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

[Farley1324]

High whey maxes...what do you know, all you have to do is eat your protein.

[mtpaquette]

If MPS were transportation:

BCAA = tricycle with a back wheel that fell off
EAA = moped
whole protein = super sport bike

[Farley1324]

If MPS were transportation:

BCAA = tricycle with a back wheel that fell off
EAA = moped
whole protein = super sport bike

Sounds about right

And that which shall not be named, Space X Starship

[lucia316]

Well we're in disagreement on that one. When you're supplementing all 9 EAAs in sufficient dosage you won't need to eat as much protein. At least that's what the research I've seen supports. If you have scientific references that are in conflict with what I wrote I would definitely like to read them.

You're taking what I'm saying out of the context that I'm presenting it. I'm not arguing that you are incorrect in your assessment. I'm arguing that it's like eating celery in order to stay hydrated. If you ate enough celery, sure you'd get plenty of water, but why? Just drink water.

Let's take the steps of logic:
1) You're meeting your macro daily with varied protein sources that have a full spectrum of amino acids and meeting your macro means you have all the aminos you need.
2) That said, there is ZERO value to supplementing free-form amino acids of any kind because more != beneficial.
3) Therefore, arguing about whether or not you could reduce your protein intake to account for taking a supplement that has 9 amino acids if pointless
4) Because, meeting your macro with protein also supplies NEAAs and conditionally essential amino acids as well.

The 3 BCAAs are pretty much useless for muscle gain if you supplement them without the other EAAs. This is pretty well supported in the literature. Here's an example: adding BCAAs to a low amount of whey did nothing for muscle protein synthesis.

Again, out of context. I'm speaking in the context of totality, not supplementing 3 amino acids. Again, I don't believe there is value in supplemental aminos. Of course leucine (which plays a huge role in MPS), isoleucine and valine have value for muscle gain in the context of your intake and what your body uses. They are 3 essential amino acids because your body doesn't produce them. Your chart essentially proves my point that whole proteins > than proteins + amino acids.

[Mrpb]

I'm arguing that it's like eating celery in order to stay hydrated. If you ate enough celery, sure you'd get plenty of water, but why? Just drink water.

That comparison doesn't hold water. Gram for gram EAAs are actually more effective than whey in the context of muscle gain. They're also more expensive so I'd still recommend whey instead, just take more.

And we agree that all supplements would be unnecessary if one just gets enough protein from their diet, which isn't hard at all.

[Mrpb]

I must have missed where he gave relevant information such as his weight and daily protein intake.

Considering how much the 'needed' protein quantity gets inflated, it is very possible he does not need to consume the same amount of protein or an overpriced supplement of a handful of aminos.

Good point. Agreed.

[Mrpb]

If MPS were transportation:
EAA = moped
whole protein = super sport bike

FYI: 10 gram of EAAs produces about the same MPS response as 20 gram protein from whey.

[Mrpb]

Your chart essentially proves my point that whole proteins > than proteins + amino acids.

The chart actually shows low whey + high leucine did as well as high whey. BCAAs were useless though, which was the reason I posted it.

The study can be found here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24284442/

[Farley1324]

That comparison doesn't hold water. Gram for gram EAAs are actually more effective than whey in the context of muscle gain. They're also more expensive so I'd still recommend whey instead, just take more.

And we agree that all supplements would be unnecessary if one just gets enough protein from their diet, which isn't hard at all.

All protein and/or amino supplements are unnecessary if you get enough protein from your [whole food] diet.

If your 'whole food' diet is short on protein, the best way to make that up with a supplement (which is really just a powdered food in this case), is protein powder, such as whey in particular.

But no not all 'supplements' are unnecessary just because you get enough protein. Stimulants, creatine, essential fatty acids, joint, vitamins, etc, are supplements not particularly related to protein or amino acids or MPS

[Farley1324]

BCAAs were useless though, which was the reason I posted it.

The study can be found here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24284442/

Now that is something everybody can agree on

[lucia316]

That comparison doesn't hold water. Gram for gram EAAs are actually more effective than whey in the context of muscle gain. They're also more expensive so I'd still recommend whey instead, just take more.

And we agree that all supplements would be unnecessary if one just gets enough protein from their diet, which isn't hard at all.

Taking more whey doesn't matter necessarily. The daily macro and getting there is what matters. You last sentence is the point. One isn't better than the other in your scenario because it's one "meal" out of context to the rest of your diet isn't going to make a difference.

My context is the entire diet. When things like varied sources of protein and digestion come into play, worrying about one meal (eg. 10g of EAAs versus 10g of whey or any other source of protein) is pointless as you agree with the last sentence of this post. Being right in a bubble doesn't mean that it's legitimate in reality.

Our point to OP was that he was asking the wrong question. He didn't need to worry about using EAAs if he's meeting his macro. Thus, worrying about cutting 10g of protein for 10g of EAAs is silly. Just meet your macro, which, "We agree that all supplements would be unnecessary if one just gets enough protein from their diet, which isn't hard at all."

FYI: 10 gram of EAAs produces about the same MPS response as 20 gram protein from whey.

If a bubble, yes. In reality, no. Comments like this fail to take things like digestion rate into account. Since we aren't fasting and a spike in MPS isn't as relevant as total diet factors, this really isn't all that important. If we really want to get technical, it's the leucine in the 10g of EAAs that is really creating that MPS response as is evidenced by your chart from Churchward-Venne, et all.

Which brings me to...

The chart actually shows low whey + high leucine did as well as high whey. BCAAs were useless though, which was the reason I posted it.

The study can be found here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24284442/

Thanks. I am familiar with the study. My comment was focused on the fact that protein, "High whey," superior/equal to using some protein and some leucine. That isn't even EAAs, that's leucine. So if were judging the value of EAAs by this study, then that's a bit out of context. We should be valuing leucine, not all 9 free-form aminos in supplemental form.

I'm not talking about supplemental BCAAs. I'm talking about how the amino acids aren't useless. Clearly, leucine isn't useless as it's what's creating the MPS response in the study. I do believe we agree that supplemental aminos in general are useless since, "We agree that all supplements would be unnecessary if one just gets enough protein from their diet, which isn't hard at all."


I think the challenge here is that while we agree on where I quoted you twice, we can't talk about the "Value" of using either 3 or 9 free-form aminos versus whole proteins (whey or otherwise) as being superior or better because that study:
A) was looking for acute response which isn't really all that relevant in a world where digestion exists and people with athletic and body comp goals are not fasting >24 hours.
B) Focused on one amino acid, leucine, which is what was creating the MPS response, not all 9 EAAs.

[Mrpb]

All protein and/or amino supplements are unnecessary if you get enough protein from your [whole food] diet.

Of course. No one disagrees with that.

If your 'whole food' diet is short on protein, the best way to make that up with a supplement (which is really just a powdered food in this case), is protein powder, such as whey in particular.

Well you're entitled to your opinion but your opinion on this matter isn't science based. The evidence shows that 10 gram EAAs and 20 gram whey protein produce the same MPS response.

If you want to argue with that please include some references to peer reviewed literature.

[Mrpb]

Our point to OP was that he was asking the wrong question.

That was a good point. Arguing that adding whey protein is somehow superior to adding EAAs wasn't.

If you know the literature you won't need me to supply the references for what I'm saying.

Digestion speed or the fact that it was measured in a fasted state doesn't change anything about what I'm saying.

If we really want to get technical, it's the leucine in the 10g of EAAs that is really creating that MPS response as is evidenced by your chart from Churchward-Venne, et all.

It only worked that well because the leucine was combined with... the EAAs in the whey protein.

So if were judging the value of EAAs by this study, then that's a bit out of context.

We're not. I explained this several times already. The only reason I posted this particular study was to show that adding BCAAs only is useless.

I did not post the study to show the efficacy of EAAs. I posted the study to show that supplementing BCAAs to a low protein intake does nothing for MPS.

The fact that EAAs alone can maximise MPS can be backed up with other studies.

Let's get back to the main point I've been making from the start:

Supplementing a lower protein diet with EAAs works as well as supplementing it with whey.

If anyone can refute that point using references to scientific studies I'll be all ears.

[Farley1324]

Well you're entitled to your opinion but your opinion on this matter isn't science based. The evidence shows that 10 gram EAAs and 20 gram whey protein produce the same MPS response.

If you want to argue with that please include some references to peer reviewed literature.

20 grams of whey costs about $0.43 while 10 grams of EAA costs more than twice as much ($0.88 for a 9g serving here)

Whey price: https://www.bodybuilding.com/store/b...d=BBCOM5100069

EAA price: https://www.bodybuilding.com/store/g...Id=GASN6190219



Also, link to science that says post meal MPS response is all that matters and total daily protein intake does not?

You agree that "no one disagrees" that enough protein from diet makes all of these unnecessary, so why the hell would a person who needs to increase their protein intake spend literally twice as much money to get HALF as much protein? (and that's pretending an amino product replaces a complete protein, in the context of daily macros). EAA is literally spending 4 times as much money per 'gram of protein'

adding BCAAs only is useless.

At least everybody does still agree that bcaa are useless and a waste of money

[lucia316]

That was a good point. Arguing that adding whey protein is somehow superior to adding EAAs wasn't.

At this point it's mental masturbation here. On one hand you claim that EAAs > Whey (we'll just call this protein in general since what we're really talking about is protein with a full spectrum of aminos), but on the other, you claim that...

It only worked that well because the leucine was combined with... the EAAs in the whey protein.

You can't poo poo my point regarding the fact that the 3 aminos acids - leucine, isoleucine and valine - are beneficial and important in the context of what they do as part of muscle gain and MPS and in the context of what you get from your diet (again, we all agree that supplemental BCAAs are pointless) and then claim that well the EAAs in the same context are what's driving the results.

Bottomline is that what you're getting from your diet and meeting your macro is sufficient for what you need. In the context of the study and MPS, yes, they both accomplished the same thing. But you don't need to supplement them, nor should you when protein and meeting your macro with that protein does the same thing.

There is no benefit to taking EAAs and reducing the amount of protein you intake to account for it. Just meet your macro. As Farley pointed out, there's also the cost to consider as well.

Digestion speed or the fact that it was measured in a fasted state doesn't change anything about what I'm saying.

Actually, it does. Because we're not talking about a diet in a vacuum, these things matter. Digestion can take upwards of 48 hours depending on what you ate and what you ate it with. Meaning, your body is constantly digesting nutrients, including proteins and supplying aminos to your system. Just slamming an extra 10g of 9 aminos may spike MPS, but to what end? As we always tell the Fug, more != beneficial. More importantly, a study in a vacuum showing us a result just gives us some context as to what can happen. The actual value of that MPS spike (whether or not it's from whey + EAAs or just whey) is unknown outside of the context of the total diet.

We're not. I explained this several times already. The only reason I posted this particular study was to show that adding BCAAs only is useless.

Cool, but no one was arguing that supplementing BCAAs was of value. Now, I know you initially brought it up because of his comments about EAA v BCAA, but no one, other than OP asking, made the argument that BCAAs were of value.

I did not post the study to show the efficacy of EAAs. I posted the study to show that supplementing BCAAs to a low protein intake does nothing for MPS.

So it's a strawman? No one was arguing that. I was arguing that all free-form aminos are pointless if you're meeting your macro. Just meet your macro and not overcomplicate things. I mean, even the study shows that to be the case EAA+Whey = Whey. Again, in a vacuum, so imo less useful, but still.

The fact that EAAs alone can maximise MPS can be backed up with other studies.

The focus on MPS is the problem here. There is so much more than MPS to consider. Regardless, if one is working to meet their macro, why overcomplicate and overspend to get no benefit? Same is same, from an MPS standpoint.

Let's get back to the main point I've been making from the start:

Supplementing a lower protein diet with EAAs works as well as supplementing it with whey.

If anyone can refute that point using references to scientific studies I'll be all ears.

Only from an MPS standpoint. You're attacking a strawman here overall. We were never talking about that one piece of the pie. If muscle gain was only about MPS, then sure, you'd have a super duper point. Since it isn't and it doesn't address the total diet, you don't.

[Mrpb]

On one hand you claim that EAAs > Whey (we'll just call this protein in general since what we're really talking about is protein with a full spectrum of aminos), but on the other, you claim that...

There's no contradiction there but at this point I think there's no point in continuing down that road. I'll get back to my main point:

Not only do I claim that gram for gram EAAs are more potent for stimulating MPS, it's well supported by the available science.

Net muscle protein synthesis results from ingestion of essential amino acids only (Tipton et al., 2001, 2003; Borsheim et al., 2002). Thus, it is clear that non-essential amino acids are not necessary for the stimulation of muscle protein synthesis resulting in net muscle protein synthesis.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14971434/

High-quality proteins, such as whey, casein, and beef, stimulate muscle protein synthesis in proportion to the amount of EAA per dose (26,27). Generally speaking, EAAs make up approximately 40 to 45% of the total AA in high-quality proteins. Thus, given adequate protein ingestion, the EAA component should be sufficient to stimulate muscle anabolism. While ingestion of intact protein is the most common and convenient format, ingestion of free-form EAA has several added advantages. First, on a gram per gram basis, EAAs elicit a greater stimulation of muscle protein synthesis than an intact protein.

To demonstrate this point, muscle protein kinetics were calculated before and for 3.5 hours after the bolus oral ingestion of 15 g EAA or 15 g whey protein. Although both supplements stimulated protein synthesis, net protein balance over the post-supplement period was significantly greater for the EAA group compared with the whey group (21).

The greater increase in protein synthesis is due in part to the larger increase in peripheral AA concentrations resulting from free-form AA ingestion (23). By converting AA uptake to milligram of protein, there was a calculated accrual of 4.0 ± 0.4 g of protein/leg for the EAA supplement versus 2.2 ± 0.3 g protein/leg for the whey protein, indicating that a 15-g EAA supplement provides approximately twice the anabolic stimulus as an isocaloric amount of whey protein. Not only was the EAA mixture more effective but also the efficiency of protein utilization (net protein synthesis/protein [i.e., AA] ingestion) was approximately 1.1 for the EAA mixture as opposed to approximately 0.2 for whey protein.

https://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/fu...retion.12.aspx

You can't poo poo my point

I didn't poo poo on that point. I just kept reiterating my point that supplementing BCAAs only is useless for muscle gain.

Now, I know you initially brought it up because of his comments about EAA v BCAA, but no one, other than OP asking, made the argument that BCAAs were of value.

Exactly because OP was asking about it I addressed it. Just like I addressed the main question by OP. I thought it was normal to address the questions that the OP asks on a forum but it seems the supplement forum has its own ways.

As Mrpb pointed out, there's also the cost to consider as well.

Fixed. I did that in post #35.

Actually, it does. Because we're not talking about a diet in a vacuum, these things matter. Digestion can take upwards of 48 hours depending on what you ate and what you ate it with.

Of course digestion matters, but it is not a downside to EAA supplementation. When you're digesting other foods, supplemented EAAs are actually a good choice because they're very potent at increasing blood concentration of EAAs.

The focus on MPS is the problem here. There is so much more than MPS to consider.

That's not entirely correct as many studies have measured other variables as well.

Short term MPS doesn't always correlate well with muscle gain, that's correct. But we also know that long term muscle protein balance is highly correlated with muscle gain. And the difference between MPS and MPB is what determines muscle protein balance. When we max out MPS 4-5 times a day while eating sufficient calories we're doing what we nutritionally can for optimal muscle protein balance.

For anyone in doubt of what I'm saying I recommend reading Jorn Trommelen's guide to Muscle Protein Synthesis.
https://www.nutritiontactics.com/mea...ein-synthesis/

And it would also be interesting to see long term training studies comparing EAAs supplementation with whey supplementation that measured actual muscle gain with good methods but to my knowledge these don't exist.

You're attacking a strawman here overall.

Nope. I suggest you read back this thread. Several people have claimed supplementing whey to a lower protein diet is superior to supplementing EAAs. That's what I attacked. To my knowledge there's currently no good evidence that supports this idea.

To make sure I didn't miss any new research I asked protein researcher Jorn Trommelen for his thoughts. He confirmed my position on the matter.

I'm getting the impression you can't bring up good references to refute the points that I'm making. Because of that I don't feel this discussion is actually a productive usage of my time. I'm not sure if I'll keep responding but we'll see.

[Mrpb]

20 grams of whey costs about $0.43 while 10 grams of EAA costs more than twice as much ($0.88 for a 9g serving here)

I already mentioned EAAs are more expensive in post #35. I'll quote it:

They're also more expensive so I'd still recommend whey instead, just take more.

And we agree that all supplements would be unnecessary if one just gets enough protein from their diet, which isn't hard at all.

Also, link to science that says post meal MPS response is all that matters and total daily protein intake does not?

Not sure where you read that but it's not something I wrote here. However, 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.

[Farley1324]

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.

If you have scientific references ...I would definitely like to read them.

Yup

[Mrpb]

Yup

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. The recommended protein intake beyond which more protein stops contributing to muscle gain is about 1.6 gram per kg (about 0.7 gram per lb).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28698222/

[Farley1324]

Maxing out MPS for 3-4 hours takes quite a bit of protein (or EAAs). If we multiply that number by 4-5

How much EAA we talking/selling here, exactly?

[GregG13]

I've researched for the last few hours trying to find some info on this so I'd like some experts to chime in.

Since aminos are what are left over after your body breaks down protein, is it essential to eat the same amount of protein if you take aminos also?

I think amino acid supplements and protein supplements do the same thing, boost your protein intake with essential amino acids can provide additional beneficial support.

[Mrpb]

How much EAA we talking/selling here, exactly?

Depends on age, how many muscle groups are trained and perhaps other factors. Tipton did a study where they found that 40 gram protein from whey after a full body workout did significantly better than 20 gram whey in young people. Higher amounts of protein may do even better after a full body workout, I don't think we know. The study from Tipton didn't find that people with higher body weight needed more protein. Other studies have shown that older people likely need more protein to maximise MPS. The equivalent of 40 gram protein from whey would be about 20 grams EAAs.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4985555/

[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?

[ILPump]

Aminos should never replace a complete protein, but this is when timing comes into play. Both play critical roles in muscle development.

[Mrpb]

So 20 grams of EAA 4-5 times a day, 80 grams of protein a day...we don't all weigh 110 lbs bro

Nor should we be buying 80-100g of EAA per day. Just, no

Holy moly, that's giant straw man. Who in their right mind would replace all food with EAAs supplements? I hope no one is that stupid. OP asked something entirely different.

I am surprised by the reactions in this thread so I decided to ask Stuart Phillips.

Me: I've read your paper that recommends 1.6 gram per kg protein. What happens when someone is, for example, supplementing 40 grams of EAAs, would it be fair to say they can subtract that amount from their protein target?

Stu: Sure. 40g of EAA is close to 80g of good or 100g of not as good protein. But 40g of EAA would taste - IMO - like sh*t and require LOTS of pills!

In case anyone isn't aware of who Stu is: https://www.science.mcmaster.ca/kine...e/phillis.html

[Farley1324]

Holy moly, that's giant straw man. Who in their right mind would replace all food with EAAs supplements?

Check the posts I literally quoted.

[lucia316]

Sorry, I finally had some time to respond.

There's no contradiction there but at this point I think there's no point in continuing down that road. I'll get back to my main point:
Not only do I claim that gram for gram EAAs are more potent for stimulating MPS, it's well supported by the available science.

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. And more importantly, if we really want to get down to it, it’s not EAAs, but the leucine that’s relevant. In that vein, if a BCAA supplement had a high enough ratio of leucine, you’d get similar if not equal results to an EAA supplement with the same amount of leucine. I’ll hit on that more below.
The strawman you’ve built is that MPS = muscle gain. No one said that, you started that line. Especially in a vacuum. As you said though, that stimulus throughout the day is what matters and if you’re meeting your macro and eating throughout the day, this will be achieved. You don’t need to supplement as you stated in #35.

Net muscle protein synthesis results from ingestion of essential amino acids only (Tipton et al., 2001, 2003; Borsheim et al., 2002). Thus, it is clear that non-essential amino acids are not necessary for the stimulation of muscle protein synthesis resulting in net muscle protein synthesis.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14971434/

Who claimed otherwise? But then again, it’s the leucine…

High-quality proteins, such as whey, casein, and beef, stimulate muscle protein synthesis in proportion to the amount of EAA per dose (26,27). Generally speaking, EAAs make up approximately 40 to 45% of the total AA in high-quality proteins. Thus, given adequate protein ingestion, the EAA component should be sufficient to stimulate muscle anabolism. While ingestion of intact protein is the most common and convenient format, ingestion of free-form EAA has several added advantages. First, on a gram per gram basis, EAAs elicit a greater stimulation of muscle protein synthesis than an intact protein.

To demonstrate this point, muscle protein kinetics were calculated before and for 3.5 hours after the bolus oral ingestion of 15 g EAA or 15 g whey protein. Although both supplements stimulated protein synthesis, net protein balance over the post-supplement period was significantly greater for the EAA group compared with the whey group (21).

The greater increase in protein synthesis is due in part to the larger increase in peripheral AA concentrations resulting from free-form AA ingestion (23). By converting AA uptake to milligram of protein, there was a calculated accrual of 4.0 ± 0.4 g of protein/leg for the EAA supplement versus 2.2 ± 0.3 g protein/leg for the whey protein, indicating that a 15-g EAA supplement provides approximately twice the anabolic stimulus as an isocaloric amount of whey protein. Not only was the EAA mixture more effective but also the efficiency of protein utilization (net protein synthesis/protein [i.e., AA] ingestion) was approximately 1.1 for the EAA mixture as opposed to approximately 0.2 for whey protein.
https://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/fu...retion.12.aspx

Even this article states it is about the leucine. In fact, it says, “A total of 9.5 g of AA, including 7 g of EAA and with a high proportion of leucine, is present in each 6 oz serving.”
That clearly showing us it’s the leucine in conjunction with your chart from the 2014 study. Which leads to…

[CONT]

[lucia316]

[CONT]

I didn't poo poo on that point. I just kept reiterating my point that supplementing BCAAs only is useless for muscle gain.

I mean, you did. You can’t claim X (EAAs) > Y (BCAAs) when if the key is Z (leucine), and if the ratio of Z in X is equal to the ratio Z in Y. X = Y

So if we really want to get down on the supplementation game, it’s Z that matters and if your assertion were correct, then supplementing Z would be what you should be arguing. You’re not.

If the ratios aren’t equal then it’s a flawed experiment. In the case of the chart in the 2014 study we were comparing straight leucine to a smaller ratio of BCAAs. If it were a high ratio BCAA supplement, there were some manufacturers that made 8:1:1 at one time, the results may have been different. In this case BCAAs aren’t useless.

I'm not hopping on the supplemental BCAA train but reiterating the logic from earlier:

1) You're meeting your macro daily with varied protein sources that have a full spectrum of amino acids and meeting your macro means you have all the aminos you need.
2) That said, there is ZERO value to supplementing free-form amino acids of any kind because more != beneficial.
3) Therefore, arguing about whether or not you could reduce your protein intake to account for taking a supplement that has 9 amino acids if pointless
4) Because, meeting your macro with protein also supplies NEAAs and conditionally essential amino acids as well.

I’d also add that when we’re talking about protein in general and the full-spectrum of amino acids, there are other bodily considerations to worry about beside just “muscle gain” and MPS stimulation.

Exactly because OP was asking about it I addressed it. Just like I addressed the main question by OP. I thought it was normal to address the questions that the OP asks on a forum but it seems the supplement forum has its own ways.

Except you initial response, post #25, was starting in with MPS which != muscle gain. I then fixed the 2nd part of our comment to say, “If you consume a enough protein from any food source (whole, powdered or otherwise) you don't need to worry or trouble yourself worrying about amino acids.”

Which is true and what you said wasn’t. All supplemental aminos are conditionally useless if you’re meeting your macro. You even agreed as such in the following post and again in post #35. You also argued that you were just answering his question - even though it was the wrong question which we tried to fix for him - except there were 2 issues:
1) You created an incorrect definition of muscle gain = MPS stimulation
2) If the question is the incorrect based on poor assumptions or ignorance, why would you answer the bad question? Fix it.

Fixed. I did that in post #35.

You also said this in post 35

And we agree that all supplements would be unnecessary if one just gets enough protein from their diet, which isn't hard at all.

Why is this still an argument? MPS != muscle gain, it's just part of the equation. You keep harping on it because you want to be right, but no one ever said you were wrong about MPS stimulation. The only argument I made was that if EAAs are useful in supplemental form for stimulating MPS, then so would BCAAs. It's all dependent upon the leucine content.

[CONT]

[lucia316]

[CONT]

Of course digestion matters, but it is not a downside to EAA supplementation. When you're digesting other foods, supplemented EAAs are actually a good choice because they're very potent at increasing blood concentration of EAAs.

Which doesn’t matter since…

We agree that all supplements would be unnecessary if one just gets enough protein from their diet, which isn't hard at all.

Just meet your macro and your blood concentration of all aminos will be sufficient for what your body needs. Again, more != beneficial necessarily, especially in this case.

That's not entirely correct as many studies have measured other variables as well.
Short term MPS doesn't always correlate well with muscle gain, that's correct. But we also know that long term muscle protein balance is highly correlated with muscle gain. And the difference between MPS and MPB is what determines muscle protein balance. When we max out MPS 4-5 times a day while eating sufficient calories we're doing what we nutritionally can for optimal muscle protein balance.

Which won’t be an issue if you are:
A) Meeting your macro daily
B) Eating multiple meals per day.

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

And it would also be interesting to see long term training studies comparing EAAs supplementation with whey supplementation that measured actual muscle gain with good methods but to my knowledge these don't exist.

It would, but probably not going to see anything marked outside of statistical significance which doesn’t mean real world benefit or difference that you’d see necessarily.

Nope. I suggest you read back this thread. Several people have claimed supplementing whey to a lower protein diet is superior to supplementing EAAs. That's what I attacked. To my knowledge there's currently no good evidence that supports this idea.

No, you’ve only focused on MPS stimuli what was equal in “high whey” versus “low whey + leucine.” You even admitted in post 35 that meeting macro makes supplementation pointless. Why then would you not supplement with a whole protein to get a full spectrum of aminos versus 9? That is superior. That is why we “meet our macro daily,” to get the full spectrum of amino acids that our body needs.

Your point out of context to that, MPS stimulus in a bubble, is the strawman you’re attacking.

To make sure I didn't miss any new research I asked protein researcher Jorn Trommelen for his thoughts. He confirmed my position on the matter.

Cool. He confirmed that leucine and EAA supplements with leucine stimulate MPS as well as protein? Great, but that isn’t the context of the discussion.

I'm getting the impression you can't bring up good references to refute the points that I'm making. Because of that I don't feel this discussion is actually a productive usage of my time. I'm not sure if I'll keep responding but we'll see.

It probably isn’t. Since you’ve continually latched on to the MPS point and ignored anything that attempted to steer this back to the primary context, you’re right? You’re probably wasting your time. I don’t need to prove a negative. Your point is out of context to the argument thus why I said you’re attacking a strawman.

Holy moly, that's giant straw man. Who in their right mind would replace all food with EAAs supplements? I hope no one is that stupid. OP asked something entirely different.

He quoted you and took it to an extreme to show you the ridiculousness of the notion. But then, even your question to Stu said this was ridiculous.

I am surprised by the reactions in this thread so I decided to ask Stuart Phillips.

But again, it doesn’t matter what Stu says as you failed to give him the context of the argument/discussion. He even agrees that it would be a waste.

The biggest issue here is the context which you keep pulling away from and the OP not knowing the right question to ask.

[Mrpb]

Check the posts I literally quoted.

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.