I wonder about the relevance of it when a person is consuming 1g/lbs of protein. This is btw much more than people like Tipton and Phillips recommend. I'll elaborate further in my quote on your next reply.

Needless to say, I'm glad to see you seem to keep your honesty even when associated with a supplement company

[SarcoPlato]

Please see the rest of my above comments. It is not MY lab. I am no longer there. It is the lab I did my PhD in and it is run by Dr. Don Layman. Please feel free to google him if you want to see his credentials.

As for you stating our data in rats, Paddon-Jones has validated much of our rat data in humans. Rennie repeated our refractory experiment in humans and documented the same response almost down to how the time course responded. So discounting a study because it was in rats is a pretty weak argument. If it wasn't a valid model, then we wouldn't get published. If it wasn't a valid model then our results would not be repeated in humans... but they are.

As far as your comments on protein synthetic refractoriness being able to be overcome by something other than leucine, this is true. We found that a large carbohydrate bolus was able to overcome the refactory response. Pretty incredible considering no one else has ever shown carbohydrate having an impact on MPS in adults. supplementing with leucine/BCAA also provided the same results. What we have found with our recent results is that protein synthesis is so energetically demanding that it actually causes a depletion of ATP within the muscle and this shuts down MPS through activation of AMPK. Thus supplementing with carbohydrate can overcome this by providing more ATP and BCAA are unique amongst the amino acids in their ability to overcome refractoriness because they can be metabolized in the muscle cells, producing ATP. So yes, you can overcome the response with something other than leucine/BCAA. However, if you are talking about optimizing body composition, supplementing with a few grams of leucine to overcome refractoriness vs. 50-75g of carbohydrate, I think most people would prefer the leucine, especially when dieting. You are welcome to your opinion and your interpretation of the data. Just my thoughts, I'm sure we'll learn more as this research is expanded upon. We are currently in the process of trying to publish these results. I'm not the only one who feels this way however. But trying to get the academic community to accept the validity of a 'supplement' is like trying to get a 5 year old to eat their vegetables. They resist it pretty harshly at times. But like I said, you are welcome to your opinion, these are just my thoughts and what I have gleaned from our research and others

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Padden-Jones study was not using isonitrogenous amounts of protein/amino acids. I'm not just discounting rat studies, but I just believe there is more relevant research out there. As you know, Koopman et al. and Tipton et al. already showed adding leucine to a protein shake doesn't result in greater MPS. At least not great enough to show a statistical difference. You have a point about the possible physiological difference, but it's all acute data.

When we take a look at longer-term sarcopenia research (Loon et al. 2009, 2011) measuring relevant endpoints we see that adding leucine to meals doesn't result in differences in LBM and fat mass. We can argue about the relevance because the studies were done in elderly, but I think it's important to note elderly need a higher leucine threshold and they were eating only moderate amounts of protein. Furthermore, it's argued people doing resistance exercise actually need less protein. This last part is pretty controversial out here, but pretty big names argue in favor of it.

I think the only way to really settle this debate is by doing a clinical trial on healthy young men consuming high amounts of protein. Until that research is done, I love to read everone's thoughts on it, but I remain very sceptical. Looking forward for your next paper though. It looks like it will clear some issues.

Edit: I just forgot about this recent paper showing no differences of 4 g of leucine supplementation in body composition. It did show some strength gains in untrained individuals.

Daily L-leucine supplementation in novice trainees during a 12-week weight training program.
Ispoglou T, King RF, Polman RC, Zanker C.
Source
Carnegie Faculty of Sport and Education, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE:
To investigate the effects of daily oral L-leucine ingestion on strength, bone mineral-free lean tissue mass (LTM) and fat mass (FM) of free living humans during a 12-wk resistance-training program.

METHODS:
Twenty-six initially untrained men (n = 13 per group) ingested either 4 g/d of L-leucine (leucine group: age 28.5 ± 8.2 y, body mass index 24.9 ± 4.2 kg/m2) or a corresponding amount of lactose (placebo group: age 28.2 ± 7.3 y, body mass index 24.9 ± 4.2 kg/m2). All participants trained under supervision twice per week following a prescribed resistance training program using eight standard exercise machines. Testing took place at baseline and at the end of the supplementation period. Strength on each exercise was assessed by five repetition maximum (5-RM), and body composition was assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).

RESULTS:
The leucine group demonstrated significantly higher gains in total 5-RM strength (sum of 5-RM in eight exercises) and 5-RM strength in five out of the eight exercises (P < .05). The percentage total 5-RM strength gains were 40.8% (± 7.8) and 31.0% (± 4.6) for the leucine and placebo groups respectively. Significant differences did not exist between groups in either total percentage LTM gains or total percentage FM losses (LTM: 2.9% ± 2.5 vs 2.0% ± 2.1, FM: 1.6% ± 15.6 vs 1.1% ± 7.6).

CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that 4 g/d of L-leucine supplementation may be used as a nutritional supplement to enhance strength performance during a 12-week resistance training program of initially untrained male participants.

[Mr.Cooper69]

While this is true, and I love me some 2:1:1 BCAAs, this is really only relevant for fasted individuals or individuals with very low meal frequency. Otherwise, you can bet that the other BCAAs will be circulating during the time of ffBCAA supplementation, making the extra leucine more beneficial.

Layne, can you address my comment ^^?

For some reason you deleted the post I quoted and then posted it below mine

[powercage]

Purple Wraath.

Thanks for the recommendation


Free samples can be found in my signature

[Irish Iron]

Layne, can you address my comment ^^?

For some reason you deleted the post I quoted and then posted it below mine

I was mind-fukked when I saw that haha

Edit: To add to Coop's comment, was talking with a friend about this topic and he brought up a great point of that theory having little relevance to individuals on a high protein diet where they other amino acids are likely pretty abundant. I'm guessing this is what Coop was referring to as well when he said that theory probably only applies to those training fasted or with infrequent meal timing.

[michaelopinion]

Recoverpro

4:1:1

[gspsilva]

i'm hooked on BC+EAA (and not because i get it free)

I agree, BC+EAA is pretty awesome.

We also have our own bcaa product so give it a shot man!

http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/nb...9AB4C0DEA7A713

[str8flexed]

Layne, can you address my comment ^^?

For some reason you deleted the post I quoted and then posted it below mine

yea, I pressed edit then accidentally pressed delete. and since i'm not a mod in this section I couldn't un-delete it but I had it copied. my bad.

I will address your comment in a bit. my wife's bday and she has mandated limited forum time