.

.
marylin monroe
Showing posts with label casein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label casein. Show all posts

Dairy - The Good, the Bad or The Ugly? Latest Studies On Heart Disease, Diabetes, Cancer, Obesity and Co. Plus: What Dairy Peptides Do For Your Heart, Gut, Brain, etc.

Do you take Liz Hurley's word and set all warnings about the "non-paleo-ness" of dairy in general and milk in particular at naught? Or do you put faith into the "got milk?" campaign? Personally, I'd suggest not to do one or the other. I'd rather suggest you join me and take a look at a selection of recent studies.
If you've been following the SuppVersity Facebook News and / or have read previous SuppVersity articles on milk and dairy, you will be aware that I am not exactly convinced that the mere existence of allergic reactions and the "fact" that "our ancestors did not drink milk before ..." *put your favorite guesstimate here* allows for the conclusion that we are "not meant" to consume cow's milk. I am nevertheless open to scientific arguments that would convince me that dairy is bad for me - it's just that I don't see this evidence outside of "western diet + dairy makes you fat and that makes you sick" contexts.

What I do see, though, are papers such as the one Sandra Abreu or the recent review by Flávia Galvão Cândido et al. - studies that tell us that the intake of milk is negatively associated with the clustering of cardiometabolic risk factors in adolescents (Abreu. 2013), and reviews which conclude that "the consumption of low-fat dairy products may be an important strategy to prevent and control T2DM [type 2 diabetes]" (Cândido. 2013).

The evidence that dairy is bad for us all is simply not there

But hey, ... let's tackle the evidence one by one. I mean, there is plenty of news-worthy material here and we don't want the fun to be over prematurely, do we? So, let's start with a brief sketch of what Sandra Abreu and her colleagues from the University of Porto base their assessment that the intake of milk, but not total dairy, yogurt, or cheese, is negatively associated with the clustering of cardiometabolic risk factors in Spanish adolescents - shall we?
No! Full-fat dairy is not bad for you: While most of the epidemiological studies with their hilariously unreliable food questionnaires appear to suggest that only low fat dairy was good for your heart, a recent study from the Harvard School of Public Health found a clever way to test the association more objectively. Instead of questioning their subjects, 2837 US adults aged 45 to 84 years, they tested the amount of certain phospholipids in their blood and found that "plasma phospholipid 15:0, a biomarker of dairy fat, was inversely associated with incident CVD [-19%] and CHD [-26%]." (de Oliveira Otto. 2013) The fact that other dairy related phospholipids were not associated (neither positive nor negative) with cardiovascular and coronary heart disease risk does yet, as the scientists rightly point out, warrant further investigation.
"To test th[e] hypothesis [that a higher dairy product intake is associated with lower cardiometabolic risk factor clustering in adolescents], a cross-sectional study was conducted with 494 adolescents aged 15 to 18 years from the Azorean Archipelago, Portugal. We measured fasting glucose, insulin, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, body fat, and cardiorespiratory fitness. We also calculated homeostatic model assessment and total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio. For each one of these variables, a z score was computed using age and sex. A cardiometabolic risk score (CMRS) was constructed by summing up the z scores of all individual risk factors. High risk was considered to exist when an individual had at least 1 SD from this score. Diet was evaluated using a food frequency questionnaire, and the intake of total dairy (included milk, yogurt, and cheese), milk, yogurt, and cheese was categorized as low (equal to or below the median of the total sample) or “appropriate” (above the median of the total sample). The association between dairy product intake and CMRS was evaluated using separate logistic regression, and the results were adjusted for confounders." (Abreu. 2013)
I know that sounds really sophisticated, but in the end, it's just standard procedure for cross-sectional studies like this - studies with one unfortunate downside: It's impossible to detect causal relationships. 
Figure 1: Dietary intake in the low and "adequate" dairy-, milk-, yogurt-intake groups (Abreu. 2013)
Keep that in mind, when you take a closer look at the data in Figure 2 which indicates that the average adolescent milk connoisseur of whom you can see in Figure 1 that he / she consumes significantly more energy on a daily basis has a significantly reduced cardiometabolic risk (predicted by cardiometabolic risk score; CMRS):
Figure 2: Cardiometabolic risk in "adequate" vs. low dairy, milk, yogurt and cheese consuming adolescents; adjusted for parental education , pubertal stage, low-energy reporter, energy intake, total fat , protein , and dietary fiber intake.
I personally was surprised to see a statistically significant protective effect only with milk - it's not that I had expected to see that for all forms of dairy, but based on previous studies I would have expected the fermented yogurt products to outperform conventional milk.

The negative effects of cheese on the other hand are by no means surprising. Food logs do after all include all types of "cheese" including the fake yellow vegetable oil based cheese analogues the kids shovel down with their pizzas, burgers and the rest of the fast food dirt. A high cheese intake has thus (unfortunately) become an indicator of low diet quality and the results of the study at hand hardly a credible marker that cheese is bad for you.

If 95% of your "dairy intake" comes from pizza, you are unlikely to see...

... any of the following benefits of dairy peptides, Blanca Hernández-Ledesma, María José García-Nebot, Samuel Fernández-Tomé, Lourdes Amigo, and Isidra Recio summarized in a soon-to-be-published review in the peer-reviewed scientific journal International Dairy Science:
  • Figure 3: Reduction of systolic blood pressure in mmHg per mg/kg of the said peptide you consume - mind the logarithmic scale(!); data calculated based on rodent studies summarized in Hernández-Ledesma (2014)
    Cardiovascular health effects due to the antihypertensive, anti-inflammatory, general antioxidant and hypocholesterolaemic properties of various dairy peptides
  • Intestinal health effects due to the ability of dairy peptides to modulate and regenerate the gut mucosa, increase mineral absorption, exert local anti-inflammatory effects at the gastrointestinal level
  • Antidiabesity effects that are related to both direct pro-insulinogenic effects of dairy peptides ant their ability to increase satiety. 
  • Central nervous system relaxant and antinociceptive (pain-killing) effects
  • Immune health which is promoted by antimicrobial and immunomodulatory peptides that are either already present in dairy or arise during the digestion process
  • Anticancer effects that are mediated by the overall anti-inflammatory properties of certain dairy peptides, as well as direct anti-proliferative effects of dairy
Now, it goes without saying that you won't see the same effect from eating some goat kefir as Miguel et al. (2010) observed it, when they administered fraction 58-68 of goat casein to their lab rodents, but the data in Figure 3 can explain the well-established blood pressure lowering effects of dairy in general and the whey and casein induced BP reduction Figueroa et al. observed only recently in a study with obese women (Figueroa. 2013; see SuppVersity Facebook News).
Bottom line: You can't expect dairy to fully protect you against diabesity, cancer and a leaky, you can't expect it to lean you out in days, and you can't expect it to build muscle overnight, but you can expect general health benefits not detriments from incorporating a variety of fermented and unfermented dairy products into your diet - as long as you ain't lactose intolerant.

"Are Camels the Better Cows? Cancer, CVD, Allergies,Infections & More - Camel Milk Prevents or Fixes All These Ailments" | more
One thing you should keep in mind, though, is the unfortunate fact that the amount of "non-dairy" cheese, cream and other products is increasing by the day. Especially the former, the fake yellow vegetable oil based cheese analogues is something you want to avoid. The same goes for many of low fat products. While much of the "magic" is in the peptides, most of the commercially available "diet" products contain tons of sugar and all sorts of questionable additive to make up for the loss of color, taste and texture that's brought about by the removal of the fat. And lastly all products that extend the shelf-life to "eternity" by adding questionable preservatives.
References
  • Abreu, S., Moreira, P., Moreira, C., Mota, J., Moreira-Silva, I., Santos, P. C., & Santos, R. (2013). Intake of milk, but not total dairy, yogurt, or cheese, is negatively associated with the clustering of cardiometabolic risk factors in adolescents. Nutrition Research.
  • Cândido, F.G., Ton, T. S., & Alfenas, R. D. C. G. (2013). Dairy products consumption versus type 2 diabetes prevention and treatment; a review of recent findings from human studies. Nutr Hosp, 28(5), 1384-1395.
  • de Oliveira Otto, M. C., Nettleton, J. A., Lemaitre, R. N., Steffen, L. M., Kromhout, D., Rich, S. S., ... & Mozaffarian, D. (2013). Biomarkers of dairy fatty acids and risk of cardiovascular disease in the multi‐ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Journal of the American Heart Association, 2(4), e000092.
  • Figueroa, A., Wong, A., Kinsey, A., Kalfon, R., Eddy, W., & Ormsbee, M. J. (2013). Effects of Milk Proteins and Combined Exercise Training on Aortic Hemodynamics and Arterial Stiffness in Young Obese Women With High Blood Pressure. American Journal of Hypertension, hpt224. 
  • Freedman, B. J. (1980). Sulphur dioxide in foods and beverages: its use as a preservative and its effect on asthma. British Journal of Diseases of the Chest, 74, 128-134.
  • Hernández-Ledesma, B., García-Nebot, M.J., Fernández-Tomé, S., Amigo, L.,
    Recio, I., Dairy protein hydrolysates: Peptides for health benefits, International Dairy Journal(2014), ahead of print
  • Iammarino, M., Di Taranto, A., Palermo, C., & Muscarella, M. (2011). Survey of benzoic acid in cheeses: contribution to the estimation of an admissible maximum limit. Food Additives and Contaminants: Part B, 4(4), 231-237.

Whey or Casein? Which Would be the Better "Staple" Protein Source for Your Trip to Desert Island?

Image 1: They are both sourced from cow's milk, but which is the better part? Whey, the byproduct of cheese production, or casein the cheese protein, itself? A recent study would suggest that it's the "waste product" you would have to chose if you could only have one.
"Whey is the way to go!" I suppose even I have had a headline like that in one or even several of the daily news items, here at the SuppVersity - and rightly, so! With it's high content of branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) this fast-digesting protein source is certainly the #1 choice for anyone whose goal is to build lean muscle tissue. Whey's slow-digesting brother casein, on the other hand, is often hailed as the "muscle-preservative", the 24h-protein source that will prevent muscle catabolism, when for whatever outrageous reason (like sleep, for example) you cannot ingest your bi-hourly protein shake... well, I guess those of you who have been following the Intermittent Thoughts on Intermittent Fasting will already be "rolling on the floor laughing", but hey! Do we really know whether casein or whey would be the better "staple" protein - I mean, if you sipped it throughout the day?

Casein vs. whey - which one to chose if you cannot have both?

While I would not say that one study could provide a definite answer to this question, the results of a recently published paper by Stéphane Walrand et al. (Walrand. 2011) provides further evidence that whey, not casein would be your best choice - regardless of the diminished return that comes with sipping it.
Figure 1: Ingredients of the 6 diets the rats in the Walrand study were fed for 5 months; CAS = casein, WHEY = whey (data adapted from Walrand. 2011)
In their long-term (5 months!) feeding study, the scientists supplied 21 week old male Winstar rats (at the beginning of the study the animals were thus "middle-aged") with one out of 6 experimental diets (cf. figure 1). The composition of the diets differed not only in their total energy and protein content (ad libitum = 440kj/day; energy restricted only 60%, i.e. 264kj/day), but also with regard to the protein content and source (casein vs. whey). In that, it is particularly noteworthy is that the "energy restricted" diet was actually a "high protein" diet. After all, the protein content of the latter was identical to the one of the rats that had free access to  (the group that was "only" energy restricted received was matched to the average protein consumption of the ad-libitum fed rats.
Figure 2: Effect of 5 months of the experimental diets on muscle and fat weight of male Wistar rats (data adapted from Walrand. 2011)
Contrary, to what you may have expected, the "protein deficient" protein & energy restricted diet did yet not lead to profound losses of lean muscle tissue (cf. figure 2). On the contrary, the protein & energy restricted group that received whey protein as their exclusive protein source had 5% and 2% greater soleus and tibialis anterior mass than the ones that received the "high protein" energy restricted diet. Before you start questioning the value of "high" protein intakes when dieting, you should yet better take a look at the impact of the "high" protein content of the non-protein-restricted diet had on the diet induced reductions of the abdominal fat mass. I mean -87% reduced abdominal fat in the energy & protein reduced group is impressive, the neigh complete annihilation of the abdominal fat (-93%) in the non-protein restricted group, on the other hand, is mind-boggling.
Figure 3: Effect of 5 months of the experimental diets on muscle and fat weight of male Wistar rats (data adapted from Walrand. 2011)
If we also consider the nitrogen balance and the absolute rates of muscle protein synthesis (cf. figure 3), it also becomes evident why the rats on the protein & energy reduced diets retained slightly more lean mass (+3%), when they were fed whey protein, instead of casein. The rats who received whey as their main protein source simply had a favorable nitrogen balance and increased muscle protein synthesis.
Image 2: Sardines for diabetes prevention!?
Before you now throw away your eggs, your cheese, your beef and whatever else, I want to briefly introduce you to the results of two other recently published studies, which would indicate that rotating in some sardines or sheep meat could produce even more favorable results than living on whey alone. While Madani et al. found that sardine protein ameliorated fructose-induced hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, hyperlipidemia and inflammation (vs. casein) in a 2-months rodent study (Madani. 2011), Feng et al. report that the consumption of sheep meat instead of casein lead to increases in free T3 (thyroid hormone) and statistically significant increases in energy expenditure in Sprague-Dawley rats that were fed otherwise identical diets (Feng. 2011).
Despite these and the results of previous studies, most of which would suggest that if you had to chose just one protein source, whey or casein, whey should be the protein of choice, I hope that I do not have to tell you, as a diligent student of the SuppVersity that imbalances are the root cause of many, if not most modern diseases. So, getting all your protein from whey and nothing but whey should not be something you should even remotely take into consideration. And in case you forgot about that: Milk has both of them and a ton of other vital nutrients ;-)

Milk, a Glucose Uptake Promoter That's More Than the Sum of Its Parts. Plus: HICA & HMB in Yogurt. How Much EAA in Your Protein? Raw Milk Does not Cure Lactose Intolerance

Milk is one of the few foods that are advertized by celebrities that could actually be good for you (photo from the "Got Milk" campaign)
I hope you are not fed up with milk and dairy, yet, because today's SuppVersity short news have a ton of it. What exactly?

Well, after taking a closer look at the surprisingly high amount of HICA and the comparatively small amount of HMB in yogurt and reviewing the EAA content of six common protein sources, we are going to delve deeper into the latest evidence that shows that milk is much more than the sum of its parts, i.e. milk protein, lactose and fat and conclude on a note on another widely known Internet myth that says that people with lactose intolerance could drink raw milk without a problem.
You can learn more about dairy at the SuppVersity

Dairy Has Branched-Chain Fatty Acids!

Is There Sth. Like a Dairy Weight Loss Miracle?

There is Good A2 and Bad A1 Dairy, True or False?

Lactulose For Your Gut & Overall Health

Is There a "Fat Advantage" for Dairy Lovers

Dairy, Diabetes, Estrogen, IGF-1, Cancer & More
  • Figure 1: Amount of HICA & HMB (in µg/L) in commercial whole milk and yogurt (Ehling. 2014)
    Significant amounts of HMB and specifically HICA in yogurt. We all know that yogurt is among the dairy products with the most evidence of significant health benefits. That yogurt could be a decent muscle builder, on the other hand, would be news.

    With ~5 mg of β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyric acid (HMB) and up to 12.5 mg of α-hydroxyisocaproic acid (HICA) yogurt would have what it takes if the values of HMB and HICA Stefan Ehling and Todime M. Reddy measured in regular yogurt were on a per gram, not a per liter basis (Ehling. 2014).
  • How much EAA in my protein? Since I have been repeatedly questioned about the essential amino acid content in whey, milk, soy, and egg protein. I have published Table 1 which originally appeared in a 2010 study by Hulmi et al. on Facebook, already.
    Table 1: Approximate amino acid composition of popular protein powders (Hulmi. 2010)
    For those of you who are missing out on the daily 12+ SuppVersity Facebook News, because they haven't liked www.facebook.com/SuppVersity, yet. I will now publish it again - as a reference source, if you will.
  • Milk a glucose uptake promoter that's more than the sum of its parts. In view of the fact that we have already two dairy related news in today's SuppVersity article, I decided to have another "milky news" in today's SuppVersity short news item. One all the milk-drinkers among the SuppVersity readers will cherish.

    Recently, Shirin Panahi and colleagues from the University of Toronto, the Mount Saint Vincent University and the University of Guelph published the results of a randomized, cross-over study that was conducted to prove / disprove the hypothesis that
    "[T]hat regulation of postprandial glycemia after milk consumption occurs through both insulin and insulin-independent actions due to interactions among its macronutrient components and energy content. The objective was to compare the effects of isovolumetric (500ml) beverages of whole milk (3.25% M.F.), each of its macronutrient components (protein, lactose and fat) and their combination (a simulated milk beverage) on postprandial glycemia, glucoregulatory and gastrointestinal hormones and gastric emptying in healthy young men" (Panahi. 2014).
    In the course of the study, the 12 young, male subjects consumed beverages containing 500 ml of whole milk (3.25% M.F.) (control), a simulated milk beverage based on milk macronutrients or milk protein (16g), lactose (24g) and milk fat (16g) in isolation.
    Table 2: Nutritional composition of the test meals | a Composition of each beverage as provided by
    the manufacturer; b amounts given are per 500ml serving. Paracetamol (1.5g), vanilla extract (1.2ml)
    and sucralose (0.02g) were added to all beverages (Panahi. 2014).
    What the researchers found was that both the whole and simulated milk had similar beneficial effects on blood glucose rise after their "meal" (drink), but as it turned out the simulated milk resulted in a significantly higher (41%) glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) production and lower (43%) ghrelin areas under the curve (AUC) than whole milk (P=.01 and P=.04, respectively).
    Figure 2: Glucose, insulin, c-peptite, rate of insulin secretion, GLP-1, PYY, CKK
    and ghrelin levels after the test "meals" expressed relative to the sum of the effects
    of the same amount of milk protein, lactose and fat (Panahi. 2014)
    Now, all that would hardly be newsworthy (at least not for regular SuppVersity readers, if the two samples, i.e. both the whole and simulated milk, didn't lower the glucose (P=.0005) levels more than predicted by the sum of AUCs for their components (see Figure 2)!
    "Adjusted for energy content, milks produced lower glucose and hormone responses than predicted from the sum of their components. The effect of protein/kcal on the AUCs was higher than fat/kcal for insulin, C-peptide, insulin secretion rate, GLP-1, CCK and paracetamol (P < .0001), but similar to lactose except for CCK and paracetamol, which were lower. The response in PYY and ghrelin was similar per unit of energy for each macronutrient" (Panahi. 2014).
    In other words: Milk is way more than the sum of it's parts. In that, the "regulation of postprandial glycemia after milk consumption occurs through both insulin and insulin-independent actions due to interactions among its macronutrient components and energy content to achieve lower postprandial glycemia than predicted from the sum of its components" (Panahi. 2014).
If you haven't read it, already, take a look at my rebuttal to the latest assault on milk | read more
Bottom line: Quite the "milky" short news, right? Well, I guess it may be worth topping off all these good news about dairy products with a bad one. The common "Internet wisdom" that raw milk could offset the problems of people with lactose intolerance is a myth.
According to a 2014 paper by Sarah Mummah et al. who tested this myth in 16 adults with self-reported lactose intolerance and lactose malabsorption confirmed by hydrogen (H2) breath testing, "raw milk fail[s] to reduce lactose malabsorption or lactose intolerance symptoms compared with pasteurized milk among adults positive for lactose malabsorption." (Mummah. 2014) The "raw milk can be consumed by anyone" anecdote does thus belong to the realms of scientifically unwarranted die-hard bro-science | Comment on Facebook!
References:
  • Ehling, Stefan, and Todime M. Reddy. "Investigation of the Presence of β-Hydroxy-β-methylbutyric Acid and α-Hydroxyisocaproic Acid in Bovine Whole Milk and Fermented Dairy Products by a Validated Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry Method." Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 62.7 (2014): 1506-1511.
  • Hulmi, Juha J., Christopher M. Lockwood, and Jeffrey R. Stout. "Review Effect of protein/essential amino acids and resistance training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy: A case for whey protein." (2010).
  • Mummah, Sarah, et al. "Effect of Raw Milk on Lactose Intolerance: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study." The Annals of Family Medicine 12.2 (2014): 134-141. 
  • Panahi, Shirin, et al. "Mechanism of action of whole milk and its components on glycemic control in healthy young men." The Journal of nutritional biochemistry (2014).

    43% More Protein 10x Higher 24h Net Protein Retention: It Takes 0.32g/kg Whey + Casein Post Workout to Establish a Positive Nitrogen Balance After Running + Cycling Ex.

    The kids who were the subjects in the study at hand didn't lift. They ran and cycled and still ended up in a positive nitrogen balance - thanks to post-workout protein supplementation.
    As a SuppVersity reader you are familiar with the results of previous studies investigating the effects of post-workout protein ingestion. Studies that revealed that it takes ~20-30g of whey protein to maximize acute protein synthesis in adults.

    In an upcoming issue of the Journal of Applied Physiology researchers from the Nestle Research Center are now about to publish what I believe is a unique study investigating the net protein balance (=synthesis minus breakdown) over 8h and 24h after the workout in response to the ingestion of different amounts of whey + casein (at a 1:4 ratio) immediately after a standardized running and cycling intervention (Moore. 2014)
    You can learn more about protein intake at the SuppVersity

    Protein Timing DOES Matter!

    5x More Than the FDA Allows!

    Protein requ. of athletes

    High EAA protein for fat loss

    Fast vs. slow protein

    Less Fat, More Muscle!
    In contrast to "the average" protein synthesis study, the study at hand didn't just use an unusual subject group consisting of 6 female and 7 male kids (mean age 11.7 years), the type of exercise and the method the scientists used to determine the usefulness of the low (0.75g/100ml) and high (1.5g/100ml) protein beverages were different as well.
    Figure 1: Graphical overview of the study design (Moore. 2014)
    In view of the recently flaring doubts about the significance of post-exercise acute net protein synthesis as a predictor of training-induced muscle synthesis and the existing evidence that there is no reliable association between the wto (Mitchell. 2014), it is particularly interesting that the team Swiss US, and Canadian researchers measured both, protein breakdown and synthesis, which were calculated by measuring the concentration of the major nitrogen-containing metabolites urea and  creatinine were determined in the urine of the subjects, to determine the net protein retention, i.e. the amount of protein that actually remained in the system for 8h and 24h, respectively.
    Overview of the total energy and macronutrient intake (Moore. 2014)
    Strict dietary control is another strength of the study at hand, which was part of a larger investigation the data of which has not yet been published: Participants were provided with a controlled diet for the 24h period during which protein metabolism measures were performed. Resting energy requirements were estimated using standard equations and were corrected with an activity factor of 1.5.

    Aside from the energy and macronutrient profiles of the test beverages, the 24h controlled diets were supplied as isoenergetic breakfast and lunch meals (consumed within the laboratory providing ~11 and 40% of 24h energy intake, respectively) and dinner meals (consumed outside the laboratory providing ~35% of 24h energy intake) with the remaining ~14% of energy coming from the test beverages. The breakfast, lunch, and dinner meals were also isoprotein and provided ~15, 45, and 40% of the 24h food protein intake, respectively, with the test beverages providing a variable amount of protein in addition to the meal protein intake.
    As you can see in Figure 2 the results were not extremely different from what we already saw in the previously mentioned acute protein synthesis studies. Only the high dose protein supplementation that contained 12.8 ± 3.6 g protein (i.e. 0.32 ± 0.07 g/kg and thus ~25.6g for a 80g human being) supplement established a significantly increase in net protein balance.
    Figure 2: Protein breakdown, synthesis and net protein balance over 24h (Moore. 2014)
    If you take a close look at the left columns of Figure 2 you will even see that the 24h net protein metabolism was in fact slightly negative. Moreover, the study confirms what you've previously read here at the SuppVersity an increase in protein availability is - specifically at stable total energy intakes - always associated with an increase in protein breakdown.

    Last but not least it may be important to mention that the total protein intake was (a) not extremely different between the three groups (see figure in "tight dietary control" box) and that (b) it was actually below the kids habitual protein intake of 1.56g/kg which would suggest that it is unlikely that some sort of accommodation effect may occur over time.
    Nice, but what are the implications? Stick to your 30g post-workout whey protein shake. It's unlikely that this is less effective than a whey + casein combination as it was used in the study at hand if you make sure to follow your PWO shake up with a high protein meal (at least 10g of EAAs) within 2h after your workout. If you can't do that, I would rather add another 10g of casein on top of the 30g of whey - it's after all the leucine in whey that triggers the additional increase in protein synthesis after a workout.
    Speaking of protein intake: Eventually we cannot say, though, what kind of protein we are talking about, here. As limited as the direct quantification of acute myofibrilar (or sarcoplasmic) protein synthesis may be, it has one major advantage over the method that was used in the study at hand: it is muscle specific.

    In contrast, measuring the nitrogen metabolites in the urine, which was the method of choice in the study at hand is not muscle-specific. If it wasn't for previous evidence from the previously criticized, but by no means useless studies that investigated the acute myofibrilar protein synthesis in response to exercise we could thus argue that the difference in net protein balance is due to the exercise induced protein loss in the liver (Millward. 1982) or the gastrointestinal tract (de Oliveira. 2009). The way it is, we can yet be more or less sure that most of the protein will have ended up in the muscle | Comment on Facebook!
    Reference:
    • de Oliveira, Erick Prado, and Roberto Carlos Burini. "The impact of physical exercise on the gastrointestinal tract." Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care 12.5 (2009): 533-538. 
    • Millward, DAVID J., et al. "Effect of exercise on protein metabolism in humans as explored with stable isotopes." Federation proceedings. Vol. 41. No. 10. 1982.
    • Mitchell, Cameron J., et al. "Acute Post-Exercise Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis Is Not Correlated with Resistance Training-Induced Muscle Hypertrophy in Young Men." PloS one 9.2 (2014): e89431.
    • Moore et al. "Post-exercise protein ingestion increases whole body net protein balance in healthy children." J Appl Physiol (October 23, 2014). Article in press.

    Faster Muscle Hypertrophy, Lower Visceral & Liver Fat, Trig & Glucose Levels W/ Fish vs. Casein | Plus: Shift From Slow to Fast Twitch Muscle Interesting for Strength Athletes

    If casein protein is good for slow and fish protein is good for fast twitch muscle, "fish and cheese" would be the perfect muscle food, no? Read the whole article and find out if that's the case.
    As a SuppVersity reader you've read about the "wonders" of fish protein before. If I am not completely mistaken, though, the study at hand which is about to be published in the peer-reviewed journal Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry very soon, is the "fish protein study" with the most impressive results.

    So impressive, in fact, that I am willing to write about it, although the study was conducted with "hairy" athletes aka rodents. So, let's not make it too exciting and start with the main results, right away: Fuminori Kawabata and his Japanese colleagues found that fish protein intake increases fast-twitch muscle weight, reduces liver triglycerides and serum glucose levels in rats, compared with a casein diet.
    You can learn more about protein intake at the SuppVersity

    Are You Protein Wheysting?

    Cod protein for recovery

    Salmon Hydro. > Whey?

    High EAA protein for fat loss

    Fast vs. slow protein

    Phys. response to Cod protein
    As you can see in Figure 1, the improvements in lipid management were significant specifically for the triglycerides in the blood and liver of the rodents who were fed iso-caloric diets containing either casein or fish protein for 8 weeks.
    Figure 1: Changes in serum and liver lipids; * indicates statistical significance (Kawabata. 2014)
    In view of the close relationship between triglyceride and glucose management (remember the TRIG has a carbohydrate backbone), it's not really surprising that there was a small, but statistically significant improved (=lower) glucose response to the oral glucose tolerance test, as well (see Figure 2).

    Figure 2: Improved glucose clearance during oral glucose tolerance test at the end of the 8 week study period in the fish vs. casein protein groups (Kawabata. 2014)
    If we look at the underlying mechanisms, we'd have to name the following findings as potential mechanistic causes of these effects:
    • an increase in muscle mass in the fish vs. casein fed rodents (9.5% soleus muscle, 9.7% gastrocnemius, 10% extensor digitorum longus muscle)
    • reductions in white fat (-3% total; -11% visceral) and non significant increases in brown fat (+1%)
    • increases in muscle GLUT-4 expression (+39%)
    With the latter, i.e. the upregulation of genes involved in the fast-twitch muscle and glucose uptake, probably being the most significant change in terms of blood glucose management.
    Will you see the same results with eating fish? I doubt they will be identical to the consumption of faster-absorbing fish protein powders (which taste like crap, by the way), but the study at hand should certainly be an incentive to up your fish intake... you won't regret it, although it's not going to make you big and ripped instantaneously. Even if you're planning to have a baby, scientists from the University of Washington have calculated that the benefits in terms of reduced myocardial infarction risk outweigh any potential issues with increased mercury intake from fish (Ponce. 2000) | Learn more about the healthiest fish and "Make the Right Fish Choices"!
    In addition, Kawabata et al. found that the consumption of fish vs. casein protein led to a small but significant relative increase of type II (fast twitch; resistance training; see Figure 3 at the bottom) vs. type I (slow twitch; endurance training) fibers:
    "Since there were no reported protein sources that affect musclefiber-type changes, and overall, very few foods change muscle fiber type from slow to fast, the possibility of switch to fast-twitch muscle caused by fish protein observed in the present study is thought to be a significant phenomenon in thefield of skeletal muscle physiology." (Kawabata. 2014)
    Now, the obvious question is: "We see changes, but what's so different about fish vs. sodium caseinate - is it the amino acid composition?

    Table 1: Amino acid component and nutritional analysis of protein sources (Kawabata. 2014).
    Table 1 shows the amino acid composition of the fish and casein protein that was added the rodent diets. Among the things that could maybe explain the differences are taurine (no taurine in casein, ~0.5% in fish protein), glycine (+2.4%), cystine (+0.7%), and arginine (+2.58%).

    All of the aforementioned amino acids have previously been linked to improvement in blood glucose and / or blood lipid management, but it's hard to believe that the small inter-protein differences could explain the significant differences.

    Furthermore, casein protein contains a higher amount of BCAAs which would stand in contrast to its inferior muscle building effects in the non-exercised Sprague Dawley rats in the study at hand.
    Figure 3: The effect offish protein on myosin heavy chain gene expressions in the soleus and extensor digitorum longus muscles
    Bottom line: I am afraid, I cannot tell you why fish protein favors type II muscle growth. What I can tell you, though, is that this is not the first study to observe that fish vs. casein protein leads to increased muscle gains in type II muscle fibers. The fact that the inter-group differences in this study compared to a previous 4 weeks study by Mizushige et al. were significantly more pronounced do also suggest that the beneficial effects of fish protein on skeletal muscle weight are enhanced by extending the fish protein feeding period (Mizushige. 2010).

    A possible explanation for the general increase in fiber size would be a reduction in atrophy-related ubiquitin ligases the scientists observed in the study at hand.

    The general change from fat utilization (lipoprotein lipase, an enzyme that breaks down triglycerides, was sign. reduced in the fish oil group) to carbohydrate utilization (GLUT-4 & co were increasd), on the other hand, could explain the improvements in glucose management and reductions in triglycerides. Still, "[f]urther investigations are needed to elucidate whether fish protein intake shifts muscle fiber type from slow to fast." Comment on Facebook!
    References:
    • Kawabata, Fuminori, et al. "Fish protein intake induces fast-muscle hypertrophy and reduces liver lipids and serum glucose levels in rats." Bioscience, biotechnology, and biochemistry ahead-of-print (2014): 1-8. 
    • Mizushige, Takafumi, et al. "Fast-twitch muscle hypertrophy partly induces lipid accumulation inhibition with Alaska pollack protein intake in rats." Biomedical Research 31.6 (2010): 347-352.
    • Ponce, Rafael A., et al. "Use of Quality‐Adjusted Life Year Weights with Dose‐Response Models for Public Health Decisions: A Case Study of the Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption." Risk Analysis 20.4 (2000): 529-542.

    True or False: There is Good A2 and Bad A1 Casein and Eating the too Much A1 Containing Regular Dairy is Going to Make You Fat, Sick and Insulin Resistant!

    "A1 beta-casein is a health risk regular dairy consumers are exposed to." Truth or science fiction even Marvel would be ashamed to propagate?
    It sounds like yet another of these Internet humbug myths, but you will hardly believe it, there is actually a recent study investigating the differential effects of A1 vs. A2 beta-casein - and it's not a rodent study (Ho. 2014)!

    The scientists from the Curtin University were intrigued by the previous in-vitro and animal studies which suggest that digestion of A1 but not A2 beta-casein affects the gastrointestinal motility and inflammation through the release of beta-casomorphin-7.

    In their latest study, Ho, Woodford, Kukuljan & Pal did thus aim to "evaluate differences in gastrointestinal effects in a human adult population between milk containing A1 versus A2 beta-casein." (Ho. 2014)
    You can learn more about dairy at the SuppVersity

    Dairy Has Branched-Chain Fatty Acids!

    Is There Sth. Like a Dairy Weight Loss Miracle?

    Foods, Not Ma- cronutrients Build Healthy Guts

    Lactulose For Your Gut & Overall Health

    Is There a "Fat Advantage" for Dairy Lovers

    Dairy, Diabetes, Estrogen, IGF-1, Cancer & More
    Before we get to the results let's briefly review why these differential gastrointestinal effects would even be relevant. So let's see what Ho et al. have to say about that:
    "Beta-casein is the second most abundant casein type in cows’ milk and comprises ~ 30% of total milk protein. There are two families of beta-casein proteins, known as A1 and A2 beta-casein ‘types’. The A1 type variant arose in European herds from the original A2 type ~ 5000–10 000 years ago from a Proline 67 to Histidine 67 point mutation. In countries that have dairy cows of northern European ancestry, the relative proportions of the co-dominant A1 to A2 beta-casein alleles are typically 1:1 in cows, which then produce the same ratio of A1 to A2 beta-casein in milk. This tends to be lower in breeds from Southern Europe." (Ho. 2014)
    As you can see, it's hard to tell, how much A1 "your" milk actually contains. In view of the fact that the A2-only cattle is less productive, you can be pretty certain, though, that the milk you can buy at the supermarket contains significant amounts of A1 beta-casein. Accordingly, there will be a certaion amount of A1 that is converted to the bioactive opioid peptide betacasomorphin-7 (BCM-7) whenever you drink a glass of milk (compared to A1, A2 beta-casein releases much less and probably minimal amounts of BCM-7 under normal gut conditions (De Noni. 1999; Schmelzer. 2007;  Cielinkska. 2012)

    So BCM-7 is the villain, here?

    BCM-7 is a mu-opioid receptor ligand. It will dock to the mu-opioid receptors which are expressed widely throughout your body - most prominently, obviously, to those in your gut.

    If you are looking for something to freak out about, how about homogenization? Try my article "New Research Fuels the Flames on Concerns About Ill Health Effects of Homogenized Milk" | learn more.
    From rodent studies we know that the increased transit time and potential downstream on the release and stability of incretin hormones (GLP1, GIP & co), which are involved in the release of insulin and appetite control (Barnett. 2014). In that, the degradatin of GLP1 & co is rather collateral damage that occurs, when the body produces an enzyme to break down the BCM-7 peptides in the gut.

    The degradation of "satiety hormones" is yet only one negative side effect Barnett et al. observed. In addition, they found that A1 feeding relative to A2 feeding significantly increased the colonic activity of the inflammatory marker myeloperoxidase by ~ 65%. Unlike the degradation of GLP, GIP & co, this effect which was significantly more pronounced (+207%) in a previous study by Haq et al. (2013), where only A1, in the absence of other molecules from milk was administered, was directly mediated by the activation of the opioid receptors in the gut.

    The scientists from the National Dairy Research Institute in India were also able to show that the intestinal interleukin-4 and immunoglobulin E levels as well as the leukocyte infiltration increased with A1 compared with A2 feeding.
    Why does all this matter? In view of the accumulating evidence that intestinal inflammation disturbs not just the colonic microbiota composition and enhances pathogen growth, but has negative downstream effects on one's overall metabolic health, any changes in intestinal markers of inflammation could be potentially health relevant.
    BCM-7 has also been reported to alter human intestinal lymphocyte proliferation and promote mucus secretion via MUC5AC mu-opioid receptor activation (Trompette. 2003; Zoghbi. 2006). Now these in vitro studies would be more or less irrelevant, if
    "[...] bovine BCM-7 [had not] been detected in the jejunal effluents in humans fed 30 g of casein in amounts compatible with a biological action, which confirms the identification ~30 years earlier of immunoreactive BCM-7 materials in the aspirated small intestinal contents of healthy male adults following milk intake." (Ho. 2014)
    Bovine immunoreactive BCM-7 has also been detected in the blood of human infants fed cows’ milkbased infant formula and some Internet sources claim that they are partly responsible for the increased allergy-risk in formula-fed babies. Still, scientists like A.S. Truswell believe that the in-vitro evidence is insufficient and highlight that they "have not yet seen clear evidence that this peptide is released and active in humans in vivo," (Truswell. 2006) citing Svedberget al. (1985) as an example, who found peptides in the human small intestine after the ingestion of 1l of bovine milk that reacted immunologically as if beta-casomorphin 7 but it did not show opioid activity or behave  chromatographically as authentic beta-casomorphin-7.

    With its opiod-receptor interactions there is still a plausible mechanism that could explain some, but not all of the often cited ill health effects. A human study which assessed whether A1 relative to A2 beta-casein-containing milk imparts different gastrointestinal effects in human adults, however has not been conducted before.

    It's time for real human data, now!

    It was thus about time for Ho et al. to approach this issue by investigating the the gastrointestinal effects of dietary A1 versus A2 beta-casein-containing milk in adults using subjective and objective measures of gastrointestinal performance.

    In an 8-week cross-over study, 12 men and 29 women (19–68 years) from Perth, Western Australia, were randomly assigned to one of two groups for 2 weeks, following a 2-week dairy washout in which rice milk substituted dairy milk (A1) milk containing beta-casein of A1 type (n= 21); or (A2) milkcontaining beta-casein of A2 type (n= 20). Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) milk allergy; (2) diagnosed lactose intolerance; (3) pregnancy/ lactation; (4) cardiovascular events in the last 6 months; (5) opioid consumption; (6) antibiotic treatment in the previous 8 weeks; and (7) immunosuppressive medication or anti-inflammatory drugs in the 4 weeks before screening. Before crossing over to part II of the study, the participants underwent a second 2-week dairy.
    One thing that may be relevant for the interpretation of the study results is the fact that a subgroup (n= 10) had self-reported intolerance to commercial milk - a problem that could be related to the comparatively high A1 beta-casein content of milk. The fact that three participants withdrew from the study during the A1, but only one of the patients withdrew during the A2 phase would further support the notion that A1 beta casein does - at least - increase the risk of milk intolerance and gastroinstestinal overreactions.
    During the 2-week A1 and A2 beta-casein interventions, participants were instructed to consume 750 ml/day of their allocated milk (containing ~ 7.5 g of either A1 or A2 beta-casein) over the day and to avoid all other dairy products. The A1 and A2 milk were both standardised to the following nutrition
    profile per 100 ml: energy 189 kJ, total protein 3.1 g, total fat 2.5 g and lactose 5.2 g; no other known differences existed.
    "Proteome Analysis Facility, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia) of the A1 and A2 milk showed that the A1-type beta-casein proportion of total beta-casein was 499% in the A1 milk and⩽0.5% in the A2 milk."
    The milk was processed and packed in identical 1-l UHT plain packages (blinding participants and the investigator to each milk intervention) by Pactum Australia Pty Limited, Taren Point, NSW, Australia, to ensure successful blinding.

    The assessments, the scientists did included anthropometry, diet and physical activity measurements, a test for markers of inflammation in the gut, and subjective recording of gastrointestinal symptoms. The tummy aches, flatulence, stool consistency, etc. as well as the general food intake and compliance, i.e. "did I ingest my milk, or didn't I" were recorded in daily logs. An analysis of these logs revealed that the
    [...m]ean compliance with the A1 and A2 diets was 96.2% (±5.3) and 96.4% (±6.6), respectively. Greater than 100% compliance stems from some participants consuming extra study milk in tea/coffee/food." (Ho. 2014)
    Significant between group differences for milk, energy, fibre or calcium intakes during the intervention were not detected. The latter could not be said for the quality of the stools: As you can see in Table 1 there were significant differences between the stool quality during the A1 and A2 phase of the study.
    Table 1: . Bristol Stool Scale analyses of stool consistency (mean±s.e.m. | Ho. 2014)
    Interestingly, a subgroup analysis revealed that these differences were significant only in women and the previously mentioned subgroup of initially 10 subjects who claimed that they were milk intolerant.
    There is one interesting difference between A1 first vs. A1 second consumption. In contrast to those who switched right onto the A1 diet after the preceding "no-milk" phase, the scientists observed a significant increase in bloating and flatus. For subjects who consumed the "bad" A1 caseins after getting used to "milk" in an initial A2-only phase, on the other hand, there was no such effect. At least for me, this supports the notion that regular milk, which contains both caseins, cannot be generally bad for everyone (check out the figure in the bottom line, as well).
    Against that background, it's a at least surprising that the values of gastrointestinal discomfort were numerically higher on the A1 diet, but not significantly elevated - even for the eight remaining milk intolerant individuals, for whom the mean A1 values were considerably higher than A2 values for bloating (61% higher), abdominal pain (38% higher) and voiding difficulty (83% higher), statistical significance was not detectable due to the the small participant numbers in the selfidentified milk-intolerant group.

    Among the correlates of the gastrointestinal symptoms the scientists evaluated, only the absence of the A1-exclusive correlation between loose stools and abdominal pain appears worth mentioning. Loose stools, which were less frequent in the A2 group, could thus be a first indicator for what I would like to call A1 intolerance. Whether this is a direct result of the previously discussed opiod-receptor interaction is yet uncertain. As Ho et al. point out, the loose stools could also be the result of
    "[...] greater opportunities for food fermentation and hence digestive discomfort within the gastrointestinal system." (Ho. 2014)
    This effect would that occur in response to the initial increase in gastric transit time due to A1 consumption, not as a direct consequence of opiod-receptor interactions. Assuming that the "fermentation hypothesis" is correct, the difference between "milk tolerant" and "milk intolerant" subjects could eventually come back to something as simple as having the "wrong" gut bacteria. Corresponding evidence that probiotic supplements can sooth the pro-inflammatory reaction in milk intolerant subjects comes from a study by Pelto et al. who observed that probiotic bacteria down-regulate the milk-induced inflammatory response in milk-hypersensitive subjects but have an immunostimulatory effect in healthy subjects (Pelto .1998).
    Overview of a handful of studies showing reductions not increases in diabetes, as you would expect them if the GLP-1 reduction in response to the tons of "bad" A1 casein in regular dairy would be the significant health risk some Internet resources claim it was. Accordingly, there is at the moment no reason for milk tolerant individuals to avoid "regular" dairy.
    But let's stop speculating... I guess, all we can say in the case against A1 now is that there is evidence which suggests that people with existing milk intolerances may have to be careful with respect to the ingestion of A1 containing foods. For everyone else, the evidence that it would harm their health is simply not there (yet?).

    The idea that the degradation of BMC-7 will induce collateral damage in form of a reduction of beneficial incretins such as GLP-1 would still suggest that it's worth keeping an eye on the research, even if the contemporary available evidence does not suggest that consuming milk and dairy products would have a negative effect on body weight and glucose tolerance as you would expect to see it in response to the GLP-1 degrading effects.

    I mean, look a the reductions in diabetes risk in dairy lovers in the seven studies I used to build the graphical overview on the right. With all that "bad" A1 casein in regular dairy the negative effects should show on a population level, shouldn't they? You think differently, let me know on Facebook!
    References:
    • Barnett MPG, McNabb WC, Roy NC, Woodford K, Clarke AJ. Dietary A1β-casein affects gastrointestinal transit time, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 activity, and inflammatory status relative to A2β-casein in Wistar rats. Int J Food Sci Nutr 2014; e-pub ahead of print 20 March 2014; doi:10.3109/09637486.2014.898260 
    • Choi, Hyon K., et al. "Dairy consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in men: a prospective study." Archives of internal medicine 165.9 (2005): 997-1003.
    • Choi, Hyon K., et al. "Dairy consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in men: a prospective study." Archives of internal medicine 165.9 (2005): 997-1003.
    • Cielinkska A, Kostyra EB, Kostyra H, Olenski K, Fiedorowicz E, Kaminski SA. Milk from cows of different beta-casein genotypes as a source of beta-casomorphin-7. Int J Food Sci Nutr 2012;63:426–20.
    • De Noni I. Release of b-casomorphins 5 and 7 during simulated gastro-intestinal digestion of bovine b-casein variants and milk-based infant formulas.Food Chem 2008;110: 897–903.
      Jinsmaa Y, Yoshikawa M. Enzymatic release of neocasomorphin and beta casomorphin from bovine beta-casein.Peptides1999;20: 957–962. 
    • Elwood, Peter C., Janet E. Pickering, and Ann M. Fehily. "Milk and dairy consumption, diabetes and the metabolic syndrome: the Caerphilly prospective study." Journal of epidemiology and community health 61.8 (2007): 695-698.
    • Elwood, Peter C., et al. "The survival advantage of milk and dairy consumption: an overview of evidence from cohort studies of vascular diseases, diabetes and cancer." Journal of the American College of Nutrition 27.6 (2008): 723S-734S.
    • Grantham, Narelle M., et al. "The association between dairy food intake and the incidence of diabetes in Australia: the Australian Diabetes Obesity and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab)." Public health nutrition 16.02 (2013): 339-345.
    • Haq MR, Kapila R, Sharma R, Saliganti V, Kapila S. Comparative evaluation of cow β-casein variants (A1/A2) consumption on Th2-mediated inflammatory response in mouse gut. Eur J Nutr2013;53: 1039–1049. 
    • Ho, S., et al. "Comparative effects of A1 versus A2 beta-casein on gastrointestinal measures: a blinded randomised cross-over pilot study." European journal of clinical nutrition 68.9 (2014): 994-1000.
    • Liu, Simin, et al. "A prospective study of dairy intake and the risk of type 2 diabetes in women." Diabetes Care 29.7 (2006): 1579-1584.
    • Pelto, L., et al. "Probiotic bacteria down-regulate the milk-induced inflammatory response in milk-hypersensitive subjects but have an immunostimulatory effect in healthy subjects." Clinical and Experimental Allergy 28.12 (1998): 1474-1479.
    • Schmelzer CE, Schops R, Reynell L, Ulbrich-Hofmann R, Neubert RH, Raith K. Peptic digestion of beta-casein. Time course and fate of possible bioactive peptides. J Chromatogr A 2007;1166:108–115. 
    • Svedberg J, de Haas J, Liemenstoff G, Paul P, Teschemacher H (1985). Demonstration of B-casomorphin immunoreactive materials inIn Vitrodigests of bovine milk and in small intestine contents after bovine milk ingestion in adult humans.Peptides6, 825–830.
    • Tong, X., et al. "Dairy consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of cohort studies." European journal of clinical nutrition 65.9 (2011): 1027-1031.
    • Trompette A, Claustre J, Caillon F, Jourdan G, Chayvialle JA, Plaisancie P. Milk bioactive peptides and beta-casomorphins induce mucus release in rat jejunum. J Nutr 2003;133: 3499–3503 
    • Truswell, A. S. "Reply: The A2 milk case: a critical review." European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 60.7 (2006): 924-925.
    • Zoghbi S, Trompette A, Claustre J, El Homsi M, Garzon J, Jourdan G et al. beta-Casomorphin-7 regulates the secretion and expression of gastrointestinal mucins through a mu-opioid pathway.Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2006; 290: G1105–G1113