Can you cut your protein intake if you are taking aminos?

[Mrpb]

So what? If MPS = muscle gain and the timing of that MPS was hyper-relevant, then we’d have a conversation. Unfortunately, MPS != muscle gain.

I already addressed the point in post #46.

And more importantly, if we really want to get down to it, it’s not EAAs, but the leucine that’s relevant.

Well both are relevant if you want to maximise MPS over ~4 hours. While the topic of leucine supplementation is certainly an interesting topic I suggest we stay away from it for now because this thread might be going for weeks. Instead I suggest we focus on the question put forth by the OP in the OP.

The strawman you’ve built is that MPS = muscle gain.

I didn't make that claim and wouldn't. By claiming that I did you're setting up a straw man yourself.

He quoted you and took it to an extreme to show you the ridiculousness of the notion.

Agreed. Classic example of a straw man.

He confirmed that leucine and EAA supplements with leucine stimulate MPS as well as protein?

Better if we're comparing gram for gram, just like I've been saying in this thread.

Stu even agrees that it would be a waste.

He said it tastes like sh*t and require lots of pills. He didn't say it would be a waste in this scenario. Far from it.

Now if you want to talk about a scenario where someone's already consuming enough protein then I agree the extra EAAs won't be helpful for muscle. I've already confirmed this multiple times. I'm sure Stu would agree on it too. We don't even need to ask him that, it's right in the paper that I referenced.

[lucia316]

I already addressed the point in post #46.

Yeah, and it wasn't a good point which is why I refuted it directly yet you didn't want to touch that part of my post...

[CONT]Which if you have athletic or hypertrophy goals, it is highly likely that this is happening.

Funny how you ignored that comment.

Well both are relevant if you want to maximise MPS over ~4 hours. While the topic of leucine supplementation is certainly an interesting topic I suggest we stay away from it for now because this thread might be going for weeks. Instead I suggest we focus on the question put forth by the OP in the OP.

Oh, so let's ignore the real thing driving that MPS stimulation that you're riding on because that would show your point isn't as accurate as you claim and would bring BCAAs back into the discussion as relevant since if it had a high enough leucine content it would do the same thing.

I didn't make that claim and wouldn't. By claiming that I did you're setting up a straw man yourself.

Your whole premise has been that since EAAs stimulate MPS as well as protein, you can use them for muscle gain. Our comments prior to your interjection were about meeting your macro with protein and being your best bet. For a page and half now you've harped on the value of using a timed bolus of EAAs because of the MPS response is equal to eating a portion of protein. Thus those EAAs have value for muscle gain.

We have been attempting to educate OP by showing him that you shouldn't use any free-form aminos. If you just meet your macro daily with protein when convenient you will get all you need for muscle gain including MPS spikes. Then, multiple times you've talked about timing and use of 9 aminos in a vacuum being valuable to muscle gain because of the MPS spike. When we've countered that you can just meet your macro for MPS and muscle gain, you kept harping on the MPS and the value of EAAs for that. And any time I attempt to focus on your poor point by noting that "IT'S THE LEUCINE" like your first chart from the 2014 study showed, you ignore it. Why? Because it doesn't reinforce your value in EAAs. Again, if MPS is so important, just use leucine.

When I asked, "So what?" You pointed me back to something about...wait for it...stimulating MPS.

Agreed. Classic example of a straw man.

No it isn't. Stop using terms that I introduced that you don't know how to use. I'll break it down for you below.

[CONT]

[lucia316]

[CONT]

Better if we're comparing gram for gram, just like I've been saying in this thread.

Again, out of context, but you deleted that part from my comment. And no, you stated multiple times that they are, "As well as," equal - see posts 38 and 43. Now all of a sudden its better? Come on man.

He said it tastes like sh*t and require lots of pills. He didn't say it would be a waste in this scenario. Far from it.

Now if you want to talk about a scenario where someone's already consuming enough protein then I agree the extra EAAs won't be helpful for muscle. I've already confirmed this multiple times. I'm sure Stu would agree on it too. We don't even need to ask him that, it's right in the paper that I referenced.

This is where you continually fail to address the point and context. If you are not meeting your macro, do so with protein which has a full spectrum of aminos. It is a better choice than using 9 aminos. Meet your macro and Stu agrees. If you're using EAAs as a protein replacement, you're doing it wrong. This was the context of the OPs question. It was the wrong question. He should have asked:

"Hey guys, I've read all this stuff about BCAAs and EAAs and I'm confused about which is best for muscle gain and if I can reduce how much protein I take in if I use one of these supplements. What should I do?"

The answer: Don't use free-form amino acids. Meet your macro with protein and you'll get all the aminos you need for muscle gain, MPS, and all other bodily functions that require amino acids.

This is what we all told him, he understood and saw how he asked the wrong question and it all made sense. We then joked about the Fug not being able to muddy the waters and then your post hits...

[lucia316]

Yeah that's what is commonly called a straw man: take someone's position to an unrealistic extreme to argue that it's wrong.

That's not a strawman. A strawman is when you attempt to refute an argument and attack something that isn't actually the argument or is outside the point or context of the discussion.
Example: The argument is about the lack of value of supplementing 3 or 9 amino acids because if you are meeting your macro you're getting all the aminos you need, and overall the concept of muscle gain as it applies to meeting macro, and then someone latches on to MPS (a piece of gaining mass) and keeps harping on how those amino spike MPS so thus they are of value and, in some cases, better.

That isn't what we were talking about. We were attempting to give OP an answer to a question that he didn't know to ask because of the poor information he had taken in pushing the use of free-form aminos.

What you're talking about is an appeal to extremes, or reduction to absurdity. It's when the only way you can make a point is to show an extreme example or absurd scenario.

In our case, Farley, he was using the extreme to show you the ridiculousness of your argument because you're saying that a bolus of EAAs, when really it's just the lecuine, is more valuable than protein. How much protein you intake overall (eg. meeting your macro), according to your earlier comment, is less relevant if you're stimulating MPS 4-5 times per day and those spikes make the total intake irrelevant.

Either way MPS will be stimulated multiple times per day, but that isn't making total intake less relevant. More current research of Aragon, Schoenfeld and others show that you're wrong in that timing is largely not relevant and that meeting your macro is what matters most. Small, incremental differences of statistical significance brought on by timing on nutrients, primarily protein, don't make a real world difference. And why has protein timing been a relevant topic of conversation? Because of historical discussion of "staying anabolic" and MPS spiking being highly relevant topics when in reality we now know that they are not.

[Farley1324]

Yeah that's what is commonly called a straw man: take someone's position to an unrealistic extreme to argue that it's wrong.

On a side note, whether it would work is still an interesting question IMO, but to my knowledge it has never and will probably never be tested in a human study. And there are several reasons why it would be a bad idea besides the effect on muscle.

If you look back at the original thing I said: "I will say that if you're maxing out MPS 4-5 times a day over 3-4 hours each time while eating enough calories from carbohydrates and fat, total protein intake becomes largely irrelevant." you'll see I also mentioned calories, fat and carbohydrates in the statement. I could expand on it by also mentioning the importance of fiber, vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients. When people are ticking all those boxes with their diet they'll also be eating at least some protein naturally, at least if we're talking about realistic real word diets.

If anyone would want to replace all their fat with fish oil tablets or replace all their carbs with waxy maize I'd also recommend against it. On the same note I'd also recommend against people getting all their protein from whey shakes, for various reasons.

I must have missed it...where did any of us recommend using fish oil tablets to supplement dietary fat for macro purposes? I don't think I have ever seen anybody say that, let alone in this thread. Got a quote?

Same for waxy maize. Where did anybody ITT ever indicate waxy maize in place of whole food, to meet daily carb macro, in any quantity for any meal, was a good idea? Got a quote?

But thank you for reminding us that you did in fact say what I said you said and it is, in fact, wrong, "maxing MPS out 4-5 times a day" using EAA supps does not make total protein intake irrelevant. It does waste money though!

[Mrpb]

I must have missed it...where did any of us recommend using fish oil tablets to supplement dietary fat for macro purposes? I don't think I have ever seen anybody say that, let alone in this thread. Got a quote?

I did the same thing as you did, I took something to a silly extreme that doesn't represent how people eat in the real world.

But thank you for reminding us that you did in fact say what I said you said and it is, in fact, wrong, "maxing MPS out 4-5 times a day" using EAA supps does not make total protein intake irrelevant.

It probably does because we'd be talking about >80-100 gram EAAs. But like I mentioned the study hasn't been done and will probably never be done. Nor does it matter to my point because I never suggested to replace all protein with EAAs.

[Mrpb]

Yeah, and it wasn't a good point which is why I refuted it directly yet you didn't want to touch that part of my post...

I just reread it. You didn’t respond to it. My position on the role of MPS in muscle hypertrophy is 100% in line with what Stuart Phillips and Jorn Trommelen have put forward on the topic.

Some examples:

The process of skeletal muscle fiber hypertrophy comes about as a result of the confluence of positive muscle protein balance and satellite cell addition to muscle fibers. Positive muscle protein balance is achieved when the rate of new muscle protein synthesis exceeds that of muscle protein breakdown (MPB). While resistance exercise and postprandial hyperaminoacidemia both stimulate MPS, it is through the synergistic effects of these two stimuli that a net gain in muscle proteins occurs and muscle fiber hypertrophy takes place.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4008813/
https://www.nutritiontactics.com/mea...ein-synthesis/

If you think you refuted that, I think the most productive usage of our time is to agree to disagree.

Funny how you ignored that comment.

I’ve ignored many of your comments. If I wouldn’t this thread would still be going in weeks.

Your whole premise has been that since EAAs stimulate MPS as well as protein, you can use them for muscle gain.

Actually my position is based on more than just MPS studies. And Stu has confirmed that one can use EAAs for muscle gain.

We have been attempting to educate OP by showing him that you shouldn't use any free-form aminos. If you just meet your macro daily with protein when convenient you will get all you need for muscle gain including MPS spikes. Then, multiple times you've talked about timing and use of 9 aminos in a vacuum being valuable to muscle gain because of the MPS spike. When we've countered that you can just meet your macro for MPS and muscle gain, you kept harping on the MPS and the value of EAAs for that. And any time I attempt to focus on your poor point by noting that "IT'S THE LEUCINE" like your first chart from the 2014 study showed, you ignore it.

Saying "it's the leucine" isn't entirely accurate. The supplement contained whey + leucine. So the other EAAs were present too.

[Mrpb]

In our case, Farley, he was using the extreme to show you the ridiculousness of your argument because you're saying that a bolus of EAAs, when really it's just the lecuine, is more valuable than protein. How much protein you intake overall (eg. meeting your macro), according to your earlier comment, is less relevant if you're stimulating MPS 4-5 times per day and those spikes make the total intake irrelevant.

You left out a few vital words of what I wrote, which were important words to the meaning of the sentence. I said if you're consuming enough protein (or EAAs) to maximise (not just stimulate!) over 3-4 hours (not just spike!) 4-5 times per day total protein intake becomes largely irrelevant.

This is simply because it likely takes at least 0.4 gram protein per kg to maximise MPS over 3-4 hours. 4 x 0.4 gram per kg = 1.6 gram per kg. 5 x 0.4 gram per kg = 2.0 gram per kg.

So if you're doing this you'll automatically be meeting or exceeding the 1.6 gram per kg recommendation.

Either way MPS will be stimulated multiple times per day, just but that making total intake less relevant???

Yes, see explanation above.

More current research of Aragon, Schoenfeld and others show that you're wrong in that timing is largely not relevant and that meeting your macro is what matters most.

Then later in 2018 Aragon and Schoenfeld published this:

Based on the current evidence, we conclude that to maximize anabolism one should consume protein at a target intake of 0.4 g/kg/meal across a minimum of four meals in order to reach a minimum of 1.6 g/kg/day. Using the upper daily intake of 2.2 g/kg/day reported in the literature spread out over the same four meals would necessitate a maximum of 0.55 g/kg/meal.

https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/arti...970-018-0215-1

[Mrpb]

No it isn't.

That's a good point. Appeal to extremes fits better. But I do note that what he did fits the Wiki definition of a straw man too.

A straw man, sometimes written as strawman, is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.

Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:

A: We should relax the laws on beer.
B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
The original proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has misconstrued/misrepresented this proposal by responding to it as if it had been "unrestricted access to intoxicants." It is a logical fallacy because Person A never advocated allowing said unrestricted access to intoxicants (this is also a slippery slope argument).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Mrpb]

"Hey guys, I've read all this stuff about BCAAs and EAAs and I'm confused about which is best for muscle gain and if I can reduce how much protein I take in if I use one of these supplements. What should I do?"

The answer: Don't use free-form amino acids. Meet your macro with protein and you'll get all the aminos you need for muscle gain, MPS, and all other bodily functions that require amino acids.

That's good advice. I usually post in the nutrition forum and I generally recommend people reach their protein target with predominantly minimally processed foods. If they need a supplement to reach their protein target I tend to recommend whey. It's cheaper and tends to taste better than EAAs.

Some claims in this thread however suggested that in tact protein is better for muscle gain than EAAs. I don't think that's backed up by good evidence. It appears that EAAs work just as well (or even better if we're comparing gram for gram).

[Farley1324]

I did the same thing as you did, I took something to a silly extreme that doesn't represent how people eat in the real world.

Wrong. I demonstrated how your statements in this thread are unsound.

You made something up out of thin air that nobody in this thread has ever said (as far as we know), in other words, a strawman, because you've got nothing unless you lie about it

[lucia316]

Wrong. I demonstrated how your statements in this thread are unsound.

You made something up out of thin air that nobody in this thread has ever said (as far as we know), in other words, a strawman, because you've got nothing unless you lie about it

That's pretty much the crux here. I can't agree to disagree because even when he looked up another specific example of a strawman he can't see how he's doing the same thing.

Look Mrpb, you've latched on to MPS and now MPB which is an expansion of your point now. Hypertrophy isn't driven completely by either. We know this. Other factors like caloric surplus, weight training with progressive volume, rest, hydration, etc all make up muscle gain. You've also attempted to salvage this chit show with silly numbers. You keep hammering on a point never made.

NO ONE but you suggested that using EAAs at specific times was of value. We have all stated that meet if you meet your macro with protein 1.6g per kg of LBM is more than sufficient, 2g if you want (NOTE: I live in a place where we use the Imperial system, so I say .8-1g per lb of LBM) eat for athletic and body comp goals. Now you're building another strawman to attack. "Look you guys, you'd be eating too much protein if you met your macro AND used EAAs."

Also, I know what Aragon/Schoenfeld said. Spread out over 4 meals doesn't imply the timing that you were talking about. It just means that there is value to eating protein at multiple times to...wait for it...stimulate MPS because it is a part of hypertrophy.

You're right, so, don't use EAAs and just meet your macro. Mincing words with "maximize" versus "stimulate" is full on BS. Again, you're talking about "better" in terms of statistical significance in studies which don't always mean real world benefit/results.

It is the leucine. Your examples also fail because you are ignoring the rest of the diet. I don't know how many times we need to hit on it. Even you said, "Digestion matters." Because digestion takes upwards of 48 hours depending on what you ate and what you ate it with, there will always be other aminos in your system. It was leucine that made the difference in the "low whey +" groups. It's undeniable. Sure, the whey had other amino acids, so do all other protein sources. Those sources also have leucine. Taking me back to the previous paragraph. Meet your macro and stop trying to worry about free-form aminos.

EAAs may spike MPS better than whey, but "better" != beneficial necessarily because one meal out of context to the rest of your diet, and other factors, is pointless to worry about with regard to hypertrophy.

[Mrpb]

Didn't have time to properly reply before.

Wrong. I demonstrated how your statements in this thread are unsound.

Actually you claimed that it was unsound by extrapolating to an extreme scenario that is unlikely to happen in the real world. And whether that amount of EAAs would really be insufficient is unknown and to my knowledge there's no data to support it. Demonstrating something takes more than just making a claim. For example, check the study below where Stu Phillips demonstrated that long term MPS and hypertrophy are strongly correlated after muscle damage from early training adaptations subsides.

I’m saying that replacing all protein with EAAs is a silly scenario that doesn't represent how people eat in the real world. I'm saying it's equally silly to replace all fats with fish oil tablets or all carbs with waxy maize and that it doesn't represent how people eat in the real world. That's an analogy. All 3 are extreme hypotheticals of totally replacing one macro with one supplement. All 3 are unlikely to happen in the real world. I didn't claim it was your position, it was mine.

In order for something to qualify as a straw man I should have been claiming or at least suggesting that it was your position. I never claimed it was, not even remotely. You can read back what I wrote. Literally: "If anyone would want to replace all their fat with fish oil tablets or replace all their carbs with waxy maize I'd also recommend against it. On the same note I'd also recommend against people getting all their protein from whey shakes, for various reasons."

By using the words "If anyone would" it should already be clear I'm not implying you or anyone else said it in this thread. I’m pretty sure any objective person has no problem seeing the similarities between these 3 scenarios.

Look Mrpb, you've latched on to MPS and now MPB which is an expansion of your point now. Hypertrophy isn't driven completely by either. We know this. Other factors like caloric surplus, weight training with progressive volume, rest, hydration, etc all make up muscle gain.

Well it’s definitely true that many factors contribute to muscle gain. However, to my knowledge muscle protein synthesis is the main driver of muscle growth and therefor important. I'll explain it and I'll provide support. Training primarily affects muscle growth through MPS. Training has a much stronger effect on MPS than nutrition. In this thread we have focussed on what protein intake can do for MPS, we haven't focussed on training.

Obviously if people are training poorly, sleeping poorly or have a crappy diet they should optimise that first. Once they are training properly, sleeping properly, getting all their macros & micros etc. it makes sense to think about protein intake. If they want to maximise muscle gain it makes sense to maximise MPS through nutrition 4-5 times a day like I've been suggesting. I’m not alone on this, Stu Phillips, Jorn Trommelen, Alan Aragon, Brad Schoenfeld etc. all have recommendations that support this.

I have said before that short term MPS doesn't always correlate well with muscle gain. But we also know that long term muscle protein synthesis is highly correlated with muscle gain. This has been demonstrated by Stu Phillips in a good study. They found that once muscle damage from early training adaptations subsides, MPS and hypertrophy were strongly correlated, r ≈ 0.9, P < 0.04.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27219125/

This is why I say MPS is important for anyone that wants to maximise their results. And to be clear, I'm not saying that that optimising protein intake will make a huge difference for their results. It's more likely a small difference.

You've also attempted to salvage this chit show with silly numbers. You keep hammering on a point never made.

I understand it may seem that way. And perhaps I didn't give enough background. I've already mentioned the Tipton study that found that even <80 kg trainees needed 40 gram protein from whey to maximise MPS and that they didn't even test a higher dosage. So they already needed 0.5 gram per kg to maximise MPS in that situation. And there are many more studies that found similar numbers. Then it's quite logical that getting this maximum response over 3-4 hours 4-5 times a day will mean that people will consume enough protein per day.

Also, I know what Aragon/Schoenfeld said. Spread out over 4 meals doesn't imply the timing that you were talking about. It just means that there is value to eating protein at multiple times to...wait for it...stimulate MPS because it is a part of hypertrophy.

Important to note: what I said wasn’t any advice on meal timing, it was simply an observation. Note the word IF at the start: “IF you're maxing out MPS 4-5 times a day over 3-4 hours each time while eating enough calories from carbohydrates and fat, total protein intake becomes largely irrelevant.”

It’s not advice on meal timing or meal spacing, it’s simply an observation. I do recommend an amount of protein at each meal that maximises the acute anabolic effects. And that’s exactly what Alan, Brad, Stu, Jorn and many others are doing too.

Mincing words with "maximize" versus "stimulate" is full on BS.

There’s no mincing words, they are clearly different things. 10 gram protein from whey will stimulate MPS but it will not maximise MPS.

It is the leucine. Your examples also fail because you are ignoring the rest of the diet. I don't know how many times we need to hit on it. Even you said, "Digestion matters." Because digestion takes upwards of 48 hours depending on what you ate and what you ate it with, there will always be other aminos in your system. It was leucine that made the difference in the "low whey +" groups. It's undeniable. Sure, the whey had other amino acids, so do all other protein sources. Those sources also have leucine.

Indeed, it was a combination of leucine + whey that stimulated MPS in the Churchward-Venne study. So we can’t pin it down on the leucine alone. We’d need other studies for that. What this study did convincingly shows is that a lower dose of whey + leucine can stimulate MPS just as well as a higher dose of whey. Other studies show that a moderate dose of EAAs can do the same thing. So in my eyes they all make valid supplements.

There's no question that digestion can take a long time. However, the question is how long the levels of EAAs in the blood stream stay sufficient to get a robust MPS response. All studies I've seen show that the blood levels of EAAs after a normal overnight fast are very low. I don't expect them to be high enough to help MPS in a meaningful way. If they did, all the main protein labs wouldn't believe that a ~10-12 hour fast is enough lead in before an MPS study, which is what they all tend to use.

We can get some more insight from this study by Stu in figure 5A. https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/articl...6/1594/4668580

Plasma EAA rapidly starts to decline about 2 hours after eating a mixed meal. After approximately 5-6 hours it’s probably back to baseline. Perhaps levels at 4 hours would still be high enough for leucine alone to trigger a good MPS response, I’m not sure. But I doubt that it will be a maximum response over ~3-4 hours. Plasma EAA is likely too low for that by that time, I expect. Regardless, it would be interesting to see more data on this.

[lucia316]

Actually you claimed that it was unsound by extrapolating to an extreme scenario that is unlikely to happen in the real world. And whether that amount of EAAs would really be insufficient is unknown and to my knowledge there's no data to support it. Demonstrating something takes more than just making a claim. For example, check the study below where Stu Phillips demonstrated that long term MPS and hypertrophy are strongly correlated after muscle damage from early training adaptations subsides.

Cool, but correlation != causation and could it possibly be that those results could be the cause of any of the other factors that primarily drive hypertrophy? Because without caloric surplus, without training with progressive volume and without rest, it doesn't matter how much you stimulate MPS, you're not going to grow.

I’m saying that replacing all protein with EAAs is a silly scenario that doesn't represent how people eat in the real world. I'm saying it's equally silly to replace all fats with fish oil tablets or all carbs with waxy maize and that it doesn't represent how people eat in the real world. That's an analogy. All 3 are extreme hypotheticals of totally replacing one macro with one supplement. All 3 are unlikely to happen in the real world. I didn't claim it was your position, it was mine.

But you already agreed that if you're meeting your macro you're getting plenty of amino acids. Your analogy is still an appeal to extremes and a logical fallacy. It's all ridiculous.

In order for something to qualify as a straw man I should have been claiming or at least suggesting that it was your position. I never claimed it was, not even remotely. You can read back what I wrote. Literally: "If anyone would want to replace all their fat with fish oil tablets or replace all their carbs with waxy maize I'd also recommend against it. On the same note I'd also recommend against people getting all their protein from whey shakes, for various reasons."

It's still an appeal to extremes to make a point. If you have to do so, it's not a very good point.

Well it’s definitely true that many factors contribute to muscle gain. However, to my knowledge muscle protein synthesis is the main driver of muscle growth and therefor important. I'll explain it and I'll provide support. Training primarily affects muscle growth through MPS. Training has a much stronger effect on MPS than nutrition. In this thread we have focussed on what protein intake can do for MPS, we haven't focussed on training.

As stated above, this is wrong. Without the three primary factors that drive hypertrophy being present, MPS means nothing. Sure the training stimulates MPS, but if you aren't at a caloric surplus to TDEE the stimulation doesn't matter. If you aren't resting enough to allow for healing and growth, how much you stimulate MPS isn't relevant.

Obviously if people are training poorly, sleeping poorly or have a crappy diet they should optimise that first.

Saying this acknowledges that MPS is clearly not the "main driver."

If they want to maximise muscle gain it makes sense to maximise MPS through nutrition 4-5 times a day like I've been suggesting. I’m not alone on this, Stu Phillips, Jorn Trommelen, Alan Aragon, Brad Schoenfeld etc. all have recommendations that support this.

Okay, but that doesn't support your thesis that EAAs in timed boluses are better or beneficial versus just meeting your macro by eating throughout the day like most people do.

This is why I say MPS is important for anyone that wants to maximise their results. And to be clear, I'm not saying that that optimising protein intake will make a huge difference for their results. It's more likely a small difference.

Not sure how much we need to keep harping on the fact that "maximizing MPS" based on statistical significance doesn't mean real world benefit that you can or would notice. The issue, as is the issue with many studies in discussions about body comp goals, is that statistical significance doesn't mean noticeable difference in your real world results. Frankly, as is evidenced here, stimulating MPS maximally doesn't mean you're definitely going to get bigger because there are too many other factors at play. Again, I can stimulate my MPS all day, but if I'm not eating enough, I'm not going to get bigger. That said, there's not point in talking about "maximizing" MPS as it, by your own admission isn't the primary factor in hypertrophy. It's one factor, important, but secondary to others.

Important to note: what I said wasn’t any advice on meal timing, it was simply an observation. Note the word IF at the start: “IF you're maxing out MPS 4-5 times a day over 3-4 hours each time while eating enough calories from carbohydrates and fat, total protein intake becomes largely irrelevant.”

It’s not advice on meal timing or meal spacing, it’s simply an observation. I do recommend an amount of protein at each meal that maximises the acute anabolic effects. And that’s exactly what Alan, Brad, Stu, Jorn and many others are doing too.

No one is arguing otherwise. This was never the point...

There’s no mincing words, they are clearly different things. 10 gram protein from whey will stimulate MPS but it will not maximise MPS.

I'll address this "maximizing" because you continue to ignore the point of one meal out of context to the rest of your diet not really meaning all that much.

Indeed, it was a combination of leucine + whey that stimulated MPS in the Churchward-Venne study. So we can’t pin it down on the leucine alone. We’d need other studies for that. What this study did convincingly shows is that a lower dose of whey + leucine can stimulate MPS just as well as a higher dose of whey. Other studies show that a moderate dose of EAAs can do the same thing. So in my eyes they all make valid supplements.

Which is the point. "High whey" = protein. Why would I worry about a free-form amino if I'm getting the same results by meeting my macro daily. This is the crux of the thread and what we've been trying to get you to grasp. Which is what we told OP and he understood.

There's no question that digestion can take a long time. However, the question is how long the levels of EAAs in the blood stream stay sufficient to get a robust MPS response. All studies I've seen show that the blood levels of EAAs after a normal overnight fast are very low. I don't expect them to be high enough to help MPS in a meaningful way. If they did, all the main protein labs wouldn't believe that a ~10-12 hour fast is enough lead in before an MPS study, which is what they all tend to use.

We can get some more insight from this study by Stu in figure 5A. https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/articl...6/1594/4668580

Plasma EAA rapidly starts to decline about 2 hours after eating a mixed meal. After approximately 5-6 hours it’s probably back to baseline. Perhaps levels at 4 hours would still be high enough for leucine alone to trigger a good MPS response, I’m not sure. But I doubt that it will be a maximum response over ~3-4 hours. Plasma EAA is likely too low for that by that time, I expect. Regardless, it would be interesting to see more data on this.

Back to statistical significance here. This was also a study that's subjects were primarily in their 70s and as old as 85 and were mildly active and ingesting ~1g per kg of body mass. Regardless, plasma EAA differences we're talking about ~400 nanomoles (1/1,000,000,000th of a mole) difference at the greatest, so .0000004 per ml difference. Enough to measure in a study, but is that really making real world differences that we can see, notice or otherwise, in individuals training for hypertrophy and ingesting more protein overall to meet their macro? Probably not.

Edit: Because I messed up my math.

[Mrpb]

Cool, but correlation != causation and could it possibly be that those results could be the cause of any of the other factors that primarily drive hypertrophy? Because without caloric surplus, without training with progressive volume and without rest, it doesn't matter how much you stimulate MPS, you're not going to grow.

Correlation isn't necessarily causation but in this case there's a lot more support for MPS driving HT, both mechanical and longitudinal. Without getting into too much detail I personally think the case is pretty strong. The videos below go into further detail.

From what I've read the way the other variables influence hypertrophy is usually through MPS, not outside of it. For example if someone keeps lifting the same volume the MPS response will decrease over time. Studies also show beginners have a larger, more prolonged MPS response than advanced trainees. MPS has also been shown to require a lot of energy. If people aren't eating sufficiently it will limit MPS.

In all fairness though I don't think either of us really has the necessary background/knowledge in this field to have a strong opinion on it. For people reading this thread and that want to know more about the relation between MPS and hypertrophy and the other topics being discussed I recommend to read/watch/listen to Stuart Phillips and Jorn Trommelen, who got his PhD in muscle metabolism and has worked in Stu's lab.

The study from Stu's lab that investigated the link between MPS and HT: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023708/

Jeff Nippard who interviews Jorn Trommelen on MPS, also available as podcast:
https://www.youtu.be/_otSunLL8AU?t=2766
This ^ video starts at the point where Jorn goes into detail on the link between MPS and HT

Part 2 covers protein targets, distribution etc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRehf1L231Q

Both Stu and Jorn have many other videos and podcasts available.

[Mrpb]

But you already agreed that if you're meeting your macro you're getting plenty of amino acids.

Yes I agree. And not everyone reaches their macros without supplements. Then it becomes interesting to look at what supplements can do the job and what they're differences are.

Your analogy is still an appeal to extremes and a logical fallacy. It's all ridiculous.

It's still an appeal to extremes to make a point. If you have to do so, it's not a very good point.

It's all ridiculous and it's not a very good point, I agree. Technically I don't think what I did qualifies as an appeal to extremes though. This is my understanding of an appeal to extremes: "Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes."

I would have to taken his reasonable argument, which it wasn't, to a more extreme version, which I didn't; I kept it on a similar level of extremeness. Regardless though, we all agree that these 3 are silly extreme practices that people shouldn't attempt.

I'll address this "maximizing" because you continue to ignore the point of one meal out of context to the rest of your diet not really meaning all that much.

I didn't think it was necessary to confirm it. One meal means relatively little. 4 meals mean more. Etc.

Which is the point. "High whey" = protein. Why would I worry about a free-form amino if I'm getting the same results by meeting my macro daily. This is the crux of the thread and what we've been trying to get you to grasp. Which is what we told OP and he understood.

I'd say if you're getting enough protein without supplements there's no need for any protein or AA supplements. I've grasped this years ago and have confirmed it several times in this thread. I don't really see the need to repeat it again and again. I haven't see anyone else disagree with it either.

There were some other topics that warranted discussion though, in my opinion. And that includes some questions asked by OP. I think it's good to give accurate answers to those questions and other ambiguous claims that have been made in this thread.

This was also a study that's subjects were primarily in their 70s and as old as 85 and were mildly active and ingesting ~1g per kg of body mass.

I don't particularly like their age either but haven't found any other studies where MPS was measured for that long with 3 mixed meals with similar good methods.

Protein intake for the HP group was 1.2 gram per kg. The protein content at dinner was about 49 grams for the HP group that didn't supply leucine. This didn't seem to change anything significant about the time course of EAA levels in the blood stream.

[ILPump]

So much effort by some leads me to believe something else.

[Farley1324]

So much effort by some leads me to believe something else.

It certainly does come off like mrpb directly benefits from people wasting their money, eh?

[ILPump]

It certainly does come off like mrpb directly benefits from people wasting their money, eh?

I wasn’t referring to him.

[lucia316]

Correlation isn't necessarily causation but in this case there's a lot more support for MPS driving HT, both mechanical and longitudinal. Without getting into too much detail I personally think the case is pretty strong. The videos below go into further detail.

No one said it wasn't part of hypertrophy, but even your comments below show that MPS is being driven by other things that are more important. You can't ignore nor deny that without those three primary components, MPS doesn't mean anything.

From what I've read the way the other variables influence hypertrophy is usually through MPS, not outside of it. For example if someone keeps lifting the same volume the MPS response will decrease over time. Studies also show beginners have a larger, more prolonged MPS response than advanced trainees. MPS has also been shown to require a lot of energy. If people aren't eating sufficiently it will limit MPS.

So in order for you to drive your point, you say exactly what I'm saying? First you talk about lifting the same volume when it is clear and I have stated numerous times that the volume must be progressive to...wait for it...to drive hypertrophy, obviously part of that is to stimulate MPS. Without the progressive volume there is no hypertrophy or MPS stimulation per your comment. So which is more important? Same with the calories. Without those things, MPS either doesn't exist or is pointless. I'm very confused as to how you believe that contradicts my point.
(cont)

[lucia316]

Regardless, this is all a giant strawman you've built to dance around the fact that you attempted to claim that EAAs in a vacuum and one "meal" out of context of the rest of your diet is somehow superior, yet have failed to support this thesis the entire time. Couple this with a focus on singularly spiking MPS in bolus to fix missing of a macro based on leucine spiking said MPS as basis for the claim that EAAs > than protein when even the initial study showed them to be equal in bolus.

When Farley showed you the ridiculousness by talking about using EAAs 4-5 per day instead of protein you danced around it by mistakenly calling it a strawman to try and get yourself out of the argument because it's a ridiculous notion. Had you said, "Hey guys, EAAs (primarily the leucine) spike MPS as well as protein which also has leucine," no one would have really batted an eye, but that's not the point.

In all fairness though I don't think either of us really has the necessary background/knowledge in this field to have a strong opinion on it. For people reading this thread and that want to know more about the relation between MPS and hypertrophy and the other topics being discussed I recommend to read/watch/listen to Stuart Phillips and Jorn Trommelen, who got his PhD in muscle metabolism and has worked in Stu's lab...

This isn't relevant. I do have the background to understand what we're discussing, since you feel you don't, cool. We can move on. This isn't to discount their work, but you don't get to play the appeal to authority card because the ship is sinking.

Yes I agree. And not everyone reaches their macros without supplements. Then it becomes interesting to look at what supplements can do the job and what they're differences are.

So reaching your macro would be the best play with, you know, protein, right? Glad we agree

It's all ridiculous and it's not a very good point, I agree. Technically I don't think what I did qualifies as an appeal to extremes though. This is my understanding of an appeal to extremes: "Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes."

I would have to taken his reasonable argument, which it wasn't, to a more extreme version, which I didn't; I kept it on a similar level of extremeness. Regardless though, we all agree that these 3 are silly extreme practices that people shouldn't attempt.

Because the only way you can make your argument is with an extreme because, as you agree, one meal out of context to the rest of your diet isn't going to make your argument.

I didn't think it was necessary to confirm it. One meal means relatively little. 4 meals mean more. Etc.

So now I'm confused, so Farley was saying what you were saying? You were claiming the extreme. Got it.

I'd say if you're getting enough protein without supplements there's no need for any protein or AA supplements. I've grasped this years ago and have confirmed it several times in this thread. I don't really see the need to repeat it again and again. I haven't see anyone else disagree with it either.

Yet you argued that instead of just meeting your macro, you should use 9 amino acids, of which 1 is the primary driver of your MPS point when the likely upside for the MPS spike only is similar. That makes zero sense.

There were some other topics that warranted discussion though, in my opinion. And that includes some questions asked by OP. I think it's good to give accurate answers to those questions and other ambiguous claims that have been made in this thread.

What was ambiguous? To tell him that meeting your macro is all you need to do. Even you agreed with that.

I don't particularly like their age either but haven't found any other studies where MPS was measured for that long with 3 mixed meals with similar good methods.

Protein intake for the HP group was 1.2 gram per kg. The protein content at dinner was about 49 grams for the HP group that didn't supply leucine. This didn't seem to change anything significant about the time course of EAA levels in the blood stream.

Uh huh. So we agree that it didn't really mean anything as minute differences that may be noted as statistically significant don't mean real world upside or benefit.

[lucia316]

So much effort by some leads me to believe something else.

Oh look, even when he's banned he still uses his sock accounts. I've seen a couple this week. Cool!!

[Mrpb]

Lucia, when this discussion started I wasn't familiar with your style of posting. Since then other people have informed me that given the chance you would even argue with yourself. I now understand what they meant.

To my knowledge everything I've said in this thread is completely supported by the current scientific evidence on the topic. No one has presented any evidence to refute what I've said.

My most important point: EAAs are a valid supplement; they're effective for building muscle and they can do so with less calories than complete protein sources. And as mentioned they have downsides too: they can be expensive and their taste usually ins't great. They can absolutely be useful in certain scenarios.

I stand behind all my other points too and that will most likely only change when I see compelling evidence.

And I don’t mean to rub you the wrong way but I feel it’s necessary to say this. I've read your posts in this topic, I've seen many misunderstandings in them. In my opinion you're severely overestimating your understanding of these topics. You’ll probably think the same about me. That's ok of course. I understand that. I suggest we agree to disagree on all these topics so we can use our time for better endeavours. Continuing the discussion isn’t going to lead anywhere. Given what I’ve seen so far and what other people have been telling me I expect you’ll continue harping on the same points that have already been addressed extensively. I’ll probably reply again but it may take a few days. I’d like to use my time for other things.

PS. one more definition for you, appeal to authority: “Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.” https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...l-to-Authority
I did something else: I first explained why what I said is true, then I offered several studies that support my claims. When I noticed you didn’t listen to rational arguments backed up by scientific evidence I referenced several sources that explain the same principles extensively in much more detail in hours of videos.

By the way, I didn’t expect you'd listen to the arguments laid out by them either. I was already anticipating that. They basically make the same points as I did and use similar supporting evidence. They just go into a lot more detail. I didn't reference them for you, I did it as a service to people that would really like to understand these topics better. I hope it may be of benefit to someone reading this thread.

[Farley1324]

To my knowledge everything I've said in this thread is completely supported by the current scientific evidence on the topic.

Yeah?

40 gram protein from whey after a full body workout did significantly better than 20 gram whey

The equivalent of 40 gram protein from whey would be about 20 grams EAAs.

Maxing out MPS for 3-4 hours takes quite a bit of protein (or EAAs). If we multiply that number by 4-5 we'll end up at least around or higher than 1.6 gram per kg in the majority of cases.

Can you share your scientific evidence that maxing MPS 4-5 times per day using 20 grams of EAA meets your daily protein macro/optimizes muscle hypertrophy? "in the majority of cases"?

Or are we ready to admit that total protein intake is what matters?

[lucia316]

Lucia, when this discussion started I wasn't familiar with your style of posting. Since then other people have informed me that given the chance you would even argue with yourself. I now understand what they meant.

Now you can look up ad hominem. Looking forward to the link and copy paste. I'm happy to argue when it makes sense and nothing you've really posted makes sense in the proper context. Only when you take it out of the proper context is it even a truism.

To my knowledge everything I've said in this thread is completely supported by the current scientific evidence on the topic. No one has presented any evidence to refute what I've said.

My most important point: EAAs are a valid supplement; they're effective for building muscle and they can do so with less calories than complete protein sources. And as mentioned they have downsides too: they can be expensive and their taste usually ins't great. They can absolutely be useful in certain scenarios.

Farley gave you a perfect example. It don't have to prove you're wrong. You have to prove you're right in the correct context. Again, we've already acknowledged that leucine and the leucine within an EAA supplement will spike MPS. That's the point you've made. No one has said otherwise. The issue here is that's not what we're talking about. And your point is completely negated when we look at the big picture of diet as whole and not boluses.

I stand behind all my other points too and that will most likely only change when I see compelling evidence.

You can stand behind whatever you want. It's not wrong in general, just wrong in context. Not sure how often I need to say that. Even IL TheFug is right sometimes in a bubble. That doesn't mean he's right when you look at the big picture.

And I don’t mean to rub you the wrong way but I feel it’s necessary to say this. I've read your posts in this topic, I've seen many misunderstandings in them. In my opinion you're severely overestimating your understanding of these topics. You’ll probably think the same about me. That's ok of course. I understand that. I suggest we agree to disagree on all these topics so we can use our time for better endeavours. Continuing the discussion isn’t going to lead anywhere. Given what I’ve seen so far and what other people have been telling me I expect you’ll continue harping on the same points that have already been addressed extensively. I’ll probably reply again but it may take a few days. I’d like to use my time for other things.

More ad hominem. Cool! I don't think anything about you. I've not treated you as stupid, I've addressed every point you've attempted to make, multiple times. You see many misunderstandings, but fail to point out any. I don't agree to disagree. You're welcome to do so. You said that this was a waste of your time many posts ago, but you've still continued to rail on the same point which we've pointed out multiple times that it's out of context to the total diet. Further, you've agreed that by meeting the macro, this is all pointless anyway. One magic spike of MPS isn't relevant and, as Farley has renoted above, the only way that you have a relevant point is to jump to extreme.

Do note that I keep harping on the same points because you keep harping on the singular thing that we keep telling you doesn't matter in a vacuum. But hey, if you keep responding with the same stuff, what else is there to address?

PS. one more definition for you, appeal to authority: “Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.” https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...l-to-Authority

I know what an appeal to authority is. An appeal to authority is also when you make a statement like: "In all fairness though I don't think either of us really has the necessary background/knowledge in this field to have a strong opinion on it. For people reading this thread and that want to know more about the relation between MPS and hypertrophy and the other topics being discussed I recommend to read/watch/listen to Stuart Phillips and Jorn Trommelen, who got his PhD in muscle metabolism and has worked in Stu's lab..."

This is essentially saying that we can't figure this out because we lack the expertise, so just listen to these guys. The issue here is that I do have an understanding of the material and you seem to do so as well. What you really were attempting here was to try and shut this down with an appeal to authority in Jorn and Stuart attempting to tell people, "Hey don't listen to this lucia316 guy, listen to these two guys, they're experts."

Supporting evidence is great when it's in context to the original discussion.

I did something else: I first explained why what I said is true, then I offered several studies that support my claims. When I noticed you didn’t listen to rational arguments backed up by scientific evidence I referenced several sources that explain the same principles extensively in much more detail in hours of videos.

Context...it's matters. Eg. Everyone: Generally, the sky is blue. Me: Well, the sky is black. I see it right now, and at night there is evidence to show it is black.

We all know that nighttime black sky isn't the context of the statement.

If we want to get super technical, it is also part Argument from Personal Incredulity. Supposing one's ability or inability to comprehend isn't wholly relevant to the truth, or in our case, the context of which the truth is attempting to be told.

By the way, I didn’t expect you'd listen to the arguments laid out by them either. I was already anticipating that. They basically make the same points as I did and use similar supporting evidence. They just go into a lot more detail. I didn't reference them for you, I did it as a service to people that would really like to understand these topics better. I hope it may be of benefit to someone reading this thread.

I did listen and responded to everyone of them. I can't say the same for you. I know why you referenced them as I explained above. It seems like it was your attempt to get out of the mess you created. You agree that this is all mental masturbation if you're meeting your macro and even the first study you posted confirmed it to be the case, in a vacuum, for only leucine and not EAAs supplemented in general, and as a bolus outside the context to your diet.

[brendonplunkett]

I am really worried about my fats now a days.I was slim just 2 years ago with almost 60 kg weight.But now my weight is almost 96 Kg .
Plz experts give me any suggestions?
Thanks

[CommitmentRulz]

I am really worried about my fats now a days.I was slim just 2 years ago with almost 60 kg weight.But now my weight is almost 96 Kg .
Plz experts give me any suggestions?
Thanks

Don't spend so much time gaming and eating snacks. ;-) [This comment is based on your numerous Misc posts.]

Eat less, move more. Hit the weights.

[DASBUNKER]

I just gotta say I respect fug for keeping a 2012 emergency alt account with 20k posts in case of a ban. He is a man of focus, commitment and sheer fukin will.