I was browsing some options for BCAAs, and came across one that claimed it's "calorie free". This is definitely wrong, isn't it?? I mean, BCAAs should be digested and absorbed the same way as amino acids from proteins that are broken down to amino acids, so it seems like there's no possible way this could be true, right?
|
Thread: BCAA calories
-
02-03-2012, 04:03 PM #1
BCAA calories
-
02-03-2012, 04:11 PM #2
-
02-03-2012, 04:16 PM #3
-
02-03-2012, 04:49 PM #4
-
-
02-03-2012, 05:16 PM #5
- Join Date: Feb 2009
- Location: California, United States
- Posts: 7,304
- Rep Power: 23978
-
02-03-2012, 05:19 PM #6
-
02-03-2012, 05:55 PM #7
-
02-03-2012, 06:01 PM #8
Sorry, but those who agreed that they contain calories are right. The "biochemical" basis is that ALL amino acids are absorbed by the GI tract, after which they are used as "building blocks" (muscle, other biological proteins, etc.), or are metabolized to carbohydrate derivatives. These carbohydrate derivatives are then used as fuel like any other macronutrient, hence being one of the sources of "calories" of the diet.
-
-
02-03-2012, 06:30 PM #9
-
02-03-2012, 06:37 PM #10
Rhizome- just curious, where'd you hear that..?
From a biochemical standpoint, they have four per Fran. The actual energy expended for processing then may differ a little, the actual calorie content doesnt vary, because they're all processed to similar carbohydrate molecules that are burnt as fuel supplying 4 cals per gram.
-
02-03-2012, 06:46 PM #11
WHAT? First, since they are free form, they probably have a lower TEF than whole proteins. Second, not all amino acids are created equal. Different bond energies/# of bonds hold different energy values and hence a different caloric value. The 4 cal/gram for protein is an estimation compiled by looking at the calories of AAs in a typical person's diet. BCAAs have a higher caloric value than pretty much any other amino acid.
I have no clue what you're talking about with the latter comment.
-
02-04-2012, 03:08 AM #12
-
-
02-04-2012, 04:16 AM #13
-
02-04-2012, 04:27 AM #14
-
02-04-2012, 04:43 AM #15
-
02-04-2012, 04:43 AM #16
No, it's not "compeltely wrong". As I said, the energy expended in processing differs. And given that "energy" is "calories", I was basically saying exactly what you said, that they have different values, though I did not specify exact values. I was agreeing with you on that; I was just interested to see the sources informing you guys on the exact numbers, since I was unable to find a source providing some specific detailed numbers. Not disagreeing, just going a little more in detail about the metabolic fate of the carbon skeletons of amino acids once the side chains have been removed to convert them to a usable form when required for energy (thus, excluding their use as building blocks for the body's proteins).
From a biochemical perspective, yes, they are ALL converted to carbohydrate molecules, which are converted to acetyl CoA and burnt in the TCA cycle; one round of a molecule of carbohydrate going through the TCA cycle produces exactly 4.18 kilocalories of energy. So after processing (providing differing values, as you cited), they are then utilized to produce the same amount of energy. It's the processing that varies, not the actual byproduct of the molecule...
-
-
02-04-2012, 04:52 AM #17
-
02-04-2012, 05:08 AM #18
- Join Date: Dec 2009
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 3,783
- Rep Power: 2168
Actually different amino acids enter and different points of the TCA cycle and are not all converted into acetlycoA but eventually combine with it in the form of oxaloacetate.
The different reactions required to form different intermediates of the TCA cycle probably dictate the energy released from the bonds broken.
-
02-04-2012, 05:28 AM #19
-
02-04-2012, 10:27 AM #20
OK, if we're going to get technical, I guess I'll elaborate that it's derivatives of the metabolic pathway of acetyl CoA that have the same metabolic fate within the TCA cycle. They all cycle through in the same way, producing the same amount of NADH, FADH2, GTP, and ATP, with the NADH and FADH2 going through ox phos to produce exactly the same number of ATP molecules.
Last edited by thegymbum; 02-04-2012 at 10:32 AM.
-
-
02-04-2012, 10:38 AM #21*Hollywood's rabid cage crew*
Bulking log -> http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=145653801
-
02-04-2012, 11:35 AM #22
- Join Date: Sep 2010
- Location: New York, New York, United States
- Posts: 52,345
- Rep Power: 323444
Nope, I'm talking about the HoC of each FFAA, not the pKa.*
------------------
* See: http://www.ajcn.org/content/52/5/770.full.pdf
-
02-04-2012, 11:56 AM #23
-
02-04-2012, 12:06 PM #24
-
-
02-04-2012, 12:30 PM #25
Yes, as has been pointed out by nearly everyone, BCAA contain Calories. It now appears to have turned into an argument of "how many Calories?". Generally I would just treat them like regular protein (4 kcal/gram) if you are counting Calories. You generally don't eat enough of them to have any substantial impact on Caloric intake.
If you want to know how the food label could get away with listing them as having "zero Calories" it is because there is a loophole in the food labeling guidelines. If the product were to contain fewer than 5 Calories per serving it can be listed as zero Calories. This is when you would have to be a little wary of the product. If the BCAA is listed as having zero Calories that probably means that there are very little actual BCAA in the product. This is a much more important point than the biochemistry discussion above. Most supplements you have no idea how much of the "active ingredient" is included as it is listed 95% of the time as "proprietary blend". This blend could be mostly something that isn't digested by the body and only contains a very small percentage of the BCAA you were planning on buying. There is absolutely no regulations regarding how much of your product needs to contain the active ingredient so buyer beware.
This is a brilliant move from a marketing standpoint. It allows the company to successfully market its product by saying that it is zero Calories while at the same time allowing them to employ cost-cutting measures which makes the product even cheaper to produce.
-
02-04-2012, 12:46 PM #26
-
02-04-2012, 01:09 PM #27
Not sue if that makes it better or worse from the reporting standpoint. Regardless it is nothing more than a loophole being used by supplement manufacturers. But just to give this some sense of practicality before everyone goes off into a biochem discussion, protein is 4 calories/gram. That is an average of all the amino acids taken together. If you ae trying to determine the Caloric value of your BCAA supplement it is impractical to calculate it out for each individual BCAA as you are still not consuming enough of them to really matter.
Looking at the Xtend label there are 9.5 grams of BCAA per scoop and recommended to take 2-3 scoops per day which would be 114 Calories per day max if you used 4 calories/gram. The highest caloric value I saw anyone give above was ~6 calories/gram. Using that number you would take in maximally 171 Calories. That is less than a 60 Calorie difference which would be far less than the measurement error even if you to weigh all of your food before eating it. So from a practical standpoint it largely doesn't matter.
-
11-03-2013, 12:01 PM #28
-
-
12-22-2014, 10:46 PM #29
Just assume 4 calories per gram of BCAA's, and let it rest.
I was also brought to this by a Google search because my wife said that her BCAA's (Xtend) had 0 calories. I said that it was a mistake. I do wonder how they can get away with putting zero calories on the label. I'm assuming that it's because they're not required to count the BCAA's as a protein, a carbohydrate, or fat.
-
12-23-2014, 07:45 AM #30
Similar Threads
-
Do you count BCAA calories?
By Drukqs in forum Losing FatReplies: 21Last Post: 02-14-2020, 09:34 AM -
Who adds the BCAA calories?
By readytogetfit in forum NutritionReplies: 4Last Post: 08-22-2009, 09:49 AM -
Are there calories in products like xtend?
By Jonesy08 in forum NutritionReplies: 29Last Post: 08-04-2008, 04:33 PM
Bookmarks