New study finds no difference between consuming a protein shake pre or post workout

[AvengeMe]

Not even sure if it's just the BCAAs. Xtend contains 2 other ingredients that may possibly be causing it or increasing that effect (citrulline malate and glutamine).

Well that would suck considering most pump based pre's have CM in them. And I've been using anywhere from 3-6g before every workout.

[AMeyer9]

I take glutamine post workout though :P Give the good bacteria in my gut something to feed on :P

If only protein contained roughly 20% glutamine.

If only.

[kissdadookie]

If only protein contained roughly 20% glutamine.

If only.

I know it does. After adding more, it seems to help with my GI a bit.

[snorkelman]

Do you guys honestly mean to suggest that you think that the 2.5 grams of glutamine or the 1 gram of Citrulline Malate in Xtend may be to blame for the blunting of fat loss?

You really think that could be it?

If you really do, then you better not forget the chance that the whopping 640 mg of Vitamin B6 may be the culprit.

[kissdadookie]

Do you guys honestly mean to suggest that you think that the 2.5 grams of glutamine or the 1 gram of Citrulline Malate in Xtend may be to blame for the blunting of fat loss?

You really think that could be it?

If you really do, then you better not forget the chance that the whopping 640 mg of Vitamin B6 may be the culprit.

Who knows, it's a point Suppversity brought up and it is worth investigating.

[snorkelman]

Who knows, it's a point Suppversity brought up and it is worth investigating.

I can see it now. Another supp company that sells a bcaa product, that does not include these rather inert/marginally supported compounds will run a study that shows their product does not blunt fat loss, and then they will blame xtend's "extras" for that? Well, maybe that would work, if any other supp companies actually paid to run studies. I'm not holding my breath for any such bcaa-only study. Scivation obviously doesn't have an interest in that, and most other supp companies just make wild claims about the abilities of free form bcaas, without any solid support, or citations to studies that mismatch protein.

[kissdadookie]

I can see it now. Another supp company that sells a bcaa product, that does not include these rather inert/marginally supported compounds will run a study that shows their product does not blunt fat loss, and then they will blame xtend's "extras" for that? Well, maybe that would work, if any other supp companies actually paid to run studies. I'm not holding my breath for any such bcaa-only study. Scivation obviously doesn't have an interest in that, and most other supp companies just make wild claims about the abilities of free form bcaas, without any solid support, or citations to studies that mismatch protein.

Who knows. Lulz. Suppversity brought up some good points though.

[AvengeMe]

Why would the BCAA's blunt fat loss if ingesting a protein shake preworkout actually has a beneficial effect on fat loss.

[Mrpb]

So the study is essentially stating that taking BCAA's periworkout will blunt fat loss efforts?

If we would believe the study results.

If we would believe the study results the guys consuming ~250 calories less than the Xtend group lost ~5 pounds more weight than the Xtend group.

If we would believe the study results >80kg well trained guys working out 4x per week didn't lose significant weight while consuming ~2400 calories.

The much more logical explanation: they didn't stick to their diets. And it was especially the Xtend group that didn't stick to their diet (which they were supposed to prepare and eat by themselves at home). Probably because they were more hungry as their calories were lower. This has been shown over and over again in science: self reported calories tend to be very unreliable.

Simply said the fact that the Xtend group didn't lose weight means they were eating at maintenance, which also explains why they increased LBM.

This means that what Stu Phillips concluded in his 2015 review is probably still accurate: "Despite the popularity of BCAA supplements we find shockingly little evidence for their efficacy in promoting MPS or lean mass gains and would advise the use of intact proteins as opposed to a purified combination of BCAA that appear to antagonize each other in terms of transport both into circulation and likely into the muscle."
http://journal.frontiersin.org/artic...015.00245/full

Why would the BCAA's blunt fat loss if ingesting a protein shake preworkout actually has a beneficial effect on fat loss.

Besides the inaccuracies in calorie reporting, it might be because whey has a higher thermic effect than BCAAs. A few studies now have shown more fat loss with more whey.

Whey is also better at stimulating MPS and retaining lean mass.

[snorkelman]

boom

[kissdadookie]

Why would the BCAA's blunt fat loss if ingesting a protein shake preworkout actually has a beneficial effect on fat loss.

Along with what Mrpb said, absorption rates is also going to be very different between free form aminos and whey.

[Gym God]

I can see it now. Another supp company that sells a bcaa product, that does not include these rather inert/marginally supported compounds will run a study that shows their product does not blunt fat loss, and then they will blame xtend's "extras" for that? Well, maybe that would work, if any other supp companies actually paid to run studies. I'm not holding my breath for any such bcaa-only study. Scivation obviously doesn't have an interest in that, and most other supp companies just make wild claims about the abilities of free form bcaas, without any solid support, or citations to studies that mismatch protein.

I haven't seen you go off on a rant for a while.... I like this.

[AvengeMe]

If we would believe the study results.

If we would believe the study results the guys consuming ~250 calories less than the Xtend group lost ~5 pounds more weight than the Xtend group.

If we would believe the study results >80kg well trained guys working out 4x per week didn't lose significant weight while consuming ~2400 calories.

The much more logical explanation: they didn't stick to their diets. And it was especially the Xtend group that didn't stick to their diet (which they were supposed to prepare and eat by themselves at home). Probably because they were more hungry as their calories were lower. This has been shown over and over again in science: self reported calories tend to be very unreliable.

Simply said the fact that the Xtend group didn't lose weight means they were eating at maintenance, which also explains why they increased LBM.

This means that what Stu Phillips concluded in his 2015 review is probably still accurate: "Despite the popularity of BCAA supplements we find shockingly little evidence for their efficacy in promoting MPS or lean mass gains and would advise the use of intact proteins as opposed to a purified combination of BCAA that appear to antagonize each other in terms of transport both into circulation and likely into the muscle."
http://journal.frontiersin.org/artic...015.00245/full



Besides the inaccuracies in calorie reporting, it might be because whey has a higher thermic effect than BCAAs. A few studies now have shown more fat loss with more whey.

Whey is also better at stimulating MPS and retaining lean mass.

Hopefully thats the case since I have about 8 tubs of aminos to go through and am currently cutting.

[OT2000]

Helpful bump for MM.

And go.

[dougefresh93]

Helpful bump for MM.

And go.

He's not taking your bait

[PricePlow]

On the note of the Xtend study -- there's a major reporting error that casts doubt on the entire thing. Quoting the text: "While there was a significant decrease in lean mass in the CHO group, there was not a loss of fat mass, though the trend (p < 0.1) was strong. [...] The BCAA group showed no change in body mass, due to the maintenance of lean mass in the presence of a significant loss of fat mass." <--- U FOCKING WOT M8? The CHO group had both a greater proportional decrease in fat mass (-1.4% vs -0.5% in the Xtend group) and also a greater net decrease in fat mass (-1.4 kg vs -0.05 kg in the Xtend group). Another limitation of the study should be obvious - it was not designed to be an isonitrogenous comparison. The whole point of timing AAs pre, intra, or post-exercise is to see whether there's a significant effect compared to a non-proximally timed isonitrogenous, intact protein control condition.

BUMP FROM THE GRAVE

Trying to see if anything really happened with this.

I see this was published:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4865017/

Is that it? The original study stands as published, and they just got to publish a critique? Should the original study be considered for retraction?