Link to abstract (http://apt.allenpress.com/aptonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=1533-4287&volume=020&issue=03&page=0643)




ABSTRACT

Kerksick, C.M., C.J. Rasmussen, S.L. Lancaster, B. Magu, P. Smith, C. Melton, M. Greenwood, A.L. Almada, C.P. Earnest, and R.B. Kreider. The effects of protein and amino acid supplementation on performance and training adaptations during ten weeks of resistance training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 20(3):643–653. 2006.—The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of whey protein supplementation on body composition, muscular strength, muscular endurance, and anaerobic capacity during 10 weeks of resistance training. Thirty-six resistance-trained males (31.0 ± 8.0 years, 179.1 ± 8.0 cm, 84.0 ± 12.9 kg, 17.8 ± 6.6%) followed a 4 days-per-week split body part resistance training program for 10 weeks. Three groups of supplements were randomly assigned, prior to the beginning of the exercise program, in a double-blind manner to all subjects: 48 g per day (g·d−1) carbohydrate placebo (P), 40 g·d−1 of whey protein + 8 g·d−1 of casein (WC), or 40 g·d−1 of whey protein + 3 g·d−1 branched-chain amino acids + 5 g·d−1 L-glutamine (WBG). At 0, 5, and 10 weeks, subjects were tested for fasting blood samples, body mass, body composition using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench and leg press, 80% 1RM maximal repetitions to fatigue for bench press and leg press, and 30-second Wingate anaerobic capacity tests. No changes (p > 0.05) were noted in all groups for energy intake, training volume, blood parameters, and anaerobic capacity. WC experienced the greatest increases in DEXA lean mass (P = 0.0 ± 0.9; WC = 1.9 ± 0.6; WBG = −0.1 ± 0.3 kg, p < 0.05) and DEXA fat-free mass (P = 0.1 ± 1.0; WC = 1.8 ± 0.6; WBG = −0.1 ± 0.2 kg, p < 0.05). Significant increases in 1RM bench press and leg press were observed in all groups after 10 weeks. In this study, the combination of whey and casein protein promoted the greatest increases in fat-free mass after 10 weeks of heavy resistance training. Athletes, coaches, and nutritionists can use these findings to increase fat-free mass and to improve body composition during resistance training.

Saw this on Mike Roussell's site. I'm not sure WHEN they were taking the supplementation. Unless I read over it, the abstract didn't say if it was PWO, another point during the day, Pre-workout, etc.

Always good to read scientific work supporting what you're doing. Another good reason for Nitrean.

Link to abstract (http://apt.allenpress.com/aptonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=1533-4287&volume=020&issue=03&page=0643)





Saw this on Mike Roussell's site. I'm not sure WHEN they were taking the supplementation. Unless I read over it, the abstract didn't say if it was PWO, another point during the day, Pre-workout, etc.

Always good to read scientific work supporting what you're doing. Another good reason for Nitrean.

That's some darn good stuff Mannish! Thanks for posting it!

As I said when I started AtLarge the industry will switch to blends like ours as they are truly superior.

Chris

Figured you guys would like that. Might want to get the whole study. Might help with marketing :)

There was a study on Berardi's site too under one of his protein articles stating that a blend is better than whey alone.

I've been converted. I no longer purchase plain whey.

There was a study on Berardi's site too under one of his protein articles stating that a blend is better than whey alone.

I've been converted. I no longer purchase plain whey.

Cool! You know, I was doing a bit more thinking about this and posted the following on Wbb:

You know, I was giving this some more thought and I truly hope it hits home with people on this site. Daniel and I have been selling our Nitrean protein blend (and Opticen) for going on 3 years now. We were one of the first companies to promote a blend when the entire market was saturated with whey-only products. We told you then that our blend of whey, casein, and egg proteins provided for superior net retention and thus results. I can clearly remember defending our product and trying to convince people that products like ON's whey-only proteins are inferior in efficacy. This study is just another notch in our belt and its results mirror that of Nitrean's users. How many customers and top strength athletes have told us they lost fat and gained muscle with the only alteration in their diet or training being Nitrean? There are too many to count.

If you have not yet tried Nitrean do yourself and favor and see why science and our customers say it is the best thing going in protein!

www.atlargenutrition.com

Link to abstract (http://apt.allenpress.com/aptonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=1533-4287&volume=020&issue=03&page=0643)

Saw this on Mike Roussell's site. I'm not sure WHEN they were taking the supplementation. Unless I read over it, the abstract didn't say if it was PWO, another point during the day, Pre-workout, etc.

Always good to read scientific work supporting what you're doing. Another good reason for Nitrean.

Interesting. So the study confirms what I've felt all along, that there is no need to obsess over the protein blend or whatever because really just variety and finding something that tastes good and fits the budget is key. Also, don't focus on a specific protein but rather a blend (the whey + bcaa is really mainly whey because whey is already rich in bcaa so that was kind of redundant, although I know why they included it because there's so much hype over bcaa being some magic muscle building potion).

I've always said carbohydrate is the best post-workout because muscle building is a process that happens over hours and hours while post-workout glycogen replenishment is a key window of opportunity. Note that the carbohydrate group gained lean mass while the whey and BCAA, which are often hyped and people swear by as post-workout shakes despite not having ample carbs, actually caused the participants to LOSE lean mass.

Let's do a reality check as well. The variances suggest that some in the carbohydrate-only group gained up to 0.9 kg lean mass while some in the whey + casein group only gained 0.8 kg lean mass. The average was of course higher but with 12 men in each group, who knows what the differences were simply related to training experience, intensity, genetics, etc.

I also note that the top of the limit is the equivalent of 4 lbs. This can easily be water weight. Sure, I know they used the fancy DEXA lean mass, but it's interesting they showed "lean mass" and then "fat free mass." Most definitions of lean mass are "sum of non-fat parts of the body like muscle, organs, blood, and water." Which puts me at a loss of why they also showed fat-free. If they meant muscle by lean mass, why not call it muscle?

In a world where people claim to put on 10 pounds in 10 weeks and everything else, and when years of measuring not just myself and clients shows you can easily gain or lose 5 - 10 pounds of lean mass in a 24 hour period, 4 pounds just doesn't seem substantial - 0.4 pounds plus or minus a margin of error over a 10-week period?

And then the implication that whey protein actually causes you to LOSE lean mass?

A good study would be to compare the whey+casein to other blends. What about someone eating a real steak? What about a more comprehensive matrix? Is it really the whey and casein or could you achieve the same alternating whey one workout and casein the next? When did they provide the supplements and does it really matter if it's before, during, after the workout or any random time during the week?

Just food for thought. Believe me, I'm not bashing protein/whey/etc supplements, but the line of reasoning in the study I think is interesting ... because if we use it to support something, then we have to use ALL of it and bottom line is that whey caused people to LOSE lean mass.

Chris, I respect your products and company and appreciate you being a supporter of John Stone Fitness. I would have to respectfully disagree about being one of the first to promote blends however as Met-Rx, EAS, Beverly Nutrition, and other companies have been making protein blends for over a decade now. I agree, whey has been over-hyped but blends have certainly been there.

I think in the end it is always dangerous to put too much stock in a single protein as the magic source as some people try to do, and instead focus on as much variety as possible. That is just a personal opinion, however, and comes from more a perspective of health than optimum or even maximum performance.

Jeremy

I would really like to see the whole study, Jeremey, to see if it addresses some of your points. I'd also like to know the timing of the supplementation and any other nutrition around workout, because I think it might make a difference how it helps. Peri-workout might end up needing more carbs or BCAAs vs post if you follow a PWO shake with a carb-protein meal fairly quickly (within say an hour).

Interesting. So the study confirms what I've felt all along, that there is no need to obsess over the protein blend or whatever because really just variety and finding something that tastes good and fits the budget is key. Also, don't focus on a specific protein but rather a blend (the whey + bcaa is really mainly whey because whey is already rich in bcaa so that was kind of redundant, although I know why they included it because there's so much hype over bcaa being some magic muscle building potion).

I've always said carbohydrate is the best post-workout because muscle building is a process that happens over hours and hours while post-workout glycogen replenishment is a key window of opportunity. Note that the carbohydrate group gained lean mass while the whey and BCAA, which are often hyped and people swear by as post-workout shakes despite not having ample carbs, actually caused the participants to LOSE lean mass.

Let's do a reality check as well. The variances suggest that some in the carbohydrate-only group gained up to 0.9 kg lean mass while some in the whey + casein group only gained 0.8 kg lean mass. The average was of course higher but with 12 men in each group, who knows what the differences were simply related to training experience, intensity, genetics, etc.

I also note that the top of the limit is the equivalent of 4 lbs. This can easily be water weight. Sure, I know they used the fancy DEXA lean mass, but it's interesting they showed "lean mass" and then "fat free mass." Most definitions of lean mass are "sum of non-fat parts of the body like muscle, organs, blood, and water." Which puts me at a loss of why they also showed fat-free. If they meant muscle by lean mass, why not call it muscle?

In a world where people claim to put on 10 pounds in 10 weeks and everything else, and when years of measuring not just myself and clients shows you can easily gain or lose 5 - 10 pounds of lean mass in a 24 hour period, 4 pounds just doesn't seem substantial - 0.4 pounds plus or minus a margin of error over a 10-week period?

And then the implication that whey protein actually causes you to LOSE lean mass?

A good study would be to compare the whey+casein to other blends. What about someone eating a real steak? What about a more comprehensive matrix? Is it really the whey and casein or could you achieve the same alternating whey one workout and casein the next? When did they provide the supplements and does it really matter if it's before, during, after the workout or any random time during the week?

Just food for thought. Believe me, I'm not bashing protein/whey/etc supplements, but the line of reasoning in the study I think is interesting ... because if we use it to support something, then we have to use ALL of it and bottom line is that whey caused people to LOSE lean mass.

Chris, I respect your products and company and appreciate you being a supporter of John Stone Fitness. I would have to respectfully disagree about being one of the first to promote blends however as Met-Rx, EAS, Beverly Nutrition, and other companies have been making protein blends for over a decade now. I agree, whey has been over-hyped but blends have certainly been there.

I think in the end it is always dangerous to put too much stock in a single protein as the magic source as some people try to do, and instead focus on as much variety as possible. That is just a personal opinion, however, and comes from more a perspective of health than optimum or even maximum performance.

Jeremy

There are many portions of your post which I don't agree with but I will not address them as I see no point.

I would like to address the idea of us being the first. Perhaps I chose my words poorly. Yes, Beverly and Met-Rx have offered such products for a long time but at the time we released Nitrean (which is a very unique blend in so far as it has whey (3 fractions), casein, and egg proteins ) nearly everyone who was anyone were heavily promoting whey-only products. We certainly bucked the trend when we could have easily offered a whey only product and made MORE MONEY than we do selling Nitrean at the price point at which we offer it.

Actually, John Stone will probably remember one of our first conversations about us coming on here when I ranted about whey-only products and the direction I saw the industry going.

Anyway, we offer Nitrean as a SUPPLEMENT which means it should be SUPPLEMENTAL to real food and as such it is one of the very best products on the market. I am not sure why you felt the need to bring up all of the points you did but that is your perogative.

We certainly bucked the trend when we could have easily offered a whey only product and made MORE MONEY than we do selling Nitrean at the price point at which we offer it.

Actually, John Stone will probably remember one of our first conversations about us coming on here when I ranted about whey-only products and the direction I saw the industry going.

Anyway, we offer Nitrean as a SUPPLEMENT which means it should be SUPPLEMENTAL to real food and as such it is one of the very best products on the market. I am not sure why you felt the need to bring up all of the points you did but that is your perogative.

That's great to hear and I have a lot of respect for your company. Again, I play devil's advocate but no, I'm not always right and I certainly don't presume to be more informed scientifically about protein than the scientists and nutritionists who study and formulate it ... I appreciate the elaboration.

Jeremy

I would love to switch to the At Larg blend, but they all seem to have artificial sweeteners. Chris, do you guys offer a protein without artificial sweeteners?

I would love to switch to the At Larg blend, but they all seem to have artificial sweeteners. Chris, do you guys offer a protein without artificial sweeteners?

Not at this time. We consider the sweeteners in our product to be safe. I use them every single day.

That's great to hear and I have a lot of respect for your company. Again, I play devil's advocate but no, I'm not always right and I certainly don't presume to be more informed scientifically about protein than the scientists and nutritionists who study and formulate it ... I appreciate the elaboration.

Jeremy

Thank you.

Chris

This is a quote by John Berardi on his PN forum.

In the past I've been pretty conservative with supplement recommendations and remembered to always focus on whole foods. I think this is prudent.

However, one thing alot of folks forget in their debates about supplements is the very clear real-world evidence...

Nearly every single person I've ever met that's had a body that others would want to emulate takes at least a modicum of supplements - even if it's a protein supplement, a multi-vitamin, or some fish oil.

That's pretty well my opinion.

Supplements are convenient. I'm too lazy to cook up meat all day. :)

Not at this time. We consider the sweeteners in our product to be safe. I use them every single day.

Hmmm, missed this reply. I choose not to eat them, so are any non artificial sweetener enhanced products in the works?

Hmmm, missed this reply. I choose not to eat them, so are any non artificial sweetener enhanced products in the works?


No, not at this time.

Chris

Interesting. So the study confirms what I've felt all along, that there is no need to obsess over the protein blend or whatever because really just variety and finding something that tastes good and fits the budget is key. Also, don't focus on a specific protein but rather a blend (the whey + bcaa is really mainly whey because whey is already rich in bcaa so that was kind of redundant, although I know why they included it because there's so much hype over bcaa being some magic muscle building potion).Yup on all counts. BCAA is overhyped, and many people have excessively bought in, and continue to do so.I've always said carbohydrate is the best post-workout because muscle building is a process that happens over hours and hours while post-workout glycogen replenishment is a key window of opportunity. Note that the carbohydrate group gained lean mass while the whey and BCAA, which are often hyped and people swear by as post-workout shakes despite not having ample carbs, actually caused the participants to LOSE lean mass. Hmmmm.. I'm gonna assume that you mean carb + prot is optimal, versus just prot. Protein doesn't necessarily get in the way of glycogen replenishment, especially if carb is the dominant substrate in the mix. As far as whey causing folks to lose LBM, the full text has to be seen in order to determine what type of energy balance the subjects were under. CHO would obviously restock glycogen & thus hike up the fat-free weight factor by virtue of glycogen's association with water. But this wouldn't necessarily translate to the other important factors, not the least of which is protein synthesis & preservation of amino acid balance. Once again, I'm gonna assume you're with me on the fact that a carb-dominant P + C meal is optimal postworkout.Let's do a reality check as well. The variances suggest that some in the carbohydrate-only group gained up to 0.9 kg lean mass while some in the whey + casein group only gained 0.8 kg lean mass. The average was of course higher but with 12 men in each group, who knows what the differences were simply related to training experience, intensity, genetics, etc.

I also note that the top of the limit is the equivalent of 4 lbs. This can easily be water weight. Sure, I know they used the fancy DEXA lean mass, but it's interesting they showed "lean mass" and then "fat free mass." Most definitions of lean mass are "sum of non-fat parts of the body like muscle, organs, blood, and water." Which puts me at a loss of why they also showed fat-free. If they meant muscle by lean mass, why not call it muscle?Good points. Full text is needed for a more conclusive critique.In a world where people claim to put on 10 pounds in 10 weeks and everything else, and when years of measuring not just myself and clients shows you can easily gain or lose 5 - 10 pounds of lean mass in a 24 hour period, 4 pounds just doesn't seem substantial - 0.4 pounds plus or minus a margin of error over a 10-week period?Different protocols yield different outcomes, throw in the fact that clients can vary widely in their individual response, and it's easy to imagine that my observations are quite different from yours. If you're talking about trained subjects (not deconditioned or formerly-fit folks on the rebound), 4 lbs in 10 weeks is definitely in range of what trained subjects should expect, that is, if they want their gains to be lean. Not that I haven't observed quicker lean gains than this, but for my highly trained athletes, 12-24lb lean mass gains per year (1-2 lbs a month, avg of 18 lbs/yr) is a significant feat. Even looking below the range I listed, & taking an advanced athlete and putting even 20 lbs of muscle on in a 2 yr period is no small accomplishment. And then the implication that whey protein actually causes you to LOSE lean mass?

A good study would be to compare the whey+casein to other blends. What about someone eating a real steak? What about a more comprehensive matrix? Is it really the whey and casein or could you achieve the same alternating whey one workout and casein the next? When did they provide the supplements and does it really matter if it's before, during, after the workout or any random time during the week?

Just food for thought. Believe me, I'm not bashing protein/whey/etc supplements, but the line of reasoning in the study I think is interesting ... because if we use it to support something, then we have to use ALL of it and bottom line is that whey caused people to LOSE lean mass. Not sure that whey could have been an agent of lean mass loss as the abstract might imply. It's reasonable to assume that MORE lean mass would have been lost in the absence of whey (ie, if nothing at all was supplemented), it's just that the other substrates are either more nitrogen-retentive or glycogenic/hydrophillic. Again, full text is needed to get the scoop. We NEED to know what total daily protein amount was consumed, as well as the caloric surplus/deficit/balance of the protocol. For the mean time, it's just frustrating speculation.

And yes, it would be nice to see those comparisons you mentioned, especially powder versus flesh. Perhaps the The Center for Research and Knowledge Management at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association can orchestrate a study showing the superiority of flesh, and then the Dairy council can retaliate by funding a study showing the superiority of milk-derived protein powder. The battle would rage, no doubt. Conclusions will ultimately boil down to whose studies are better designed, since commerce has its way of puppeteering science a little too much.

Rambling aside, it's nice to see you still posting here Jeremy. It's been a while since I've dropped by. How come you're not plastered all over the site like in days of yore?

Yup on all counts. BCAA is overhyped, and many people have excessively bought in, and continue to do so.

Overhyped? Yes sir, there are a plethora of supps out there that fit the bill, however, bcaa's are not in that mix. Additionally, the bcaa's found in whey as opposed to bcaa's in their free form state are two different animals.

Mega-dosing bcaa's centered around training (and at other critical junctures) has been one of the major breakthroughs in pre, during, post workout supplementation that has allowed the natural bodybuilder to reach new heights in conditioning and muscularity never before seen nor attained. I speak not only from my own experience, but for other competitors and natural pro's alike.

Overhyped? Yes sir, there are a plethora of supps out there that fit the bill, however, bcaa's are not in that mix. Additionally, the bcaa's found in whey as opposed to bcaa's in their free form state are two different animals.

Mega-dosing bcaa's centered around training (and at other critical junctures) has been one of the major breakthroughs in pre, during, post workout supplementation that has allowed the natural bodybuilder to reach new heights in conditioning and muscularity never before seen nor attained. I speak not only from my own experience, but for other competitors and natural pro's alike.

Edit: Nevermind I found my answer looking at previous post of yours.

Mastover, you have probably answered this elsewhere.. but what is your dosage of BCAAs when you are bulking/cutting; and is there a problem with mixing it with other protein (such as whey)?

And lastly do you use formulas mixed with glutamine/citrluine (Xtend) or just bulk BCAA?

Overhyped? Yes sir, there are a plethora of supps out there that fit the bill, however, bcaa's are not in that mix. Additionally, the bcaa's found in whey as opposed to bcaa's in their free form state are two different animals.Gotta disagree with you on that. They are HEAVILY overhyped. As far as free form BCAA versus BCAA occurring in the matrix of whey, enlighten me of their distinctly different behavior other than speed of absorption and greater insulinogenesis. I'm open to seeing the research on this & learning something new. If you're talking about leucine-mediated mTOR activation, whey's leucine content can accomplish the same thing, plus you get the full spectrum of essential aminos along with the BCAAs.Mega-dosing bcaa's centered around training (and at other critical junctures) has been one of the major breakthroughs in pre, during, post workout supplementation that has allowed the natural bodybuilder to reach new heights in conditioning and muscularity never before seen nor attained. I speak not only from my own experience, but for other competitors and natural pro's alike.I also have a full-time practice working with bodybuilders & other athletes, professional & amateur. It's my passion & my living, I do nothing else during my workday. But, that doesn't mean we're guaranteed to experience the same things. There are many different ways to skin many different cats. You can cite a number of elements that can be construed as nutritional breakthroughs for natural competitors. But alas, BCAA isn't anything special when it's put to the test in controlled conditions. Don't get me wrong, I've recommended BCAA to my athletes many times in the past when attempting to save calories but still provide key aminos, but I've been keeping an eye on the science behind BCAA supping for bodybuilding purposes, and frankly it hasn't swept me off my feet. As far as what I've observed in myself & my clients, jumping from BCAA to whey yielded no detriment. In fact, quite the opposite.

...and for me and countless others it's been just the opposite. In my opinion and observations, speed of absorption during CRITICAL junctures is extremely important. I would never recommend a whey shake immediately PWO. In fact I believe the PWO shake is overrated AND overhyped.

The research reports and studies supporting bcaa usage are out there, I am sure you are well aware of them, however, I've never been much of a "study" guy when it comes to what works on a theoretical basis, as opposed to real world results. I read them, but what appears on paper is different then what will transpire from individual to individual.

From my own perspective, speaking as a long time competitor who's just about tried every type of supplement strategy to get more and more conditioned without muscle loss leading into a show, bcaa mega-dosing would be right up there somewhere on the top of my list. If this is not what you have found in your research and development, I can certainly respect your observations even if I do disagree.

...and for me and countless others it's been just the opposite. In my opinion and observations, speed of absorption during CRITICAL junctures is extremely important. I would never recommend a whey shake immediately PWO. In fact I believe the PWO shake is overrated AND overhyped.

The research reports and studies supporting bcaa usage are out there, I am sure you are well aware of them, however, I've never been much of a "study" guy when it comes to what works on a theoretical basis, as opposed to real world results. I read them, but what appears on paper is different then what will transpire from individual to individual.

From my own perspective, speaking as a long time competitor who's just about tried every type of supplement strategy to get more and more conditioned without muscle loss leading into a show, bcaa mega-dosing would be right up there somewhere on the top of my list. If this is not what you have found in your research and development, I can certainly respect your observations even if I do disagree.Mastover, I have the utmost respect for successful competitors such as yourself. And you definitely seem like an intelligent guy, which makes your words hold even more weight. But as I mentioned, I am aware of the body of controlled trials on BCAA. The results lack luster. Same with glutamine.

It's coincidental how BCAA is a glutamine precursor, and here I am citicizing the performance of both in controlled conditions (ie, absence of placebo influence, power of suggestion of peers, power of marketing hype). In 10 minutes one of my clients - a freak of a bodybuilder in terms of both size & leanness even in the offseason - is gonna show up to my office. Years ago I told him to give glutamine a try. I now know glutamine has proven itself effective for alleviating all sorts of gastric disease, but it has failed for every other purpose its been hyped to fulfill.

As far as realworld results go, trust me I'm all for that. My ass is on the line for that because if my clients don't succeed, I don't eat. We differ in our perspective of the contribution of science to bodybuilding, and that's fine. But we do agree on the most important thing - individual response is KING.