Newbie fitness/protein shake question

Kristofer Hogg <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
>"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>> "Stephan Carydakis" <steph777@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>Whey protein seems to be popular because it contains a lot of the amino
>>>acids required by the body. There are generally 3 types of whey protein
>>>sold. Concentrate (about 80% protein) , Isolate (about 90% protein) and
>>>Hydrolysed (claimed '100%'). I haven't tried hydrolysed but it is said to
>>>be
>>>very bitter in taste (anyone used it?). It apparently has the advantage of
>>>being absorbed into the body a lot quicker - I don't know to what extent.
>>>Watch out for protein supplements that have fats and carbs added.
>>
>
>And of course, the oh-so erudite sounding jmw is, of course, not.
>
>> The absorption is fast enough that the type isn't really very
>> important.
>
>Very wrong. See below.

Yes, let's see below. Oh, yes, Mr. Hogg glibly pulls the following
double-talk out of his hindquarters with no basis other than his
pompous and narcissitic claims of an advanced education:

>Free amino acids are in fact *poorly absorbed* by the gut, which has evolved
>to optimally transport somewhere in the vicinity of *tetrapeptides*, altho
>anything from di- to hexa- is better than single aas.
>There is not likely any natural law that dictates this, other than evolution
>and conservation:
>Digestion/transit times being what they are, probably complete hydrolysis to
>free aa's is to time consuming/energy-intensive (from several points of
>view), so the polypeptide absorption strategy evolved.
>Other animals, like snakes, might digest to completely free aas, but I don't
>know this for sure.
>Also, polypeptide vs free aa's lowers the osmotic "pressures" in the body,
>allowing fluid to more easily reside in their various "compartments"
>(intracellular, interstitial, vascular, gut, etc).
>
>The difference in absorption is marked: Forgot the number, but 30% comes
>to mind: free aas are absorbed 30% less than poly's AND, iirc, the number
>may vary w/ the free amino acid! A very bad thing if that particular aa is
>already a limiting aa.
>Altho this is relatively old nutritional info by now, when it first started
>coming to light, it was big news, quite unexpected. Everyone just *assumed*
>that it was free aas that were transported.
>Like jmw still does.
>
>From an economical pov, note how the opposite holds true in manufacture:
>To take whole proteins and hydrolyze them down to, say, tetra to
>hexapeptides is a far more difficult task than just letting a vat sit there
>X hours for free aa's.
>Also, the quality of hydrolyzed protein can be quite iffy.
>For example, if collagen, like what's in jello, the quality is *zero*, as
>certain essential aa's are absent altogether. Need to know the amino acid
>profile, and compare to the egg. Or at least it's source, and hope they
>didn't lose anything in the hydrolysis process.
>
>Or so I believe.

Do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, too?

First, we're talking about whey protein, not "free amino acids." So
what has been shown about the breakdown of whey protein and absorption
through the gut of the constituent amino acids? Well, let's review
what I previously posted here, based on a fairly recent study:

"In a 2004 article by Kevin Tipton and his gang at UT-MB (since nearly
all your posts regard protein, I assume you are familiar with that
group), they measured arterial, venous, and intracellular levels of
leucine and phenylalanine after ingestion of whey and casein. You may
wish to note that leucine is particularly important, since it is very
probably the primary amino acid responsible for mTOR signaling of
muscle protein synthesis.

"The arterial levels for both amino acids began to climb steeply
almost immediately after ingestion. With both whey and casein, levels
of both amino acids peaked out less than 60 minutes after ingestion.
As expected, levels from casein didn't peak as high as whey, but they
lasted longer; whey numbers for leucine dropped halfway back to
baseline after about two hours, while casein numbers stayed pretty
level over that time. The numbers for phenylalanine were not a
pronounced, but the peaks were still at about 30-60 minutes.

"The venous levels for both amino acids were similar. A steep climb
immediately after ingestion with peak levels about an hour. Whey
peaked higher but dropped faster.

"Even the intracellular levels of leucine from muscle biopsies showed
a quicker turnaround than the numbers you posted. From whey,
intracellular levels of leucine in the thigh muscles had jumped about
50% within an hour.

"Given those facts, it seems that free form amino acids are pretty
much a waste of money."

Source: Tipton KD, Elliott TA, Cree MG, Wolf SE, Sanford AP, Wolfe RR.
Ingestion of casein and whey proteins result in muscle anabolism after
resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Dec;36(12):2073-81.

Regardless of your double-talk about free amino acids, as you can see,
I think they are a waste, anyway. And the absorption through the gut
of amino acids from whey is, as I previously said, quite fast.

If you want the abstract, look it up on PubMed. It won't help you,
though. That data comes from within the article. And for that,
you'll need to get on the bus and go to a university library.

And what does what you say, or claim to have said, have to do with what I
said?

Double talk? It's right outta the textbooks--you know, those factoids I
regurgitate pursuing non-existent degrees.
The fact that you were not aware of it, or don't understand it, is not
really disguised by what appears to be a free-association-style citation of
articles.
Yeah, if you cite enough bullshit, statistically some of it is likely to be
relevant, and even correct. Go figger.

The point is not speed of absorption, a truly trivial point on which you
seem so obsessed. No nutritionist is concerned w/ speed of absorption. In
fact, it'd proly be better to slow it down, ferchrissakes.

The point was, lest others be mislead by *your* chronic and interminable
bullshit, is that (fully) hydrolyzed protein not only offers no advantage to
absorption speed, it's not even absorbed as well.

And, unlike you, and Brink, the Blind Citation WonderFagits, I explained why
this is likely to be so.

If I'm wrong, well, then I'm sure someone will explain why, but certainly
not you or Brink.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:u8q7n25mq6h8on53ua5kogd9p1sq7qpl5b@4ax.com...
> Kristofer Hogg <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
>>"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>>> "Stephan Carydakis" <steph777@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Whey protein seems to be popular because it contains a lot of the amino
>>>>acids required by the body. There are generally 3 types of whey protein
>>>>sold. Concentrate (about 80% protein) , Isolate (about 90% protein) and
>>>>Hydrolysed (claimed '100%'). I haven't tried hydrolysed but it is said
>>>>to
>>>>be
>>>>very bitter in taste (anyone used it?). It apparently has the advantage
>>>>of
>>>>being absorbed into the body a lot quicker - I don't know to what
>>>>extent.
>>>>Watch out for protein supplements that have fats and carbs added.
>>>
>>
>>And of course, the oh-so erudite sounding jmw is, of course, not.
>>
>>> The absorption is fast enough that the type isn't really very
>>> important.
>>
>>Very wrong. See below.
>
> Yes, let's see below. Oh, yes, Mr. Hogg glibly pulls the following
> double-talk out of his hindquarters with no basis other than his
> pompous and narcissitic claims of an advanced education:
>
>>Free amino acids are in fact *poorly absorbed* by the gut, which has
>>evolved
>>to optimally transport somewhere in the vicinity of *tetrapeptides*, altho
>>anything from di- to hexa- is better than single aas.
>>There is not likely any natural law that dictates this, other than
>>evolution
>>and conservation:
>>Digestion/transit times being what they are, probably complete hydrolysis
>>to
>>free aa's is to time consuming/energy-intensive (from several points of
>>view), so the polypeptide absorption strategy evolved.
>>Other animals, like snakes, might digest to completely free aas, but I
>>don't
>>know this for sure.
>>Also, polypeptide vs free aa's lowers the osmotic "pressures" in the body,
>>allowing fluid to more easily reside in their various "compartments"
>>(intracellular, interstitial, vascular, gut, etc).
>>
>>The difference in absorption is marked: Forgot the number, but 30% comes
>>to mind: free aas are absorbed 30% less than poly's AND, iirc, the number
>>may vary w/ the free amino acid! A very bad thing if that particular aa
>>is
>>already a limiting aa.
>>Altho this is relatively old nutritional info by now, when it first
>>started
>>coming to light, it was big news, quite unexpected. Everyone just
>>*assumed*
>>that it was free aas that were transported.
>>Like jmw still does.
>>
>>From an economical pov, note how the opposite holds true in manufacture:
>>To take whole proteins and hydrolyze them down to, say, tetra to
>>hexapeptides is a far more difficult task than just letting a vat sit
>>there
>>X hours for free aa's.
>>Also, the quality of hydrolyzed protein can be quite iffy.
>>For example, if collagen, like what's in jello, the quality is *zero*, as
>>certain essential aa's are absent altogether. Need to know the amino acid
>>profile, and compare to the egg. Or at least it's source, and hope they
>>didn't lose anything in the hydrolysis process.
>>
>>Or so I believe.
>
> Do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, too?
>
> First, we're talking about whey protein, not "free amino acids." So
> what has been shown about the breakdown of whey protein and absorption
> through the gut of the constituent amino acids? Well, let's review
> what I previously posted here, based on a fairly recent study:
>
> "In a 2004 article by Kevin Tipton and his gang at UT-MB (since nearly
> all your posts regard protein, I assume you are familiar with that
> group), they measured arterial, venous, and intracellular levels of
> leucine and phenylalanine after ingestion of whey and casein. You may
> wish to note that leucine is particularly important, since it is very
> probably the primary amino acid responsible for mTOR signaling of
> muscle protein synthesis.
>
> "The arterial levels for both amino acids began to climb steeply
> almost immediately after ingestion. With both whey and casein, levels
> of both amino acids peaked out less than 60 minutes after ingestion.
> As expected, levels from casein didn't peak as high as whey, but they
> lasted longer; whey numbers for leucine dropped halfway back to
> baseline after about two hours, while casein numbers stayed pretty
> level over that time. The numbers for phenylalanine were not a
> pronounced, but the peaks were still at about 30-60 minutes.
>
> "The venous levels for both amino acids were similar. A steep climb
> immediately after ingestion with peak levels about an hour. Whey
> peaked higher but dropped faster.
>
> "Even the intracellular levels of leucine from muscle biopsies showed
> a quicker turnaround than the numbers you posted. From whey,
> intracellular levels of leucine in the thigh muscles had jumped about
> 50% within an hour.
>
> "Given those facts, it seems that free form amino acids are pretty
> much a waste of money."
>
> Source: Tipton KD, Elliott TA, Cree MG, Wolf SE, Sanford AP, Wolfe RR.
> Ingestion of casein and whey proteins result in muscle anabolism after
> resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Dec;36(12):2073-81.
>
> Regardless of your double-talk about free amino acids, as you can see,
> I think they are a waste, anyway. And the absorption through the gut
> of amino acids from whey is, as I previously said, quite fast.
>
> If you want the abstract, look it up on PubMed. It won't help you,
> though. That data comes from within the article. And for that,
> you'll need to get on the bus and go to a university library.
>

In article <1165167393.180680.164550@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

> In other news: The latest issue - Vol. 44, No. 1, January 2007 - of
> Muscular Development magazine hit the newsstands with, of course, new
> Mr. Olympia, Jay Cutler, grinning from the cover. The top of said cover
> in blood red letters over a black background are the words (in all caps
> for that extraEXTRAextra sensationalistic emphasis): TESTOSTERONE:
> BRAIN KILLER?
>
> After sifting through 22 pages of advertisements, I finally reached the
> table of contents. *There*'s a workout. And as added trivia I'll not
> that the early issues of Joe Weider's mimeographed Your Physique
> magazine amassed mere 12 pages in total!
>
<snipped for space>
> --
> Curt
>

Good review! I've not read it yet. It's still in my reading bag...
This is our busiest time of year at work and that is where I do most of
my reading. I'm not even getting my full 30 minute lunch breaks and
still get docked for them! <sigh>

Oh well! :-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet wrote:
> "Curt" wrote:
>
> > <snip> The latest issue - Vol. 44, No. 1, January 2007 - of Muscular
> > Development magazine hit the newsstands with, of course, new
> > Mr. Olympia, Jay Cutler, grinning from the cover. The top of said cover
> > in blood red letters over a black background are the words (in all caps
> > for that extraEXTRAextra sensationalistic emphasis): TESTOSTERONE:
> > BRAIN KILLER?
> >
> > After sifting through 22 pages of advertisements, I finally reached the
> > table of contents. *There*'s a workout. And as added trivia I'll not
> > that the early issues of Joe Weider's mimeographed Your Physique
> > magazine amassed mere 12 pages in total!
[...]

> Good review!

Thank you, Om. Good issue. )

> I've not read it yet. It's still in my reading bag...
> This is our busiest time of year at work

My condolences. How does that impact your holiday cheer or vacation
time?

> and that is where I do most of my reading. I'm not even
> getting my full 30 minute lunch breaks and still get docked
> for them! <sigh>
>
> Oh well! :-)

I remember 13-hour days, no lunch at the printing press. @#$% THAT!
Especially doing something that seemed more an annoyance for people
than a benefit. My one job was spent on a machine called a tipper,
gluing ad cards on sigs of paper that the binders would use to make TV
Guide and Reader's Digest. They're the first thing I tear out when I
get any magazine!

Oh well, right? ;o)

> Peace, Om

--
Curt

In article <1165372222.103028.8440@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.co m>,
"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Good review!
>
> Thank you, Om. Good issue. )
>
> > I've not read it yet. It's still in my reading bag...
> > This is our busiest time of year at work
>
> My condolences. How does that impact your holiday cheer or vacation
> time?

It's a living. <G>
The boss had people volunteer for the holiday work schedule.
I volunteered for all three days, but only because the main holiday fell
over the weekend so it does not really impact me, except for
Thanksgiving.

I cooked anyway.

>
> > and that is where I do most of my reading. I'm not even
> > getting my full 30 minute lunch breaks and still get docked
> > for them! <sigh>
> >
> > Oh well! :-)
>
> I remember 13-hour days, no lunch at the printing press. @#$% THAT!
> Especially doing something that seemed more an annoyance for people
> than a benefit. My one job was spent on a machine called a tipper,
> gluing ad cards on sigs of paper that the binders would use to make TV
> Guide and Reader's Digest. They're the first thing I tear out when I
> get any magazine!
>
> Oh well, right? ;o)
>

Ironic.

>
> --
> Curt
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet wrote:
> "Curt" wrote:
[...]

> > > This is our busiest time of year at work
> >
> > My condolences. How does that impact your holiday cheer or
> > vacation time?
>
> It's a living. <G>
> The boss had people volunteer for the holiday work schedule.
> I volunteered for all three days, but only because the main holiday fell
> over the weekend so it does not really impact me, except for
> Thanksgiving.

You're salaried, right? My paystub lists hours worked over a two-week
period, however it's the same as salaried, imo. The hours worked beyond
3:20 p.m. don't count towards a nickel. Not monetarily anyway, but,
yes, it's worth every "penny" to be well-prepared for class.

Regardless of hourly versus salaried, that's very generous of you to
volunteer for a holiday weekend.

> I cooked anyway.

I'm certain it was a glorious feast.

[...]

--
Curt