30g of Whole Protein per Feeding - max usable for protein synth

[mc-]

Overview here of recent research looking at max usable amount of protein at one feeding for absorption for muscle sythesis.

http://www.begin2dig.com/2010/02/30g...r-optimal.html

Also situated in context of pretty recent protein absorption work, and context of caloric deficit/surplus, just fyi

best
mc

[tagun]

Whenever someone posts sth like this I just get so curious as to how do people that are intermittent fasting or are on the warrior diet get such great results. Let alone results, how the heck do they stay alive if all that protein isn't getting synthesized...

Oh yeah, they also say "starchy carbs only post workout". Well I'm really sorry, but I eat starchy carbs at least 6 times per day. Yes, when I wake up and 5 minutes before I go to sleep. It's just not practical for me to eat all my 450 grams of starchy carbs post workout, sorry.

[rickymartinn]

Overview here of recent research looking at max usable amount of protein at one feeding for absorption for muscle sythesis.

http://www.begin2dig.com/2010/02/30g...r-optimal.html

Also situated in context of pretty recent protein absorption work, and context of caloric deficit/surplus, just fyi

best
mc

I know this is advanced nutrition so I shouldn't be posting in topics on this section as I am not a certified nutrition nor have done studies on anything but I have been reading a lot of studies and articles about protein absorption - so I want to just disclaim that this is my opinion not facts or statements with backing so I don't get bad rep as I did for posting this information in a thread about wasting protein in nutrition - I will address both questions because I was wondering about the same thing with the IF diet and protein intake - seems contradictory to studies but they do get results - so I will separate facts from my opinion

Facts:
-there are a couple studies that show 30g of lean beef is the max protein that will cause protein synthesis stimulation, and any amount of protein absorbed after that does not promote muscle buiilding
-these studies have been done on sedentary test subjects - not people on weight lifting programs
-different types of protein get absorbed at different rates
-they only used lean beef protein in the studies I saw
-people who have used warrior and IF diets have gotten results
-I know very little about the science of IF or Warrior Diets and will attempt to explain my theory in my opinion down below

Opinions:
-This opinion is supported by others but a lot of modern nutritionists think high protein diets are a waste of money
-is this because of the amount of protein absorbed at a time? or because you don't need that much protein? both? not sure to be honest, for this scenario and hypothesis lets say it's a combination of both
-So say you only need 100-125g of protein per day to build muscle
-You can only absorb 30g at a time apparently
-From reading articles and about I/F / Warrior diets you have 4-8 hour window to eat. I have seen articles that say you absorb and digest nutrients better in your sleep as well. (not supported by hard document just from memory reading on non-supported articles/posts)
-Opinions have speculated max protein synthesis occurs after, and 24hrs after workout.

My opinion / hypothesis:
So, even if you have a 4 hour window to eat in this scenario, and say you can only absorb 30g of protein in 'one sitting.' How long is the time needed between sittings? For this scenario I am going to say 1 hour because I have not seen any studies or information on the length needed in between.

Let's say subject A is on the warrior diet and has a 4 hour window to eat. He worked out before he ate, had a 25g whey shake before and after. Let's say for a modern nutrition opinion they only need 125g of protein per day. They already have 50g of protein possibly absorbed and now have 4 hours to eat. Since whey protein is supposedly the fastest absorbed protein, assume its absorption will not interfere with later protein ingestion. One hour after the shake, 3 hours left in the window, this person has a salad and a chicken breast. 30g more of protein have been ingested. An hour later, this person has another source of meat or whole food protein of about 30g. With an hour left in the eating window, subject A, assuming 1 hour intervals between optimal absorption, has begun to absorb / absorbed 110g of protein. He then has 30g of another protein source, and then 30g of casein protein at the same time. Now that person has consumed 170g of protein, with appropriate intervals for absorption.

This is my point, cliff notes basically.
Even over a 4 hour window you can absorb 170g of protein because of different rates of absorption of the proteins and the timing between eating them. The unsupported parts of this are the interval between absorption periods and the amount of protein you need to intake. Does a high protein diet work because you aren't absorbing all of it - but you are still getting at least 125g that you actually need? I think it would be very easy to conduct a study on this and I wonder why it hasn't been done yet.

Once again - I have no accreditation in this area so I hope someone who does can help explain this a bit more. Most people just simply throw out those 30g studies when they talk about protein in these forums but I am just trying to explain - if they are true - how it could possibly work. Also not mentioned - people in an anabolic state may absorb more at a time? I don't know? and does the body absorb more when sleeping? and does the body adjust to absorb more protein at a time if it continually ingests high amounts in one sitting? I don't know the answers to any of those questions but I think those - if they could be answered - would help shed some light on this subject.

and to both the posters above - I tried explaining how the 30g could be incorporated in an IF diet not trying to disprove either of your statements, just to help add unbiased opinion to this subject.

[mc-]

Whenever someone posts sth like this I just get so curious as to how do people that are intermittent fasting or are on the warrior diet get such great results. Let alone results, how the heck do they stay alive if all that protein isn't getting synthesized...

define "great results"

ANd IF like brad pilon's eat stop eat is way different than the wd's grazing.

best
mc

[mc-]

I know this is advanced nutrition so I shouldn't be posting in topics on this section as I am not a certified nutrition nor have done studies on anything but I have been reading a lot of studies and articles about protein absorption - so I want to just disclaim that this is my opinion not facts or statements with backing so I don't get bad rep as I did for posting this information in a thread about wasting protein in nutrition - I will address both questions because I was wondering about the same thing with the IF diet and protein intake - seems contradictory to studies but they do get results - so I will separate facts from my opinion

Facts:
-there are a couple studies that show 30g of lean beef is the max protein that will cause protein synthesis stimulation, and any amount of protein absorbed after that does not promote muscle buiilding

could you point to more than the one cited?

-these studies have been done on sedentary test subjects - not people on weight lifting programs
-different types of protein get absorbed at different rates

that's not really a player within a given window

-they only used lean beef protein in the studies I saw

again, one study, and if you look at the post (it doesn't seem you read it? it's quite detailed) that's discussed

-people who have used warrior and IF diets have gotten results

as above, define results?

-I know very little about the science of IF or Warrior Diets and will attempt to explain my theory in my opinion down below

opinion isn't particularly relevant, is it? i mean who cares what a person's opinion is? what's the basis of the opinion? that could be interesting

Opinions:
-This opinion is supported by others but a lot of modern nutritionists think high protein diets are a waste of money

again, what do you mean? what's high protein? and in what context? for how long?

-is this because of the amount of protein absorbed at a time? or because you don't need that much protein? both? not sure to be honest, for this scenario and hypothesis lets say it's a combination of both
-So say you only need 100-125g of protein per day to build muscle
-You can only absorb 30g at a time apparently
-From reading articles and about I/F / Warrior diets you have 4-8 hour window to eat. I have seen articles that say you absorb and digest nutrients better in your sleep as well. (not supported by hard document just from memory reading on non-supported articles/posts)
-Opinions have speculated max protein synthesis occurs after, and 24hrs after workout.

you know if you'd check the above post, maybe follow some of the links to work about absorption and issues there in, a lot of your queries might actually be addressed

My opinion / hypothesis:
So, even if you have a 4 hour window to eat in this scenario, and say you can only absorb 30g of protein in 'one sitting.' How long is the time needed between sittings? For this scenario I am going to say 1 hour because I have not seen any studies or information on the length needed in between.

???

Let's say subject A is on the warrior diet and has a 4 hour window to eat. He worked out before he ate, had a 25g whey shake before and after. Let's say for a modern nutrition opinion they only need 125g of protein per day.

what's teh basis for 125? no one credible in nutrition arbitrarily says you there, only eat 125g of protein

They already have 50g of protein possibly absorbed and now have 4 hours to eat. Since whey protein is supposedly the fastest absorbed protein, assume its absorption will not interfere with later protein ingestion. One hour after the shake, 3 hours left in the window, this person has a salad and a chicken breast. 30g more of protein have been ingested. An hour later, this person has another source of meat or whole food protein of about 30g. With an hour left in the eating window, subject A, assuming 1 hour intervals between optimal absorption, has begun to absorb / absorbed 110g of protein. He then has 30g of another protein source, and then 30g of casein protein at the same time. Now that person has consumed 170g of protein, with appropriate intervals for absorption.

where did you get 1hr for optimal absorption?

This is my point, cliff notes basically.
Even over a 4 hour window you can absorb 170g of protein because of different rates of absorption of the proteins and the timing between eating them.

you may be mistaking absorption for use for protein synthesis

Once again - I have no accreditation in this area so I hope someone who does can help explain this a bit more. Most people just simply throw out those 30g studies when they talk about protein in these forums but I am just trying to explain - if they are true - how it could possibly work.

why not read either the study or the detailed discussion linked above to get some insight into that query?

Also not mentioned - people in an anabolic state may absorb more at a time?

maybe - and that's acknolwedged - but it's not going to be that much more - even if it were doubled for that particular period.

I don't know? and does the body absorb more when sleeping? and does the body adjust to absorb more protein at a time if it continually ingests high amounts in one sitting? I don't know the answers to any of those questions but I think those - if they could be answered - would help shed some light on this subject

again, differences between absorption and utilization.

and to both the posters above - I tried explaining how the 30g could be incorporated in an IF diet not trying to disprove either of your statements, just to help add unbiased opinion to this subject.

there's no such thing as an unbiased opinion, tho, is there really; opinion, by it's nature a particular view.

I'm not sure how IF comes into this - it doesn't dispute the findings made in the above cited study. and as pointed to in the post, there's several key differences between IF and WD's day-long grazing and evening feast -but again, not sure of the issue.

mc

[rickymartinn]

Originally Posted by tagun View Post
Whenever someone posts sth like this I just get so curious as to how do people that are intermittent fasting or are on the warrior diet get such great results. Let alone results, how the heck do they stay alive if all that protein isn't getting synthesized...

first the way I read this was that he was saying the study wasn't as reliable because people on warrior/IF diets couldn't possibly utilize that much protein in that short period of time and get results so I was just trying to show how it could be possibly to consume enough protein over a 4 hr span given that you could do it in hour intervals, which I just picked because I did not see any information on that.

Here are the other studies not really as in depth but I don't really have the time to go into anything else you responded to, I will re read the study tomorrow probably as I just skimmed through it and it looked basically the same as these two below so I shouldn't have assumed.


http://www.find-health-articles.com/...s-skeletal.htm
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/168876.php

other related threads
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/newrep...ly&p=451735041
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=117126241

[buzzbomb138]

what about the whole protein synthesis refractory period studies by layne norton? following this, i was under the assumption that protein synthesis is greater following larger protein boluses less often, and the whole eat protein/meal every 3 hours 6x a day has been disproven regarding better assimilation. ive been eating only 3 large meals a day about 5-6 hours apart for a while, and while i cant quite say muscle growth has been better or worse than when i followed the 6 small meals a day, but i can say its much more conducive to my social life and such.

[buzzbomb138]

^^^http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/prote..._frequency.pdf

read this

[mc-]

what about the whole protein synthesis refractory period studies by layne norton? following this, i was under the assumption that protein synthesis is greater following larger protein boluses less often, and the whole eat protein/meal every 3 hours 6x a day has been disproven regarding better assimilation. ive been eating only 3 large meals a day about 5-6 hours apart for a while, and while i cant quite say muscle growth has been better or worse than when i followed the 6 small meals a day, but i can say its much more conducive to my social life and such.

thanks for the link
Layne norton only kinda guesses that protein synthesis won't recur in tightly packed repeated feedings; he doesn't test that. in fact the lab findings he shows support the opposite. Indeed, he is suggesting 4-6 feedings a day (as opposed to 6-8). That's pretty normal in BB circles. and pretty much what "multiple feedings" in a program like say precision nutrition uses.

As to the study cited above:
It is looking at both whole foods protein and previous work with eaa's for acute protein sythesis of resting muscle.
it's looking at these amounts across age and gender.
that's it.

As the authors (and post) acknowledge, there's more to eating and amino acids than this singular condition. Indeed, the post kinda states that while the authors extrapolate that multiple meals (they don't say six they're more implicitly at three) would likely be better than one feeding of protein a day, they don't test this either.
other work (also cited) seems to suggest that that mayn't be the case when explored more globally and longitudinally. In fact the only thing that might matter is just getting enough in, in a day for a daily requirement.

And the biggest kicker in the above post (for me anyway) is that for muscle growth (not just resting muscle protein synthesis but going for mass), protein may be a very small player. THe exercise itself - without additional protein - or the addition of creatine - may be bigger factors than pumping up protein.

and that's rather the main point of the article. Less may well be more. 85g of protein a day (or between 70-120 depending on size) may be all it takes for getting the usual 2-5 pounds of muscle over a 12 week cycle. Only adding creatine to that effort - not pumping up protein - seems to break that limit and get it to pump up the mass.

That's fascinating, no?

more details here
http://www.begin2dig.com/2010/02/30g...r-optimal.html

mc

[elmariachii]

i didnt see where this study was published, in which journal ?
so it's not something very credible.

[buzzbomb138]

bump. i wanna hear more opinions on this.

[mc-]

i didnt see where this study was published, in which journal ?
so it's not something very credible.

i'm not sure what you're saying.

if you go to the above post,

(here's the ref again http://www.begin2dig.com/2010/02/30g...r-optimal.html)

you'll see all the articles referenced with links either to pubmed or to the journal source.

mc

[Murderfox]

Whenever someone posts sth like this I just get so curious as to how do people that are intermittent fasting or are on the warrior diet get such great results. Let alone results, how the heck do they stay alive if all that protein isn't getting synthesized...

Oh yeah, they also say "starchy carbs only post workout". Well I'm really sorry, but I eat starchy carbs at least 6 times per day. Yes, when I wake up and 5 minutes before I go to sleep. It's just not practical for me to eat all my 450 grams of starchy carbs post workout, sorry.

This.

Stop posting random stuff you find on the internet, so many factors are taken into consideration when consuming protein (i.e the individual/how hard you train or the other macro nutrients it is consumed with & so on).

[BRO_RESULTS]

Is muscle the only reason we eat protein?

This oughta shut you fools up.

[Fire8085]

This somewhat coincides with the study Layne did.

His conclusion was that MPS achieved a maximum when Leucine was 3.2-4.4g which roughly translates into 133g of beef (close to 113g, no?).

However, don't other questions come into the factor? Such as meal timing and if the body behaves differently after fasting for a specific period of time? Would MPS have a higher ceiling cap say if you took Norton's approach of boulous dosings of meals and extended it a bit further?

Does digestion timing come into play as well? Types of protein sources? Other amino acids?

[mc-]

Is muscle the only reason we eat protein?

This oughta shut you fools up.

I'm not sure who's being told to shut up.

The point of the work - and the post - was not that eating more protein is bad or wrong (up to its toxic limit) but that ACUTE protein synthesis has a limit. Hence why the wonderful article you mention above points to gosh 20-30g of protein spread out over the day many times.

The other point of the above post is to say what else might be going on if one meal a day'ers are able to maintain (not necessarily gain) their lean mass? how do we put these two observations together?


Also, i'd just point out that the studies that have shown
"Improved Weight-Loss Profile —Research by Layman and colleagues has demonstrated that reducing the carbohydrate ratio from 3.5 – 1 to 1.4 – 1 increases body fat loss, spares muscle mass, reduces triglyceride concentrations, improves satiety, and improves blood glucose management (Layman et al 2003 — If you’re at all interested in protein intake, you’ve gotta go read the January and February issues of the Journal of Nutrition. Layman has three interesting articles in the two journals)."

To the best of my knowledge, these differences haven't lasted over time. Over time it hasn't mattered what the mix is for fat loss. This is an initial experience it seems, not a sustained one.

Again, not saying protein bad; just that we might think it does more for what most folks here want - building mass - than it does.

To that end, volume and load in exercise along with creatine, seem to be more potent than protein. The research to those points is listed in the post.

To the person who carbs up any old time of day? good for you.
Glad you can handle that. YOu're training hard; it makes a difference.
So consider the context of where that heuristic is taught:
for folks who are struggling to lose weight, aren't necessarily athletes at all, and who may have been overdoing it in the starchy carb space, and so have already set up lower insulin sensitivity.
SO for these folks (most of the population: remember you're not the norm), getting a handle on their carb tolerance, getting at a healthy mix of foods for caloric deficit is important.

We tend to generalize out from our own point experience, and that just doesn't always work when one is so distinct from the majority. You may feel normal here, but look around once you leave the forum.

best
mc

[BRO_RESULTS]

I'm not sure who's being told to shut up.

The point of the work - and the post - was not that eating more protein is bad or wrong (up to its toxic limit) but that ACUTE protein synthesis has a limit. Hence why the wonderful article you mention above points to gosh 20-30g of protein spread out over the day many times.

The other point of the above post is to say what else might be going on if one meal a day'ers are able to maintain (not necessarily gain) their lean mass? how do we put these two observations together?


Also, i'd just point out that the studies that have shown
"Improved Weight-Loss Profile —Research by Layman and colleagues has demonstrated that reducing the carbohydrate ratio from 3.5 – 1 to 1.4 – 1 increases body fat loss, spares muscle mass, reduces triglyceride concentrations, improves satiety, and improves blood glucose management (Layman et al 2003 — If you’re at all interested in protein intake, you’ve gotta go read the January and February issues of the Journal of Nutrition. Layman has three interesting articles in the two journals)."

To the best of my knowledge, these differences haven't lasted over time. Over time it hasn't mattered what the mix is for fat loss. This is an initial experience it seems, not a sustained one.

Again, not saying protein bad; just that we might think it does more for what most folks here want - building mass - than it does.

To that end, volume and load in exercise along with creatine, seem to be more potent than protein. The research to those points is listed in the post.

To the person who carbs up any old time of day? good for you.
Glad you can handle that. YOu're training hard; it makes a difference.
So consider the context of where that heuristic is taught:
for folks who are struggling to lose weight, aren't necessarily athletes at all, and who may have been overdoing it in the starchy carb space, and so have already set up lower insulin sensitivity.
SO for these folks (most of the population: remember you're not the norm), getting a handle on their carb tolerance, getting at a healthy mix of foods for caloric deficit is important.

We tend to generalize out from our own point experience, and that just doesn't always work when one is so distinct from the majority. You may feel normal here, but look around once you leave the forum.

best
mc

Your entire post was a non-sequitur.

[CoQ10]

define "great results"

ANd IF like brad pilon's eat stop eat is way different than the wd's grazing.

best
mc

Martin Berkhan has produced some phenomenal results with IF. Check out his site for some research reviews as well.

www.leangains.com .

-C10

[RealMenDeadLift]

I don't know why anyone would be surprised with these results. This was an acute study and of course the human body will have natural limits to protein synthesis within a given window. This does NOT suggest that the rest of the protein goes to waste. Your body(while relatively inefficient) is not that wasteful. Full scale muscle repair goes far beyond five hours(the window in this study) which of course will require amino acids drawn from pools which are filled through sufficient levels of protein in one's diet.

[CoQ10]

Here's a recent article by Alan you may find interesting:

http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-n...a-single-meal/

-C10

[liammccarthy]

Go eat a 2lbs steak and tell me your body has digested, synthesised 30g and spat the other 220g of protein out... it in 4 hours..............

[BRO_RESULTS]

Hehehehehe, Aragon is awesome!

Let’s imagine an experiment involving two relatively lean 200 lb individuals. For the purposes of this illustration, I’ll assign a daily amount of protein known to adequately support the needs of the athletic population. We’ll give Person A 150 g protein spread over five meals at 30 g each. We’ll give Person B the same amount of protein, but in a single meal. Let’s say that this meal consists of a 16 oz steak, chased with a shake containing two scoops of protein powder.

If we really believed that only 30 g protein can be handled by the body in a single meal, then Person B would eventually run into protein deficiency symptoms because he supposedly is only absorbing a total of 30 g out of the 150 g we’re giving him. At 30 g/day, he’s only getting 0.33 g/kg of bodyweight, which isn’t even half of the already-low RDA of 0.8 g/kg. If the body worked this way, the human species would have quickly become extinct. The human body is more efficient and effective than we give it credit for.

[wmac222]

Hehehehehe, Aragon is awesome!

Aragon either didn't understand the study or is purposefully misleading. RealMenDeadLift already touched on this: The study showed that additional ingestion after 30 grams had no effect protein synthesis in muscles.

[mc-]

Aragon either didn't understand the study or is purposefully misleading. RealMenDeadLift already touched on this: The study showed that additional ingestion after 30 grams had no effect protein synthesis in muscles.

i'd have to agree.
it's not that the body can't make a whole TON of use of the calories of any kind it ingests.
it's just that in that window, it seems, for muscle synthesis, adding in more protein had no effect - for that particular physiological function.


now what difference that makes in the long hall in terms of body comp over time, not so clear.

thanks for coming back on that wmac222.

mc

[mc-]

Go eat a 2lbs steak and tell me your body has digested, synthesised 30g and spat the other 220g of protein out... it in 4 hours..............

as above i think that may be missing the point.

As detailed in the blog post, what can't be used for muscle protein synthesis is deaminated and used as fuel or in other capacities, and what can't be used or discarded gets stored.

mc

[mc-]

I don't know why anyone would be surprised with these results. This was an acute study and of course the human body will have natural limits to protein synthesis within a given window. This does NOT suggest that the rest of the protein goes to waste. Your body(while relatively inefficient) is not that wasteful. Full scale muscle repair goes far beyond five hours(the window in this study) which of course will require amino acids drawn from pools which are filled through sufficient levels of protein in one's diet.

well said
nicely put

and all the more reason to get lots of good quality z's.

mc

[wmac222]

i'd have to agree.
it's not that the body can't make a whole TON of use of the calories of any kind it ingests.
it's just that in that window, it seems, for muscle synthesis, adding in more protein had no effect - for that particular physiological function.


now what difference that makes in the long hall in terms of body comp over time, not so clear.

thanks for coming back on that wmac222.

mc

No problem.

I've read quite a few blogs buy Alan. He does have a lot of useful information, definitely worth the time reading it...here comes the butt! He does post some crap like this. Not sure his motivation for doing so or if he just didn't read the study close enough. Even well informed people have blinders on if something contradicts their opinion.

Just looking at hypertrophy in general.....

Some concepts.

A. The human body can make it's own amino acids and mines dying cells for protein.
B. The human body cannot store amino acids.
C. The catabolism of muscle tissue is markidly higher in endurance exercise then resistance training.
D. animal protein is only partially digested.

If a seasoned lifter gains 4 kilos per year of muscle, that is incredible. 1st time lifters who are genetically gifted and those on anabolics or other hormones are exceptions. If you divide 4000 grams by days in a year you get 11 grams of protein per day used for hypertrophy. And that is huge! Most experienced lifters are only capable of putting on 2.5 kilos or so at most per year.

Obviously everything here is over simplified. The human engine is far more complicated. With that being said, this study may the pillar that ends up showing that the average person need far less protein then is currently recommended for optimal hypertrophy.

[icall]

In another example, Stote and colleagues actually reported an improvement in body composition (including an increase in lean mass) after 8 weeks in the IF group consuming one meal per day, where roughly 86 g protein was ingested in a 4-hour window [14]. Interestingly, the conventional group consuming three meals spread throughout the day showed no significant body composition improvements.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're stating mc/wmac, but the above quote from Aragon's article regarding an IF group vs a control group seems to indicate the human body can in fact synthesize more than 30g at a sitting.

If the human body could not, how could the IF group increase their lean body mass.

I read another article by Aragon where he seems to indicate he doesn't like IF or at least not think it optimal. I believe he's just using this as an exteme to debunk something he believes is a misconception.

As for him having blinders on, I enjoy reading Aragon's posts/blogs because I believe he looks to the research as opposed to his own personal views and changes his views if necessary. A point to this was an older thread I found with Aragon mentioning IF. Berkham claimed he was talking with Aragon on writing a book about it. Later, it appears Aragon was discrediting IF and no book came out.

Lastly, maybe you are all correct, but everyone is talking about something different. I believe what Aragon's article was trying to show was that eating multiple meals in an attempt to increase the body's absorption of protein is not necessary and in the case of the IF group increasing lean body mass over the control group, not possible. Perhaps 30grams is all the human body can use for muscle synthesis which points to the limitations on adding lean body mass.

I think to just be clear about why you are posting this is necessary. If you are saying more meals of 30grams of protein or less is more effective for muscle protein synthesis over single feeds, I believe Aragon's article and the studies he sites disproves this. If you're claiming 30grams per day is the maximum the human body can use for muscle synthesis with the remainder being used for other functions, that's something different that I don't believe Aragon's article addresses.

[wmac222]

If you're claiming 30grams per day is the maximum the human body can use for muscle synthesis with the remainder being used for other functions, that's something different that I don't believe Aragon's article addresses.

The later. The original study took biopsies of muscle.

[kimmypoohx3]

hmmm...why don't we find a way to do the study? c'mon guys, we're all smart. (this is the advanced nutrition forum, right?!) I'm sure some of us ::he hem:: have access to university or lab equipment of some sort? it's not too hard to get a grant for this kind of stuff. This is interesting enough to make leaps and bounds in the industry and to be honest it would definitely be worth publishing. -K