||61.9.192.140||reg||
||63.23.199.161||reg||
Z||000002||riskybiz007||12-03-2000||12:55 AM||riskybiz007@hotmail.com||does anyone know the deal with the MICELLAR CASEIN? i know proteinfactory said there's no such thing or that they haven't been able to find it or something, yet a lot of ads are really pushing the micellar stuff, and even going to the extent of saying, don't buy it unless it's micellar. What's the deal with it?||152.163.189.135||reg||
Z||000003||HIT Bodybuilder||12-17-2000||12:14 PM||hitbodybuilder@aol.com||Yes, Micellar Casein does exist. Out of all of the other types of casein, micellar is the best, because it has more anticatabolic properties. I don't know of many companies that use it. I can only name 3 (Muscle Link, GEN and Dorian Yates Approved). I went to protein factory and I was looking for a micellar casein, but they didn't have it. So I don't know that's up with that. Later.------------------
Train Intensely, Infrequently and Briefly
Check out http://pub30.ezboard.com/bhitsgymofbodybuilding
-HB-||64.12.104.156||reg|| Z||000004||jrnc||12-19-2000||06:25 PM||||Why anyone would voluntarily contaminate their whey protein with Casein is beyond me. The only real clinical study done on a whey vs. casein was done by Dr. Lands and was published in the Journal of Applied Physiology. Here are the results:
Muscle gained with whey: 5 pounds
Fat lost with whey: 8 pounds
Muscle lost with casein: 7 pounds
Fat gained with casein: 8 pounds
Check out the reference on medline. This is the only study to accurately measure body composition changes as a result of whey protein or casein use.
The use of casein is pushed on bodybuilders because it is cheap and inexpensive to obtain for supplement companies. They actually want you to buy this stuff, and cite "anti-catabolism" as the reason. Re-read the Boirie study, and you will see that clever marketing has misrepresented the study. It is a sham.
In conclusion, there is no reason to use Casein or add it to whey protein unless you like milk. If you're spending money at proteinfactory.com and you can't afford whey protein, then mix it with casein if you have to. But don't do it because you think its superior. It's not -- the magazines just tell you that it is. Notice though, that none of the magazines have reported the Lands study? Wonder why? COuld it be that it would hurt corporate sales? You be the judge, but the facts are pretty clear.
[This message has been edited by jrnc (edited December 19, 2000).]||204.50.185.34||reg|| Z||000005||BarbarianHorde||12-19-2000||07:16 PM||son_of_odin99@hushmail.com||forgive my ignorance mate (and there's plenty of it, believe me).
"Whole body protein breakdown was inhibited by 34% after CAS ingestion but not after WP ingestion. Postprandial protein synthesis was stimulated by 68% with the WP meal and to a lesser extent (+31%) with the CAS meal. Postprandial whole body leucine oxidation over 7 h was lower with CAS (272 +/- 91 micromol.kg-1) than with WP (373 +/- 56 micromol.kg-1). Leucine intake was identical in both meals (380 micromol.kg-1). Therefore, net leucine balance over the 7 h after the meal was more positive with CAS than with WP (P < 0.05, WP vs. CAS). "
i thought the primary argument for the "anti-catabolic" properties of caesin were because it coagulated in the gut and had a longer G.E.T. - therefore, slower release of protein and more condusive to keeping your nitrogen balance stable 'cause of time release.
"WP induced a dramatic but short increase of plasma amino acids. CAS induced a prolonged plateau of moderate hyperaminoacidemia, probably because of a slow gastric emptying."
can't see the misrepresentation. have i totally missed the point?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9405716&dopt=Abstract
||61.9.192.140||reg||
Z||000006||jrnc||12-20-2000||03:52 PM||||No, you didn't miss the point whatsoever. The problem is that this study doesn't measure changes in body composition in any human subjects. We can talk all we want about protein synthesis and anti-catabolism, but bodybuilders are really failing to see the forest for the trees. All that really matters is losing fat and gaining muscle, right? If I were to give you a supplement, and you gained muscle and lost fat, would you really care what it did to protein synthesis or Leucine breakdown. Maybe, but you probably wouldn't care, because at least you were bigger and leaner.
The point I'm trying to make is that despite the research you cite from Dr. Boirie, it still doesn't tell us much in terms of how either protein affects body composition -- the only thing bodybuilders care about. The only study that does this fairly is the Lands study. No other study has done this as fairly and objectively as Dr. Lands has. He has shown that Casein causes losses in muscle and bodyfat gains, while whey protein causes gains in muscle and losses in bodyfat. Who cares which one in anti-catabolic, clots, speeds through the GI tract or is oxidized. All you need to care about is which one adds muscle, and which one doesn't. The clear winner is whey protein, not casein. Based on Dr. Lands study, you're not yourself any favors by using Casein.
I'd never tell you what to take -- that's up to you. I'm only presenting the most relevant research to bodybuilders. Remember, when a chemical marker study shows something exciting, it must be kept within context. But in vivo experiments that document the "big picture" are much more indicative of the results possible with a nutritional supplement. ||204.50.185.34||reg||
Z||000007||BarbarianHorde||12-21-2000||01:31 AM||son_of_odin99@hushmail.com||after all, the research on Chromium sounded pretty positive didn't it? pity it was utterly useless after all that.
so what you're saying is a study in body composition found caesin didn't do dick compared to whey, as much as we'd like to theorize about methods of action, and what they variously effect. right.
do you have a URL for the Lands study on PubMed or something? that would be super-appreciated.||61.9.192.140||reg|| Z||000008||jrnc||12-21-2000||07:09 AM|||| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10517767&dopt=Abstract
There's your URL for the lands study. The abstract gives some indication of body composition changes, but not the whole story like I told you. Unfortunately, you have to read the full length paper and do some statistical analysis to get numbers. The stats aren't tough, and if you do get the full length paper, I can show you how to do it if you like. Thanks.||204.50.185.34||reg|| Z||000009||Hyprzo||12-21-2000||01:32 PM||hypr2222@hotmail.com||First off I have a question about the article.It states that the people recieved 20g protein a day (from whey or casein)now what about the rest of their diets.I dont know about other people but I dont get ALL my daily protein from powders.At most i usually get 60g a day from protein powders and about another 200 or so from food.Now isnt protein just protein?Who cares if it comes from beef chicken whey or casein just as long as i get my target amount and the powder meets the manufacturers claims of purity.||24.130.141.18||reg|| Z||000010||jrnc||12-21-2000||04:09 PM||||Protein is simply not just protein. If that were the case, why not survive solely off of corn. It wouldn't be impossible to eat enough corn to garner your 260 grams of protein. But I'll beat you to the punch and tell you why you don't do that -- the amino acid profile is not conducive to muscle growth due to relative deficit of indispensable amino acids.
YOu're somewhat correct in assuming that complete protein sources such as beef, chicken, casein and whey are all good sources. These represent complete protein sources. However, let's just say that some are more complete than others.
Protein types are measured on two important factors.
1. Their digestibility and rate of absorption
2. Their amino acid profile.
So, based on those two criteria, we now have a means by which to determine the best protein source for growth. First off, beef, casein, chicken, fish are digested extremely slowly. This situation is not conducive to protein synthesis. By way of comparison, egg is absorbed a bit quicker, with whey protein being absorbed quickest. Therefore, in terms of digestibility and ease of absorption, whey is superior.
Interestingly, the same holds true for the amino acid profile of whey protein. It is the most conducive to growth as well. Perhaps that's why those in the Lands study gained more muscle and lost fat, while those using casein failed to do so. This is also why the Biological Value of whey protein is higher than any other protein source -- because it's nitrogen retention properties are superior to all other sources.
Sayin "protein is protein" is like saying "a car is a car" regardless of make or model. Would you compare a Gremlin to a mercedes? It's like saying all types of gasoline are the same, when we all know the higher octane fuels burn cleaner and more efficiently.
You are not doing yourself a disservice with your present protein consumption, but you are also not maximizing your potential for growth. But, the choice is yours in terms of which protein to eat and why. ||204.50.185.34||reg||
Z||000011||Hyprzo||12-21-2000||04:45 PM||hypr2222@hotmail.com||I understand the concepts of amino acid profile and the digestibility of proteins.The only thing im concearned about is if casein is a quality protein.I never believed that casein was the best for all situations, i prefer to take whey right after a workout to take advantage of its fast absorbance and casein before going to sleep to keep the level of protein in my body from dropping.The whole reason im interested in casein is to provide a steady release of protein throughout the night.||24.130.141.18||reg||
Z||000012||BarbarianHorde||12-22-2000||10:08 PM||son_of_odin99@hushmail.com||thanks for that bro, i'm competant at stat. analysis. i love learning shit like this ||61.9.192.140||reg||