Alan Aragon's BCAA Study Rebuttal

[TheFugitive]

Well I certainly hope they are doing more than coloring my water. But I'm not naive to think they are helping me build muscle and burn fat single handily. Put this in perspective. I have 28oz of plain high quality h2o. It's back day. I do what I normally do. High volume and supersets. 9-10 exercises. 35-40 sets. I recall I didn't have that extra "ompf" and intensity factor inbetween sets drinking straight water. Factor in bcaa's and the extra Agmatine and beta alanine that's in the product and I killed my lift. That's all I need to know. My brain sees colored water. My body responds by having the tolerance to match the work load. I'm not praising branch chains on how I'm not sore the next day, bc most likely I am. Im praising them bc water on its own isn't enough.

And I've always been a Whopper kind of guy

I'm also a intra BCAA user and a Whopper fan, go figure

[janson_kaniaz]

Will this thread be deleted if some sensitive issues are touched on certain brands? Let's hope not.

[pogue]

Well, I see neither str8flexed nor Alan have shown up to respond to this thread. Maybe if you guys tweet at them with the link to this thread and ask them (politely - don't spam them) to come respond, maybe one of them will manage to see it and come here and comment. I'm sure they get a lot of tweets/emails/etc thrown at them, since they're pretty big figures in the industry, so perhaps if enough people tweet them, it might make it through the maelstrom and they'll see it.

https://twitter.com/TheAlanAragon
https://twitter.com/BioLayne

[TheFugitive]

Well, I see neither str8flexed nor Alan have shown up to respond to this thread. Maybe if you guys tweet at them with the link to this thread and ask them (politely - don't spam them) to come respond, maybe one of them will manage to see it and come here and comment. I'm sure they get a lot of tweets/emails/etc thrown at them, since they're pretty big figures in the industry, so perhaps if enough people tweet them, it might make it through the maelstrom and they'll see it.

https://twitter.com/TheAlanAragon
https://twitter.com/BioLayne

I'm sure Layne will back BCAA's Would be awesome if both can stop by

[Partyrocking]

Since most of you on here know a hell of a lot more than I about BCAA, does the brand matter?

Not really. Different companies may have different ratios between the specific bcaas, so you may want to pay attention to that, but otherwise BCAAs are BCAAs as far as I know.

[gachase21]

In.

[qinx]

Can somebody give me the TL;DR ---- Point of OP, BCAA is good or bad? I just want a quick TL;DR imo

[SkyFlight23]

What's going on in her-

[alan aragon]

If anything, the new data they provided are a testament to the unfortunate problem of instrument error, reporting error, or both. It simply does not make sense for trained subjects to gain body fat in a caloric deficit. Judging from Fig 2, the most dramatic individual drops in fat mass occurred in the CHO group - which also inexplicably contained subjects who gained fat mass. Makes no sense, and once again, seems to be only attributable to error via lack of control (if we assume no flubs in reporting). In any case, it's nice that we got them to admit to reporting error, but I still feel like their paper is a big mess, and their defense of traditional statistical methods in the face of better/more appropriate ones is weak and disappointing. And yes, the superior strength-endurance in the CHO group doesn't make sense either, given the citrulline malate in the BCAA supp.

As for those defending BCAA supplementation because of your own personal observations or anecdotes, keep in mind that this is a scientific discussion, not a testimonial sharing session. If it "works for you" - then good, have at it, Hoss. But don't think that the research evidence is sufficient to universalize the claim.

[dazedncnfz]

If anything, the new data they provided are a testament to the unfortunate problem of instrument error, reporting error, or both. It simply does not make sense for trained subjects to gain body fat in a caloric deficit. Judging from Fig 2, the most dramatic individual drops in fat mass occurred in the CHO group - which also inexplicably contained subjects who gained fat mass. Makes no sense, and once again, seems to be only attributable to error via lack of control (if we assume no flubs in reporting). In any case, it's nice that we got them to admit to reporting error, but I still feel like their paper is a big mess, and their defense of traditional statistical methods in the face of better/more appropriate ones is weak and disappointing. And yes, the superior strength-endurance in the CHO group doesn't make sense either, given the citrulline malate in the BCAA supp.

As for those defending BCAA supplementation because of your own personal observations or anecdotes, keep in mind that this is a scientific discussion, not a testimonial sharing session. If it "works for you" - then good, have at it, Hoss. But don't think that the research evidence is sufficient to universalize the claim.

Thx for responding in here.

[OT2000]

If anything, the new data they provided are a testament to the unfortunate problem of instrument error, reporting error, or both. It simply does not make sense for trained subjects to gain body fat in a caloric deficit. Judging from Fig 2, the most dramatic individual drops in fat mass occurred in the CHO group - which also inexplicably contained subjects who gained fat mass. Makes no sense, and once again, seems to be only attributable to error via lack of control (if we assume no flubs in reporting). In any case, it's nice that we got them to admit to reporting error, but I still feel like their paper is a big mess, and their defense of traditional statistical methods in the face of better/more appropriate ones is weak and disappointing. And yes, the superior strength-endurance in the CHO group doesn't make sense either, given the citrulline malate in the BCAA supp.

As for those defending BCAA supplementation because of your own personal observations or anecdotes, keep in mind that this is a scientific discussion, not a testimonial sharing session. If it "works for you" - then good, have at it, Hoss. But don't think that the research evidence is sufficient to universalize the claim.

Thank you for responding as well to the frivolous marketing garbage that plagues this forum.

[induced_drag]

If you're lifting heavy and eating enough protein, there is no reason why your lifts should be going down even during a cut..

You obviously are not very far along in your training. Sure, as a newb you can even progress. Try to not lose strength when your 15+ years in and have really solidified your strength base. Glycogen depletion can have a HUGE impact upon strength. I am most affected in my bench (about 10%). Squats and deadlifts are about 3-5% Not sure why less, but other lifters have mentioned similar things. At weeks 6-8 I stabilize but I can lose 40+ lbs off my bench. It all comes right back after about 2 week of upping my cals.

Overall cals have a HUGE....HUGE impact upon your strength progression. In the past I tracked things very close. As little as a 200cal bump would totally change the direction of my strength progression.

.....but i will continue to use them because they taste damn good..

BCAA's taste TERRIBLE! It is all the artificial sweeteners and flavorings that you like....not the BCAA's. Bitter and taste like burnt hair.

If anything, the new data they provided are a testament to the unfortunate problem of instrument error, reporting error, or both. It simply does not make sense for trained subjects to gain body fat in a caloric deficit. Judging from Fig 2, the most dramatic individual drops in fat mass occurred in the CHO group - which also inexplicably contained subjects who gained fat mass. Makes no sense, and once again, seems to be only attributable to error via lack of control (if we assume no flubs in reporting). In any case, it's nice that we got them to admit to reporting error, but I still feel like their paper is a big mess, and their defense of traditional statistical methods in the face of better/more appropriate ones is weak and disappointing. And yes, the superior strength-endurance in the CHO group doesn't make sense either, given the citrulline malate in the BCAA supp.

As for those defending BCAA supplementation because of your own personal observations or anecdotes, keep in mind that this is a scientific discussion, not a testimonial sharing session. If it "works for you" - then good, have at it, Hoss. But don't think that the research evidence is sufficient to universalize the claim.

Thanks for stopping in and providing some insight. Always good to see your perspective.

[Rushie]

But don't think that the research evidence is sufficient to universalize the claim.

Goes both ways. Research evidence as it is now is clearly insufficient to "universalize" any claims, pro or against BCAA. Will most probably continue to be so for many years to come. Whether we like it or not, pretty much all non-AAS and non-PH supps are subject to personal observations and claims (and probably none of them really does anything of note for a natural, creatine at al. included). Except some of the stimulants, especially caffeine.

[alan aragon]

Goes both ways. Research evidence as it is now is clearly insufficient to "universalize" any claims, pro or against BCAA. Will most probably continue to be so for many years to come. Whether we like it or not, pretty much all non-AAS and non-PH supps are subject to personal observations and claims (and probably none of them really does anything of note for a natural, creatine at al. included). Except some of the stimulants, especially caffeine.

And what would be the biological plausibility of the benefit of extra BCAA atop abundant dietary protein? Got any mechanisms to propose, since you're apparently optimistic about it? And by the way, I never made any claim specifically against it, just challenged the claim in favor of.

[mikaveli06]

Not really. Different companies may have different ratios between the specific bcaas, so you may want to pay attention to that, but otherwise BCAAs are BCAAs as far as I know.

agreed, but the extras in the profile is what i look for. Like core abc, u get glutamine, BA, and cit mal. Amino hp has amentomax etc

[Tyler2106]

You obviously are not very far along in your training. Sure, as a newb you can even progress. Try to not lose strength when your 15+ years in and have really solidified your strength base. Glycogen depletion can have a HUGE impact upon strength. I am most affected in my bench (about 10%). Squats and deadlifts are about 3-5% Not sure why less, but other lifters have mentioned similar things. At weeks 6-8 I stabilize but I can lose 40+ lbs off my bench. It all comes right back after about 2 week of upping my cals.

Overall cals have a HUGE....HUGE impact upon your strength progression. In the past I tracked things very close. As little as a 200cal bump would totally change the direction of my strength progression..

You are correct and I wasn't specific enough with my response, it was geared more towards the person I replied to and he was more of a novice. If you're an advanced lifter, such as yourself, then yes your lifts will suffer.

[Ripper908]

who woulda thought, another supplement proven to be useless

no surprises here

good job AA

[Bigdumogre]

agreed, but the extras in the profile is what i look for. Like core abc, u get glutamine, BA, and cit mal. Amino hp has amentomax etc

Amento is another topic

[AMeyer9]

I'm sure Layne will back BCAA's Would be awesome if both can stop by

Wonder what he thinks about 1.5g of BCAA's though

[OT2000]

Wonder what he thinks about 1.5g of BCAA's though

He doesn't use that little in his own supps so clearly he thinks that's a laughable amount.

[neddo]

Can we have images as signatures? I like this.

[hellstorm2004]

Nice inputs. Not sure if this debate will ever be resolved!

[ISurfNudeBrah]

If anything, the new data they provided are a testament to the unfortunate problem of instrument error, reporting error, or both. It simply does not make sense for trained subjects to gain body fat in a caloric deficit. Judging from Fig 2, the most dramatic individual drops in fat mass occurred in the CHO group - which also inexplicably contained subjects who gained fat mass. Makes no sense, and once again, seems to be only attributable to error via lack of control (if we assume no flubs in reporting). In any case, it's nice that we got them to admit to reporting error, but I still feel like their paper is a big mess, and their defense of traditional statistical methods in the face of better/more appropriate ones is weak and disappointing. And yes, the superior strength-endurance in the CHO group doesn't make sense either, given the citrulline malate in the BCAA supp.

As for those defending BCAA supplementation because of your own personal observations or anecdotes, keep in mind that this is a scientific discussion, not a testimonial sharing session. If it "works for you" - then good, have at it, Hoss. But don't think that the research evidence is sufficient to universalize the claim.

Maybe they will listen to this statement since it came from Alan, sure as hell don't listen to when the rest of the forum says it.

[TheFugitive]

If anything, the new data they provided are a testament to the unfortunate problem of instrument error, reporting error, or both. It simply does not make sense for trained subjects to gain body fat in a caloric deficit. Judging from Fig 2, the most dramatic individual drops in fat mass occurred in the CHO group - which also inexplicably contained subjects who gained fat mass. Makes no sense, and once again, seems to be only attributable to error via lack of control (if we assume no flubs in reporting). In any case, it's nice that we got them to admit to reporting error, but I still feel like their paper is a big mess, and their defense of traditional statistical methods in the face of better/more appropriate ones is weak and disappointing. And yes, the superior strength-endurance in the CHO group doesn't make sense either, given the citrulline malate in the BCAA supp.

As for those defending BCAA supplementation because of your own personal observations or anecdotes, keep in mind that this is a scientific discussion, not a testimonial sharing session. If it "works for you" - then good, have at it, Hoss. But don't think that the research evidence is sufficient to universalize the claim.

Is it fair to say no two subjects will ever achieve identical results? Also, I wasn't defending the study, I just want people to pay closer attention to their own observations.

[TheFugitive]

Nice inputs. Not sure if this debate will ever be resolved!

I'm a firm believer in personal trial, either it works or it doesn't.

When it comes to studies, how much do we know about each participating subject. What type of controlled environment was the study conducted in. Was the study sponsored or independent. Why did subject A gain more mass than Subject B. Studies are great for reference but in the end it's all about you the user.

[TheAmericano]

I'm a firm believer in personal trial, either it works or it doesn't.

When it comes to studies, how much do we know about each participating subject. What type of controlled environment was the study conducted in. Was the study sponsored or independent. Why did subject A gain more mass than Subject B. Studies are great for reference but in the end it's all about you the user.

100% with you on this

- I'm no scientist, but don't majority of supplements (getting results from them) vary from person to person.

- For me, right now the BCAA's are working as advertised



But I completely understand those that get nothing from it and won't buy any BCAA's ever.

[AMeyer9]

I'm a firm believer in personal trial, either it works or it doesn't.

When it comes to studies, how much do we know about each participating subject. What type of controlled environment was the study conducted in. Was the study sponsored or independent. Why did subject A gain more mass than Subject B. Studies are great for reference but in the end it's all about you the user.

I'm not convinced you've ever even read one before tbh

[JP83]

When someone is emotionally invested in something it doesn't necessarily matter what someone else says. Even if it's a reputable study for that matter. I've been spending money on bcaa's since 2008. I'm emotionally invested in the product as are a lot of other people. Had I just read this and started lifting I wouldn't start buying them. For me it's a part of my regime. I believe in Intra workout nutrition as well and pre and post. Like I said, it can't hurt you taking them and if you feel or notice u can train harder or longer, why stop? A placebo can be a powerful thing.

[eatyourspinach]

I'm a firm believer in personal trial, either it works or it doesn't.

When it comes to studies, how much do we know about each participating subject. What type of controlled environment was the study conducted in. Was the study sponsored or independent. Why did subject A gain more mass than Subject B. Studies are great for reference but in the end it's all about you the user.

Isn't that what double blinded and placebo controlled studies with experimental controls is?

[sloop]

Then you would be like me and drink expensive water.

I know this is a tongue in cheek comment, but this is a common remark around bcaa products.

I dont even understand why either. You can get a 90-serving tub of Xtend right now for $49.50.

$49.50 / 90 = .55 cents.

55 cents per scoop! Is this what people are jokingly calling "expensive" these days?