AEN come in here to continue the hydro whey discussion

[Cable Curling CincoUno]

I don't know what the **** is going on with these boards but here's my reply to AEN:
The original post that started this debate can be found in this thread:http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=116109413.

To start with, the blanket term "hydrolyzed protein", basically tells us nothing. We need to know that there are di-and tripeptides present if we are to talk about it performing differently than intact protein. And it would be even more useful to know the percentage of di-and tripeptides present. Otherwise, we could be comparing a regular intact whey protein, to a hydrolyzed protein that has no di-or tripeptides and of course it won't perform any differently.

Any research that compares regular intact whey to a hydrolyzed protein and does not state the percentage of di-and-tripeptides, is pretty much worthless and I'm surprised the anti WPH people even use such weak stuff. So, let's dial this in and recognize, that we are talking about the absorption of di-and tripeptides compared to intact protein.

If you noticed the one study explicitly states the chain length

To address your above claim. Not even close, nor was the initial research on the speed of peptides even compared to intact whey, it was compared to the even faster absorbed free-form amino-acids (ffAAs).

The initial research on peptides compared to free-form amino-acid absorption started back in 1979 and throughout the mid 1980's.

I can't speak for other companies but I've never based anything off that study that you state the notion started from, actually I never even seen that irrelevant pig study. That study came out 20+ years AFTER much of the peptide vs ffAA research, unless someone is VERY unfamiliar with the history of the research, I have no idea why anything/claims ect would stem from that study as you say

The pig study wasn't used to prove anything but rather a starting point of where some research has stemmed from.

So based off this study, you think casein leaves the gut at the same rate as whey protein, regardless of the majority of the research stating otherwise? You don't believe that casein coagulates in the stomach, which is part of the reason it releases slower? Even the Dangin study that you reference below supports that different gastric emptying rates and this has been shown repeatedly.

The Dangin study didn't evaluate gastric emptying times. Keep in mind those are half times of gastric emptying. That particular study readily admits that casein clots in stomach and suggests it may be emptied in two phases a slow solid phase and faster liquid phase. The casein still had a significantly slower appearance of aminos in plasma anyway and it's clear it wasn't digested at the same rate. I don't think this goes against anything we know. The claim I was trying to address was that hydrolysates result in aminos appearing in the blood stream quicker.

Out of everything you posted, this is the only valid and confounding study, I have EVER seen that has been done on a legit WPH and shown that it wasn't fast absorbing. And this data goes against A LOT or research, dating back to 1980's that shows di-and tripeptides are absorbed faster than even free-form amino-acids.

Have you seen this one?

Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2008 May 8:1-11. [Epub ahead of print]Click here to read Links
Plasma amino acid response after ingestion of different whey protein fractions.
Farnfield MM, Trenerry C, Carey KA, Cameron-Smith D.

School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.

Background and objectives The digestion rate of proteins and subsequent absorption of amino acids can independently modulate protein metabolism. The objective of the present study was to examine the blood amino acid response to whey protein isolate (WPI), beta-lactoglobulin-enriched WPI, hydrolysed WPI and a flavour-identical control. Methods Eight healthy adults (four female, four male) were recruited (mean+/-standard error of the mean: age, 27.0+/-0.76 years; body mass index, 23.2+/-0.8 kg/cm(2)) and after an overnight fast consumed 500 ml of each drink, each containing 25g protein, in a cross-over design. Blood was taken at rest and then every 15 min for 2 h post ingestion. Results Ingesting the beta-lactoglobulin-enriched WPI drink resulted in significantly greater plasma leucine concentrations at 45-120 min and significantly greater branched-chain amino acid concentrations at 60-105 min post ingestion compared with hydrolysed WPI. No differences were observed between WPI and beta-lactoglobulin-enriched WPI, and all protein drinks resulted in elevated blood amino acids compared with flavour-identical control. Conclusions In conclusion, whole proteins resulted in a more rapid absorption of leucine and branched-chain amino acid into the blood compared with the hydrolysed molecular form of whey protein.

When dealing with research, you go with what the largest body of evidence supports, not one confounding study. 30% of creatine studies show it doesn't work, should we pick one of these studies and start telling everyone that creatine is useless?

Again, you are ignoring A LOT of research, going back to the 1980's showing di-and tripeptides are absorbed faster than ffAA's. Now, we know free-form amino-acids are absorbed faster than whey protein isolate, as it has been repeatedly shown by tipton and others. Do you disagree with the research that shows free-form amino-acids are absorbed faster than intact whey protein?

Which Tipton study are you referring to here?
Admittedly I didn't have access to the 70s/80s stuff and most of them don't even have abstracts for view. Care shooting me a few references so I can go get the full texts. Of the stuff I could get it was comparing absorption rates and not speed of absorption.

Since di-and tripeptides are absorbed faster than ffAA's and ffAAs are absorbed faster than intact protein, it's not hard to figure out that di-and tripeptides are absorbed faster than intact proteins, like WPI.

You haven't proved di and tri peptides are absorbed quicker than ffAAs you said there was some research in 80s but haven't referenced anything in particular.

Much of this discussion would have never been posted if you understood about peptide and free-form amino-acid transport mechanisms, such as the SPECIFIC peptide transporter in our guts called PEPT-1, or the ffAA transporters.


Do you really think an intact protein that NEEDS to be digested into smaller di-and tripeptides and free form amino-acids BEFORE they can get absorbed in the gut, is going to get into the blood stream as fast as amino-acids in di/tripeptide or free form that our body is designed to absorb INTACT and without digestion?


The claim is FAR from baseless, it's actually STRONGLY supported by research, MUCH more than your suggestions.

I'm aware of the different transporters. I didn't just read a couple abstracts and post this. I'm saying based on the studies above, to which you have provided nothing to the contrary, hydrolysis is probably occurring a lot quicker with WPI then originally thought.

Yes, according to the results of his study



Most of your argument is based off this ONE study and you're going on to speculate about outcomes of other studies. And not only that but you're thinking you're speculation is supported by the below Dangin study, which actually goes against your suggestion that there is no difference in rates of plasma amino-acids between protein types.

This particular part wouldn't really apply to your product anyway as you've never advertised the use of IntraBolic throughout the day. This ONE study is the only I'm aware of that involves hydro supplementation throughout the day, you have others?
You lose me a bit when you start talking about the Dangin study here. It only compared whey and casein, no hydolysates of any kind were involved. Nothing I've posted suggests that casein ingestion would result in equal speed plasma amino-acid concentrations compared to whey/hydrowhey and I sure hope it didn't appear that way. Maybe some miscommunication here?

This speculation is NOT supported by the above study, which actually showed the WPI increased plasma amino-acid concentrations to a greater extent, as well as PROTEIN SYNTHESIS, than to the slower casein. The author states "in addition to protein quantity and amino-acid composition, the protein digestion rate is an INDEPENDENT factor at modulating postprandial protein deposition" They go on to say "Such unique responses to the fast and slow meals are most likely due to AMINO ACID AVAILABILITY, probably induced a stimulation of protein synthesis. By contrast, "slow proteins," which modified plasma amino-acid concentrations to a MUCH slower extent, were NOT associated with a stimulation of protein synthesis. In accordance with this theory, it has been demonstrated that significant stimulation of protein synthesis requires at least a twofold increase of plasma aminoacidemia above basal levels"


So, this one study you post, actually supports the case that faster absorbed proteins increase protein synthesis greater than slower (casein). You actually just went against your whole premise by using this study as support.

There are two studies in that part you quoted from me.
The first one compares a single meal of whey versus a single meal of casein. The follow up was this one:

The Dangin study comparing four meals:
1. 30g of casein in a single meal
2. 30g of whey in a single meal
3. 30g of whey protein divided into 13 meals given every 20 minutes to mimic the slow digestion of casein
4. 30g of AA with a similar profile to casein

The results when comparing the postprandial leucine balance over 7 hours was 1 beating 2 and 3 beating 1.

I think perhaps my heading for claim 2 was a little misleading but as I mention within the body of it was specifically to hydro whey as there are supplement manufacturers using that Cribb study to justify supplementing hydro whey throughout the day. For all those following along he is not who I'm referring to. All I was attempting to prove is that if you want to interpret that study as taking whey throughout the day instead of casein maybe that has merit but it sure as hell isn't reason to go paying inflated prices to supplement 75-150g of the stuff a day. A discussion of whether fast or slow proteins are better throughout the day is an entire other subject which is complicated by the matter that other sources of energy tend to attenuate the differences anyway.

[Cable Curling CincoUno]

Yes, it was way off base. Now, since I know you are trying to drag IntrAbolic into this, which is both a di-tripeptide AND free-form amino-acid product. Let me mention some obvious points on why we chose it over WPI, simply from a PRACTICALITY standpoint.


When you exercise, blood gets diverted from your gut and other organs to your MUSCLES.. this is basic exercise physiology. So not only is digestion compromised, you don't exactly want to be pulling blood away from your exercising muscles to your gut to assist in digestion during your workout.

Now, if you had to choose between a protein, that is already di-and tripeptides, KNOWING our guts posses the specific transporter PEPT-1 to absorb them INTACT, without them needing to be digested DURING your workout... or a intact protein like WPI, that needs to be digested and broken down into di-and tripeptides and ffAAs BEFORE it can get absorbed, which do you think would be the better choice?

Well, unless you don't believe in science/physiology, I think it would be pretty darn obvious which would be better to use during your workouts. Maybe at other times during the day(and we do not make a WPH powder supplement), they may not be more beneficial than WPI but for during workout ingestion, them along with ffAA's are a great choice. It's not rocket science, that's for sure.

IntraBolic is only 30% hydrolyzed anyway so aren't you worried that the other 70% is going to take dramatic amounts of blood away from your muscles and inhibit digestion:rollseyes:? Hell according to that second study on WPI vs WPH that you quote in a recent blog post of yours WPI keeps BCAA levels elevated at the highest point from the 40 to 120 min mark so drink your whey 60 minutes before going to the gym and the levels are still elevated sufficiently for 60 minutes anyway with 60 minutes for digestion before hand.

Good to see this thread at least got some discussion going. You listed your problems with the studies I presented and some of my logic but didn't provide any references for anything you claim. So cite some of this 70s/80s stuff and this thread can go somewhere.

[frank69688]

Major di- and tri- peptides came from The number 30 degrees. Above 30 degrees will results in regular ffAA.

A little question for you. Aside from studies in Australia, dangin, etc you named it have you ever take in comparison with yourself between WPI and WPH for recovery and mass gains?

[ATHLETIC EDGE NUTRITION]

I don't know what the **** is going on with these boards but here's my reply to AEN:
The original post that started this debate can be found in my bodyblog(it's the only entry).
If you noticed the one study explicitly states the chain length The pig study wasn't used to prove anything but rather a starting point of where some research has stemmed from.


The Dangin study didn't evaluate gastric emptying times. Keep in mind those are half times of gastric emptying. That particular study readily admits that casein clots in stomach and suggests it may be emptied in two phases a slow solid phase and faster liquid phase. The casein still had a significantly slower appearance of aminos in plasma anyway and it's clear it wasn't digested at the same rate. I don't think this goes against anything we know. The claim I was trying to address was that hydrolysates result in aminos appearing in the blood stream quicker.

I didn't say it did, I said that it stated in the study and it does page 346. And you're agreeing with what I'm saying about different gastric emptying times and amino-acids appearing in the blood. And yes that study stating no differences in gastric emptying times is going against what we know about the slow release effect of casein. I understand your claim, but if you are going to support this study for being accurate, wouldn't you also think to question the validity of the WAY off claim that there is no differences in gastric emptying times between casein and whey knowing how much research shows otherwise?

Have you seen this one?

Yes, when it came out I was very interested in it, only to find out how pretty much worthless it was as they don't even state any specifics about the hydrolysate and if it had ANY di-and tripeptides. My first paragraph is actually talking about studies just like this one.

Which Tipton study are you referring to here?

There are many, but you can start with looking at "stimulation of net muscle protein synthesis by whey protein ingestion before and after exercise" this study will show you blood amino-acid levels from the whey and discuss and different concentrations, amino-acid dilivery and more compared to ffAAs.

Admittedly I didn't have access to the 70s/80s stuff and most of them don't even have abstracts for view. Care shooting me a few references so I can go get the full texts. Of the stuff I could get it was comparing absorption rates and not speed of absorption.

You haven't proved di and tri peptides are absorbed quicker than ffAAs you said there was some research in 80s but haven't referenced anything in particular.

Start with some Silk's comparison work on peptides VS ffAAs, also look into Keohane and go from there. I have no idea how much info is in the abstracts, I only deal and have the full texts.

I'm aware of the different transporters. I didn't just read a couple abstracts and post this. I'm saying based on the studies above, to which you have provided nothing to the contrary, hydrolysis is probably occurring a lot quicker with WPI then originally thought.


This particular part wouldn't really apply to your product anyway as you've never advertised the use of IntraBolic throughout the day. This ONE study is the only I'm aware of that involves hydro supplementation throughout the day, you have others?
You lose me a bit when you start talking about the Dangin study here. It only compared whey and casein, no hydolysates of any kind were involved. Nothing I've posted suggests that casein ingestion would result in equal speed plasma amino-acid concentrations compared to whey/hydrowhey and I sure hope it didn't appear that way. Maybe some miscommunication here?

Yeah, it doesn't apply, so I'll stay to the current discussion.

I can see where you are getting confused, my mistake on how I worded things. I am talking about the Calbet and Holst you posted that looked at gastric emptying times between hydrolzyed protein, whole protein and casein, showing no differences.

There are two studies in that part you quoted from me.
The first one compares a single meal of whey versus a single meal of casein. The follow up was this one:

The Dangin study comparing four meals:
1. 30g of casein in a single meal
2. 30g of whey in a single meal
3. 30g of whey protein divided into 13 meals given every 20 minutes to mimic the slow digestion of casein
4. 30g of AA with a similar profile to casein

The results when comparing the postprandial leucine balance over 7 hours was 1 beating 2 and 3 beating 1.

I think perhaps my heading for claim 2 was a little misleading but as I mention within the body of it was specifically to hydro whey as there are supplement manufacturers using that Cribb study to justify supplementing hydro whey throughout the day.

For all those following along he is not who I'm referring to. All I was attempting to prove is that if you want to interpret that study as taking whey throughout the day instead of casein maybe that has merit but it sure as hell isn't reason to go paying inflated prices to supplement 75-150g of the stuff a day. A discussion of whether fast or slow proteins are better throughout the day is an entire other subject which is complicated by the matter that other sources of energy tend to attenuate the differences anyway.

Again, I don't know who uses the cribb study, not that there is necessarily anything wrong with it but we sure don't. Although this isn't relevant to IntrAbolic ect but are you aware of the recent post-workout study comparing WPH to WPI on recovery, showing WPH outperformed WPI. Obviously not the be all end all, but an interesting study none the less.

Eitherway, we are not using WPH in this fashion but its showing promise over WPI in some of these other scenario's as well.

I'll answer your next post

[ATHLETIC EDGE NUTRITION]

IntraBolic is only 30% hydrolyzed anyway so aren't you worried that the other 70% is going to take dramatic amounts of blood away from your muscles and inhibit digestion:rollseyes:? Hell according to that second study on WPI vs WPH that you quote in a recent blog post of yours WPI keeps BCAA levels elevated at the highest point from the 40 to 120 min mark so drink your whey 60 minutes before going to the gym and the levels are still elevated sufficiently for 60 minutes anyway with 60 minutes for digestion before hand.

Good to see this thread at least got some discussion going. You listed your problems with the studies I presented and some of my logic but didn't provide any references for anything you claim. So cite some of this 70s/80s stuff and this thread can go somewhere.

Ok, I'm going to be very polite about this, perhaps you shouldn't be rolling your eyes at me .. but 30% hydrolyzed DOES NOT MEAN the other 70% of it is NOT hydrolyzed, NOT EVEN CLOSE. For example, IntrAbolic is OVER 30% hydrolyzed and 70-80% of it is di-and tripeptides.

I suggest you go learn what hydrolysis percentage actually means.


That tipton study I mentioned before, should spell it out why it's not just an issue of timing,... the whey never elevates blood amino-acid levels to the same extent as ffAA's. That's a good starting point which can lead you to alot more research on blood amino-acid elevations and timing of their peaks ect.

There are so many errors and peaces of misinformation in your original post,quite alot I didn't even get in to. So why didn't you start a thread asking questions, so YOU could better understand the basics, like what hydrolysis means in respect to the WPH we use? Why did you make such bold authoritative claims without knowing even a fraction of the research or understanding of the science?

Look at the title of that thread, you basically went in with your mind made up, after reading a handful of studies, calling everything BS and telling people you were right, very strange approach, just a weeeee bit egocentric, don't you think.

I think questions/discussion are great and can lead to a better understanding, but to make such wild claims as you did and come off like what you stated was factual, is one strange approach, atleast IMO.

And lastly, why did you attempt to drag IntrAbolic in specifically and quote my blogs ect?

There are soooooo many WPH PROTEIN products out there, that are actually being used in the way you are primarily debating against, yet you brought in a product that is taken DURING your workout, that actually contains more ffEAAs than WPH, not to mention beta-alanine, electrolytes ect? And even if you want to ignore the science on WPH, from a practicality stand point alone, you should be able to work out why we use it over WPI.

So what about all the companies that make protein powders that use WPH,which would be much more relevant to your argument than trying to drag in Athletic Edge Nutrition and IntrAbolic. Are they "good bros" so you just leave them out of it?

[dtrain13]

lol wut??

[ATHLETIC EDGE NUTRITION]

lol wut??

The first thread somehow disappeared, which is why it may seem a little confusing. Shame too, becuase alot of what I posted has been left out/ignored in this thread.I may still have it an email though!

[Cable Curling CincoUno]

I don't want to reply to this in parts so looking at some of the Silk stuff are you referring to:
-Influence of protein composition and hydrolysis method on intestinal absorption of protein in man
-A comparison of the absorption of two
protein hydrolysates and their effects on water and electrolyte movements in the human jejunum.
-Effect of peptide chain-
length on amino acid and nitrogen absorption from two lactalbumin hydrolysates in the normal human
jejunum.
-Amino acid absorption and production of pancreatic
hormones in non-anaesthetized pigs after duodenal infusions of a milk enzymic hydrolysate or of free amino
acids.
-Uses of a peptide rather than a free amino acid nitrogen source in chemically
defined elemental diets

These are about the only ones I could find that would be really relavent here? Just going off Grimble and Silk's reference list in "Peptides in Human Nutrition" from '89

[Cable Curling CincoUno]

The first thread somehow disappeared, which is why it may seem a little confusing. Shame too, becuase alot of what I posted has been left out/ignored in this thread.I may still have it an email though!

The only reason I have what is above saved is because it was all that was in the thread when I was replying. When I hit reply the thread was gone but luckily when I hit back the response was still there so I copied and pasted it into word. I didn't purposely leave anything out and if I force you to repeat yourself I'm sorry but **** happens. I pm'd a mod about it last night and showtime suggests that they might be able to recover anything that was deleted.

I should of added in the original post too if you feel anything above is misquoted(it shouldn't be) don't hesitate to let me know.

[ATHLETIC EDGE NUTRITION]

I don't want to reply to this in parts so looking at some of the Silk stuff are you referring to:
-Influence of protein composition and hydrolysis method on intestinal absorption of protein in man
-A comparison of the absorption of two
protein hydrolysates and their effects on water and electrolyte movements in the human jejunum.
-Effect of peptide chain-
length on amino acid and nitrogen absorption from two lactalbumin hydrolysates in the normal human
jejunum.
-Amino acid absorption and production of pancreatic
hormones in non-anaesthetized pigs after duodenal infusions of a milk enzymic hydrolysate or of free amino
acids.
-Uses of a peptide rather than a free amino acid nitrogen source in chemically
defined elemental diets

These are about the only ones I could find that would be really relavent here? Just going off Grimble and Silk's reference list in "Peptides in Human Nutrition" from '89

Those are fine as a starting point, also by Silk,"comparison of oral feeding of peptide and amino acid meals to normal human subjects" Not sure if mentioned any of Keohane's studies, but"influence of protein composition and hydrolysis method on intestinal adsorption of protein in man" is another decent STARTING point. Go through these and many more, go through the references used in the papers and soon you will have started to build a body of research that you can than start to form a better understanding.


I'm looking at three ring binder that has literally HUNDREDS of research studies that created the science behind the IntrAbolic formula.

In building IntrAbolic's formula, I studied and gathered research on peptides, their absorption and metabolism, protein composition and absorption, splanchnic and peripheral metabolism,dose response of AA on protein synthesis, latency and duration, obviously intra-workout nutrient timing and a HELL of alot more.

Had I not been so impressed by the solidness of di-and tripeptides, we would have NEVER used them in IntrAbolic. Think about it, the 70-80% di-and tripeptide WPH we use is way more costly than ffEAA's, it tastes MUCH MUCH worse and took ALOT to be able to get it to taste as good as atleast the citrus does now.

So, if we are trying to rip people off by using WPH, why would list the % hydrolysis and most importantly the incredibly high % of di-and tripeptides? Wouldn't we just window dress it with some low quality WPH that doesn't even have di-and tripeptides? Or, if we though there was no difference between the WPH we use and WPI, why wouldn't we just use it? It's cheaper, WAY easier to flavor ect.

The answer is we used the WPH we choose becuase we believed based off the research that it was the far superior and optimal choice to use DURING one's workout.

We added in the free-form amino-acids for a FEW reasons, some are as follows:

1. To control for the amount of leucine to get the max stimulus of protein synthesis which is shown to be between 3-5g...IntrAbolic has 5g

2. ffAAs use difference transporters than peptides and there would be less overlap in their absorption. Sort of like using different types of carbs that utilize different gut transporters allowing more glucose to get into the blood stream than if the same amount of ONE carb was taken alone. Yes, this principal related to peptides/EAAs is a theory but it is based on sounds principals shown by carbohydrate research. And there is some early cell studies that is in fact showing that peptides also ENHANCE ffAA absorption.



We build are products from the ground up from the research, KNOWING that they will be used in research and they need to be able to work and be the best. Going in with this mentality, we put NO fluff or gimmicky ingredients in our products and dose them extremely high, as you all know. At this point IntraXCell is now backed by THREE research studies and in the near future IntrAbolic will be used in research studies as well. You don't see us using CEE, we use creapure in PreSurge and have also supported and promoted mono of CEE, the list goes on and on.

Lastly, I am moving this weekend and am really busy, so while I'm doing my best to address your comments, if you don't hear from me for a while, you will know why. I have alot on my plate right now!

[dtrain13]

What is the intended point of this thread?

[Cable Curling CincoUno]

Yeah glad we agree no sense in arguing over the semantics of the whole hydro-whey throughout the day issue as I think we both agree that notion is retarded. My intention was never to accuse you of making claims like that and I tried to mention a few times you don't. In fact even though it seems this/the original thread was directed to you, it wasn't per se but I figured your the only one that would reply beyond "check the logs bro". If any of the other guys who copied your formula(I know being affiliated prevents you from saying such things but the rest of us aren't blind) want to chime in they are more then welcome.

Alright to save us both some time I think the main issue is boiling down to this:
Your reasoning for using hydro whey is based on the 70s/80s research showing that di-tri peptides are absorbed quicker then ffAAs so therefore drinking hydro whey is going to raise aminos in the blood stream quicker.
My issue with that is the new research is indicating that hydro whey isn't resulting in quicker appearance of aminos in plasma. Call into question lack the extent of hydrolysis and di/tri peptide amount being listed in the studies but there is nothing to the contrary.
I think the disconnect here is your assuming(feel free to correct me, I don't like putting words in people's mouths and I'm sure you don't like them being put there) quicker absorption=quicker appearance in plasma.
I lifted this from another board because my texts are are at school and I couldn't find anything online for free that elucidates the point I'm trying to make:

Institute of medicine's Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients) (2005)

"After ingestion, proteins are denatured by the acid in the stomach, where they are also cleaved into smaller peptides by the enzyme pepsin, which is activated by the increase in stomach acidity that occurs on feeding. The proteins and peptides then pass into the small intestine, where the peptide bonds are hydrolyzed by a variety of enzymes. These bond-specific enzymes originate in the pancreas and include trypsin, chymotrypsins, elastase, and carboxypeptidases. The resultant mixture of free amino acids and small peptides is then transported into the mucosal cells by a number of carrier systems for specific amino acids and for di- and tri-peptides, each specific for a limited range of peptide substrates. After intracellular hydrolysis of the absorbed peptides, the free amino acids are then secreted into the portal blood by other specific carrier systems in the mucosal cell or are further metabolized within the cell itself"

I guess what I get from all of this is-
Absorption: di/tri peptides>ffAA>WPI
Blood Stream Appearance: ffAA>di/tripeptides=WPI

All of this ignores the fact that anyone interested in body recomposition/performance should be eating high levels of protein throughout the day and a meal prior to weight lifting anyway.


No worries on taking time to reply. I've been done school and don't start until working until tomorrow so I've had nothing but board time for a couple weeks. For now I've taken down the bodyblog post because I use some terms a little loosely but I'll edit it a bit and post it once this thread is over.

[Peter LeDrew]

Those are fine as a starting point, also by Silk,"comparison of oral feeding of peptide and amino acid meals to normal human subjects" Not sure if mentioned any of Keohane's studies, but"influence of protein composition and hydrolysis method on intestinal adsorption of protein in man" is another decent STARTING point. Go through these and many more, go through the references used in the papers and soon you will have started to build a body of research that you can than start to form a better understanding.


I'm looking at three ring binder that has literally HUNDREDS of research studies that created the science behind the IntrAbolic formula.

In building IntrAbolic's formula, I studied and gathered research on peptides, their absorption and metabolism, protein composition and absorption, splanchnic and peripheral metabolism,dose response of AA on protein synthesis, latency and duration, obviously intra-workout nutrient timing and a HELL of alot more.

Had I not been so impressed by the solidness of di-and tripeptides, we would have NEVER used them in IntrAbolic. Think about it, the 70-80% di-and tripeptide WPH we use is way more costly than ffEAA's, it tastes MUCH MUCH worse and took ALOT to be able to get it to taste as good as atleast the citrus does now.

So, if we are trying to rip people off by using WPH, why would list the % hydrolysis and most importantly the incredibly high % of di-and tripeptides? Wouldn't we just window dress it with some low quality WPH that doesn't even have di-and tripeptides? Or, if we though there was no difference between the WPH we use and WPI, why wouldn't we just use it? It's cheaper, WAY easier to flavor ect.

The answer is we used the WPH we choose becuase we believed based off the research that it was the far superior and optimal choice to use DURING one's workout.

We added in the free-form amino-acids for a FEW reasons, some are as follows:

1. To control for the amount of leucine to get the max stimulus of protein synthesis which is shown to be between 3-5g...IntrAbolic has 5g

2. ffAAs use difference transporters than peptides and there would be less overlap in their absorption. Sort of like using different types of carbs that utilize different gut transporters allowing more glucose to get into the blood stream than if the same amount of ONE carb was taken alone. Yes, this principal related to peptides/EAAs is a theory but it is based on sounds principals shown by carbohydrate research. And there is some early cell studies that is in fact showing that peptides also ENHANCE ffAA absorption.



We build are products from the ground up from the research, KNOWING that they will be used in research and they need to be able to work and be the best. Going in with this mentality, we put NO fluff or gimmicky ingredients in our products and dose them extremely high, as you all know. At this point IntraXCell is now backed by THREE research studies and in the near future IntrAbolic will be used in research studies as well. You don't see us using CEE, we use creapure in PreSurge and have also supported and promoted mono of CEE, the list goes on and on.

Lastly, I am moving this weekend and am really busy, so while I'm doing my best to address your comments, if you don't hear from me for a while, you will know why. I have alot on my plate right now!

Great post!

Need any help moving hit me up! I could use some help when I move at the end of this month.

[ATHLETIC EDGE NUTRITION]

Yeah glad we agree no sense in arguing over the semantics of the whole hydro-whey throughout the day issue as I think we both agree that notion is retarded. My intention was never to accuse you of making claims like that and I tried to mention a few times you don't. In fact even though it seems this/the original thread was directed to you, it wasn't per se but I figured your the only one that would reply beyond "check the logs bro". If any of the other guys who copied your formula(I know being affiliated prevents you from saying such things but the rest of us aren't blind) want to chime in they are more then welcome.

I understand, just when I see my blogs copied and pasted and then some guy(not you) saying BS, it seemed pretty clear I was being targeted. And while it did make me feel "special" those blogs are simply me REPORTING on particular studies and their results. It's not like I did the study or changed the outcomes, I simply am summarizing them.

Sometimes I wish we had started off on this forum years ago, stating "check the logs bro" as it would have saved myself alot of time, as we constantly are expected to answer many of the hardest questions, when no other company will.

Not sure if you were around in 06-07 but I can't tell you how many times I defended beta-alanine, supporting its use as an effective ergogenic aid. There are TONS of threads over those years with me defending beta-alanine from people saying it was BS ect (and we all know how that turned out. ) No other company would step up. Anyway, I made my choices and I don't regret them and in some ways I'm glad people look to AEN as an information source... at times. But other times, it can get very tedious and time consuming and if we don't answer right away, it's assumed we are some how dodging.

Alright to save us both some time I think the main issue is boiling down to this:
Your reasoning for using hydro whey is based on the 70s/80s research showing that di-tri peptides are absorbed quicker then ffAAs so therefore drinking hydro whey is going to raise aminos in the blood stream quicker.

I wouldn't say my rational was based off 70-80's research, I would state specifically, the research that I started with on learning about di-and tripeptide absorption, dates back from the 70-80's and up until TODAY. It's a large body of evidence starting back 30+ years ago and all the way until now. I never base any AEN product off old research, actually alot of it is very cutting edge obviously, which is why some do not except it yet.

Yes, the research shows dating back to those early studies and up until now, shows the di-and tripeptides get into the blood stream faster than ffAA's. The reason being is, the di-and tripeptide transporters have a GREATER CAPACITY to move peptides through the gut than the ffAA transporters can move ffAAs. That's your answer. Now to really understand the WHY, you need to start studying the different gut transporters and why this occurs. It's REALLY fascinating stuff, atleast to me.

My issue with that is the new research is indicating that hydro whey isn't resulting in quicker appearance of aminos in plasma. Call into question lack the extent of hydrolysis and di/tri peptide amount being listed in the studies but there is nothing to the contrary.

Again, that is literally one study that showed confounding results to what I'm stating and it doesn't make sense knowing one protein needs to be digested and the other can be absorbed immediately.

I think the disconnect here is your assuming(feel free to correct me, I don't like putting words in people's mouths and I'm sure you don't like them being put there) quicker absorption=quicker appearance in plasma.
I lifted this from another board because my texts are are at school and I couldn't find anything online for free that elucidates the point I'm trying to make:


I guess what I get from all of this is-
Absorption: di/tri peptides>ffAA>WPI
Blood Stream Appearance: ffAA>di/tripeptides=WPI

Quicker absorption through the small intestines, will lead to quicker/larger concentrations of amino-acids in the blood. So based on the much larger body of evidence/support, I would state, di/tri peptides>ffAA>WPI for both GI absorption AND blood stream appearance, PROVIDED, the WPH is highly composed of di-and tripeptides.

I really do believe rapid absorbed forms of amino-acids, be it di-tripeptides or ffAA's around workouts are superior to WPI for spiking blood amino-acids levels to a greater extent. This allows them to better take advantage of the exercise induced massive increase of blood flow and amino-acid delivery to workout muscle, stimulating protein synthesis to a greater extent.

Yes, you can take your WPI further out preWO to get it into your blood during your workout, but that still doesn't change that it won't elevate blood amino-acid levels to the same extent as ffAAs and di/tripeptides.

All of this ignores the fact that anyone interested in body recomposition/performance should be eating high levels of protein throughout the day and a meal prior to weight lifting anyway.

No worries on taking time to reply. I've been done school and don't start until working until tomorrow so I've had nothing but board time for a couple weeks. For now I've taken down the bodyblog post because I use some terms a little loosely but I'll edit it a bit and post it once this thread is over.

I agree and nothing should replace your PreWO meal.

[ATHLETIC EDGE NUTRITION]

Great post!

Need any help moving hit me up! I could use some help when I move at the end of this month.

heh, looking for an excuse to head down to miami eh?

[Adjusting]

heh, looking for an excuse to head down to miami eh?

Ahem

I'm down for moving some boxes

You gotta buy the pizza and beer though

[Peter LeDrew]

heh, looking for an excuse to head down to miami eh?

heck, why not. Soak up some much needed sun, sip on some of that new fancy flavored IntrAbolic, while checking out all the nice views ... i am sure there is no end!!

[dtrain13]

I'll ask again what was the point behind this thread? What exactly is being debated? (and yes I can read just fine....)

[Peter LeDrew]

I understand, just when I see my blogs copied and pasted and then some guy(not you) saying BS, it seemed pretty clear I was being targeted. And while it did make me feel "special" those blogs are simply me REPORTING on particular studies and their results. It's not like I did the study or changed the outcomes, I simply am summarizing them.

Sometimes I wish we had started off on this forum years ago, stating "check the logs bro" as it would have saved myself alot of time, as we constantly are expected to answer many of the hardest questions, when no other company will.

Not sure if you were around in 06-07 but I can't tell you how many times I defended beta-alanine, supporting its use as an effective ergogenic aid. There are TONS of threads over those years with me defending beta-alanine from people saying it was BS ect (and we all know how that turned out. ) No other company would step up. Anyway, I made my choices and I don't regret them and in some ways I'm glad people look to AEN as an information source... at times. But other times, it can get very tedious and time consuming and if we don't answer right away, it's assumed we are some how dodging.
.

I hope many read this post fully.
Funny how this is hey... I know you are one of the best sources I rely on for a bunch of things... you deserve a lot of credit for educating and helping provide science amongst the often 'check the logs-bro' heavy threads that litter bb.com.

I think this is the case for many of the leading science-based companies and products though, not just yours... this is something i have noticed the past year.

[Peter LeDrew]

I'll ask again what was the point behind this thread? What exactly is being debated? (and yes I can read just fine....)

The benefits of whey hydrolysate were put in question from what I read.

[Peter LeDrew]

heck, why not. Soak up some much needed sun, sip on some of that new fancy flavored IntrAbolic, while checking out all the nice views ... i am sure there is no end!!

Correction, make that 2 new flavors from the rumour mill!!! Wahoo! That's huge news.

[Cable Curling CincoUno]

I understand, just when I see my blogs copied and pasted and then some guy(not you) saying BS, it seemed pretty clear I was being targeted. And while it did make me feel "special" those blogs are simply me REPORTING on particular studies and their results. It's not like I did the study or changed the outcomes, I simply am summarizing them.

I cruise some of the bodyblogs around here to see what new research is popping up from time to time myself. Now the part below is in no way an attack it is in regards to all who read blogs by anyone on any subject.

Looking at blogs is a great way to find research pertinent to your interests especially if you don't have time to cruise pubmed all day. If the study/paper posted looks interesting to you then go get the full text and read it for yourself but taking the blog author's interpretation as rule when they are trying to sell you something related to the study/paper unequivocally makes you a retard. Go ask the Shamwow guy what his opinion is on shamwows vs paper towel.

I wouldn't say my rational was based off 70-80's research, I would state specifically, the research that I started with on learning about di-and tripeptide absorption, dates back from the 70-80's and up until TODAY. It's a large body of evidence starting back 30+ years ago and all the way until now. I never base any AEN product off old research, actually alot of it is very cutting edge obviously, which is why some do not except it yet.

When I said 70s-80s research it wasn't meant to be derogatory just to differentiate it from the stuff I posted as most of Silk/Grimble was done in that time period.

Yes, the research shows dating back to those early studies and up until now, shows the di-and tripeptides get into the blood stream faster than ffAA's. The reason being is, the di-and tripeptide transporters have a GREATER CAPACITY to move peptides through the gut than the ffAA transporters can move ffAAs. That's your answer. Now to really understand the WHY, you need to start studying the different gut transporters and why this occurs. It's REALLY fascinating stuff, atleast to me.

Okay Seb I keep asking for a specific citation that has whey hydro outperforming whey isolate(even an ffAA one) in amino appearance in the blood stream in humans. Actually 4 studies would probably be more appropriate to show a bigger body of research vs the three I've posted. Just give me a title and I'll go find the full text or better yet since you have them on hand maybe you can just e-mail me one and I'll prove myself wrong. I'm not trying to be a dick but all the titles of the studies I'm looking at say absorption and I've got a couple that deal with absorption and yes they all it's faster but don't make mention of plasma appearance.

Again, that is literally one study that showed confounding results to what I'm stating and it doesn't make sense knowing one protein needs to be digested and the other can be absorbed immediately.

I agree it seems counter intuitive but sometimes that's how science works. Picking on my research is easy when I give you specific studies and you just allude to a body of work so I can't pick out problems with any of those studies. I understand your busy and now you've got a move going on so just give me the references and I'll go through them and post up why I'm wrong or right. I'm willing to do all the leg work, threads like this are how I learn. I went through most of Anssi's stuff first and checked all his references honestly looking for something that was refuting what I posted.

Quicker absorption through the small intestines, will lead to quicker/larger concentrations of amino-acids in the blood.

You are ignoring the fact that although they absorbed quicker they have to go through an entire other process, intracellular hydrolysis by cytoplasmic peptidases, which ffAA's do not. As far as I know there is no body of research which indicates how much longer this takes and that is part of the reason why the intact protein vs hydro research has been done recently.

So based on the much larger body of evidence/support, I would state, di/tri peptides>ffAA>WPI for both GI absorption AND blood stream appearance, PROVIDED, the WPH is highly composed of di-and tripeptides.

I really do believe rapid absorbed forms of amino-acids, be it di-tripeptides or ffAA's around workouts are superior to WPI for spiking blood amino-acids levels to a greater extent. This allows them to better take advantage of the exercise induced massive increase of blood flow and amino-acid delivery to workout muscle, stimulating protein synthesis to a greater extent.

Yes, you can take your WPI further out preWO to get it into your blood during your workout, but that still doesn't change that it won't elevate blood amino-acid levels to the same extent as ffAAs and di/tripeptides.

You are grouping ffAA's and di/tri peptides together despite spending so much time trying to separate them earlier. I'm only trying to compare hydrowhey(yes with high levels of di/tri peptides) vs whey and I have three studies stating the differences are negligible.


Here is a review of the hydrolysis %'s of the studies I offered and there potential drawbacks to try and keep this clean.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15840745
-94% of nitrogen in the hydro whey with an average chain length of 3.7
-no differences found between rate of appearance or concentration of aminos in plasma when comparing hydro whey vs whey
-some weird **** with the gastric emptying time of casein however rate of amino appearance is consistent with previous research

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18679613
-Optipep whey protein hydrolysate, 30% DH(no mention of di/tri peptide content) vs. WPI
-no difference in rate of appearance of BCAA's between the two
-increase of appearance of Phenylalanine for WPH between the 30-60 min mark

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18608553
-WPI vs. WPH vs. b-lactoglobulin enriched WPI(BLG)
-13% more leucine then WPH and 11% more then WPI in the BLG
-no mention of % of hydrolysis in WPH
-BLG resulted in significantly greater plasma leucine concentrations at 45 120 min and significantly greater branched-chain amino acid concentrations at 60

[Cable Curling CincoUno]

I'll ask again what was the point behind this thread? What exactly is being debated? (and yes I can read just fine....)

check my recent post history. I started a thread saying that the WPH is no better then WPI based on recent research, that's the jist of the original post anyway. Some weird **** is going on with this board and the original thread keeps appearing and disappearing. When I posted it I kind of wrote it up like a little article. I admit that some of the terminology was used incorrectly and that's why I pulled it from my bodyblog. I'm going to edit it a bit and wait until the end of this conversation with AEN before posting it up again.

[ATHLETIC EDGE NUTRITION]

check my recent post history. I started a thread saying that the WPH is no better then WPI based on recent research, that's the jist of the original post anyway. Some weird **** is going on with this board and the original thread keeps appearing and disappearing. When I posted it I kind of wrote it up like a little article. I admit that some of the terminology was used incorrectly and that's why I pulled it from my bodyblog. I'm going to edit it a bit and wait until the end of this conversation with AEN before posting it up again.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=116109413

The original thread appears to be back.

[Cable Curling CincoUno]

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=116109413

The original thread appears to be back.

This site is ****ed up.

I linked that thread to this one. Probably easier to just keep going in this one?

[Cable Curling CincoUno]

bumping for some titles

[Cable Curling CincoUno]

Alright, maybe if Seb is busy with his move someone else from team AEN feels like helping out and earning their keep? Or anyone else on the boards.

We're looking for 4 studies showing a quicker increase in aminos in the blood stream from WPH vs WPI(or even ffAA)....

[ATHLETIC EDGE NUTRITION]

Those are fine as a starting point, also by Silk,"comparison of oral feeding of peptide and amino acid meals to normal human subjects" Not sure if mentioned any of Keohane's studies, but"influence of protein composition and hydrolysis method on intestinal adsorption of protein in man" is another decent STARTING point. Go through these and many more, go through the references used in the papers and soon you will have started to build a body of research that you can than start to form a better understanding.

There's two studies I mentioned from post 10 that are a good starting point. The first compare's ffAA's vs peptides time and concentration into the plasma and you will clearly see the amino-acids from the peptides get into the blood faster and to a higher concentration in that first 30 mins. The second study also shows that the protein hydrolysate were absorbed significantly faster than the equivalent free form amino acids. These are just a good STARTING points.

I also gave you the title "stimulation of net muscle protein synthesis by whey ingestion before and after exercise" This study will show you the time course/blood amino acid concentration of an intact whey. These same authors have repeatedly looked at blood/arterial concentrations of ffEAAs and showed that the EAAs, under the same conditions as the whey study, increased arterial amino-acid concentrations by 100% where as the whey only 30%. This study also references many others that you can search out. Either way, it has been repeatedly shown that ffAA's get into the blood faster and cause larger spikes in blood/arterial amino-acid concentrations, as well as protein synthesis when compared to intact whey. I've also provided you with a starting point showing that di/tripeptides, get amino-acids into the blood faster than ffAA's. You can also find research showing peptides increase insulin greater than both whole proteins and ffAAs, which is believed to occur due to higher plasma amino-acid concentrations. Check out some of Van loons research, Jose A et al.

I'm trying to lay it out the best I can, without compromising our formula and ideas surrounding. There's a huge number of supplement companies on here and getting too specific on the info I disclose is basically helping other formulate products. And as you know IntrAbolic has already been knocked off quite a bit, I'm not exactly looking forward to more. It's the double edge nature of the forum. We want to answer consumer questions and as you know, I usually get into it more so than other companies but I still have to draw a line at some point and protect our information. I hope you understand

bumping for some titles

[Cable Curling CincoUno]

ill gets to readin'

[rudyky08]

Guess I'm late to the party.....some good reading here.