18% Increased Protein Breakdown W/ 20g of Egg Protein Before Workout - Reason Enough for Avoiding Pre-Workout Protein Supps? Rational & Experimental Counter-Evidence

Protein before workouts "accelerates protein catabolism"? That sounds worse than it actually is (photo BSN).

Most of you will probably consume a protein shake after their workout. Probably whey, if you've read all SuppVersity articles, maybe 25g whey + 10g casein (learn why), or something like that. But what do you do before your workouts? Do you consume a protein shake 60-90 minutes before your workout? If so, you will be shocked about the conclusion of a recent study from the Tokyo University of Agriculture which says: "[...]  pre-exercise protein supplementation taken in excess may accelerate protein catabolism" (Hasegawa. 2014).

But is it actually possible that consuming more protein (albeit at the wrong time) will have a negative impact on your gains?

You can learn more about protein intake at the SuppVersity

Are You Protein Wheysting?

5x More Than the FDA Allows!

Protein requ. of athletes

High EAA protein for fat loss

Fast vs. slow protein

Less Fat, More Muscle!

Before we can answer this important question it is necessary to take a look at the actual design of the randomized cross-over study.

Figure 1: Graphical overview of the experimental protocol (Hasegawa. 2014)

The participants, six healthy male university students [21.2 (±0.3) years, 173.6 (±2.8) cm, and 62.7 (±2.8)kg] with no allergies to egg white or soy, the two protein sources the effects of which the researchers initially wanted to compare, underwent three 8-day testing periods with an exercise at the end (the 8-day intervals were separated by at least seven days).

"Each  testing period began on Day-1 and ended the meat-free diet  consisting of grains, beans, and milk, and 24- hour urine sample collection on Day-8 (Figure 1). Participants were allocated into  one of three groups; egg white protein (E), soy protein (S), and mineral water control (C) group with no additive, and all were carried out this study protocol three times, and asked not to change their lifestyle behaviors." (Hasegawa. 2014). 

The result of this study should remind you of the "Protein-Wheysting" Article | more is not always better!

On Day-5, the day of the workout, the  participants arrived at the  laboratory at 8:00 AM, and had a breakfast consisting of a rice ball (energy, 355 kcal; protein, 6.7 g; carbohydrate, 78.1 g). At 9:30 AM, after the baseline blood sample collection and perceived muscle soreness (MS) measurements, the subjects received one of the three test beverages which contained

• 20 g of egg protein,
• 20g of soy protein, or
• an isoenergetic placebo without protein

that had been dissolved in 200ml of mineral water. 90 minutes later, at 11:00 AM, the previously untrained participants started a resistance training protocol that involved seated rows, flys, leg extensions, and leg presses.

The exercises were performed for three sets of 10 repetitions at ~80% of a predetermined 1-RM with one min rest between sets and two minutes between each exercise.

Figure 2: no significant difference in perceived fatique, but a significant reduction in peak muscle soreness in the soy (grey blocks) vs. the control (white triangles) group (Hasegawa. 2014).

As you can see in Figure 2, the initially mentioned negative effects of the protein supplement were not the only significant inter-trial differences the scientists observed; and what's more, the significantly decreased muscle soreness in response to both protein powders (the peak levels differed statistically significantly only for control vs. soy) stands in stark contrast the mainstream interpretation of protein breakdown (which is "protein breakdown = muscle loss").

How is that possible? Increased protein breakdown and reduced muscle soreness?

So, here we are with an obvious contradiction between the reduced muscle soreness (Figure 2) and the scientists claim that "pre-exercise protein supplementation taken in excess may accelerate protein catabolism" (Hasegawa. 2014)... you already guessed it: The contradiction depends on the false assumption that "protein catabolism" means "catabolism of muscle protein", which is not generally the case and in this specific case certainly wrong.

Figure 3: Urinary nitrogen excretion measured for 72h after the workout (Hasegawa. 2014)

The process we are talking about here is thus most likely not an increase in "mucle catabolism" but rather about the absence of a reduction in protein wasting, i.e a "protein sparing" mechanism that won't be triggered if there is plenty of protein around during the workout.

"So you're saying we don't have to worry?" Basically this is the message of today's SuppVersity article, yes. The notion that the increased amount of nitrogen the scientists measured in their subjects urine is the end product of muscle protein breakdown is highly questionable. It's more likely that the provision of extra protein makes the initiation of protein sparing mechanisms which would otherwise reduce the nitrogen excretion in the control group superfluous - I mean, look at Figure 3 again: Compared to Day 4 (i.e. baseline before workout), the levels remain stable in both protein supplementation groups.

If your pre-workout protein makes you hypo, stop using it or buffer the drop in blood sugar w/ CHO | learn why

You still have doubts!? Well, I have evidence to support my conclusion. Wycherley et al. (2010), for example, were able to show that their dieting subjects saw the same improvements in body composition no matter whether they consumed their protein + carbohydrate beverage (likewise 20g of protein) before or after their resistance training workouts. Rasmussen et al. (2000) report significant increases in muscle protein anabolism after resistance training with pre-workout EAA supplementation. And a protein + carbohydrate supplement reduced (not increased) the muscle damage (as evidenced by 33% reduced increase in myoglobin) in some, but not all subjects in a resistance training study by Baty et al. (7 free weight ex; 3 sets x8 reps to failure | Baty. 2007).

All in all, it does therefore not appear to be indicated to change your current supplementation practice (if you are consuming protein before your workouts)... well, unless you feel wiped out, whenever you consume protein before your workout. In that case, the protein induced increase in insulin is probably sending you right down the hypoglycemia alley. In view of given negative effects on your exercise performance and the touted increases in obesity risk, this is something you should try to avoid by either buffering the insulin spike with carbs or simply avoiding the ingestion of fast digesting protein supplements before your workouts | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Baty, Jacob J., et al. "The effect of a carbohydrate and protein supplement on resistance exercise performance, hormonal response, and muscle damage." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 21.2 (2007): 321-329.
• Hasegawa, Yuko, et al. "Effect of Egg White Protein Supplementation Prior to Acute Resistance Training on Muscle Damage Indices in Untrained Japanese Men." Monten. J. Sports Sci. Med. 3 (2014) 2: 5–12.
• Rasmussen, Blake B., et al. "An oral essential amino acid-carbohydrate supplement enhances muscle protein anabolism after resistance exercise." Journal of Applied Physiology 88.2 (2000): 386-392.
• Wycherley, Thomas Philip, et al. "Timing of protein ingestion relative to resistance exercise training does not influence body composition, energy expenditure, glycaemic control or cardiometabolic risk factors in a hypocaloric, high protein diet in patients with type 2 diabetes." Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism 12.12 (2010): 1097-1105.

Protein Synthesis Beyond the "20g Limit": Study Shows Exercise Facilitates 32% Greater Increases in Fractional Protein Synthesis With 40g Instead of 20g of Whey PWO

Image 1: Now that the nasty "20g limit" is tumbling and more is finally more again (I know how dearly some of you have been waiting for this news ;-), I do already envision the first commercial gyms offering a pool filled with delicious whey isolate for the ultimate post-workout "more is more"-experience  (img telegraph.co.uk)

If you, just like me, have been following the discussions of the bros and pros on the various bodybuilding and fitness related bulletin boards, all across the web, you will probably have noticed how the dietary recommendations rookies are given have changed over time. From "eat everything in sight" approach to bulking, which had something of the good old days, where John Grimek was notorious for not finding a restaurant that could do his huge appetite justice, over a "make sure you get at least 2g/lbs of protein" to the "more than 20g of whey are a waste of resources" you are confronted with, today. A cursory read of the main results of a recently published study (once more) from Stuart Phillips lab at the McMaster University (thx to Steven Arcera for the heads up on Facebook), does  yet suggest that even this latest advice, which is rooted in the believe that the ingestion of 2-3g of leucine would maximize protein synthesis, is now past its sell-by date.

40g is more than 20g? You must be kidding me!

In one of those, at least in my mind, somewhat artificial single-leg exercise studies (Yang. 2012), in which the subjects perform a given number of single legged leg extensions (in the study at hand 3 sets @10RM) Yang et al. tried to elucidate the individual and combined effects of different doses (10g, 20g, 40g) of whey protein alone or in combination with the aforementioned unilateral leg exercise on myofibrillar protein synthesis (FSR) in thirty-seven non-frail older men (~age 71 +/- 4 years, BMI 26 kg/m²).

Figure 1: Myofibrillar fractional protein synthesis in exercised and non-exercised leg of older men after 3 sets of leg extensions and the ingestion of either control beverage or 10g, 20g or 40g of whey protein (data adapted from Yang. 2012)

If you take a look at the results in figure 1, you do not have to hold a degree in exercise science, molecular biology or physics (*lol*) to conclude that for this particular group of subjects and under the given experimental conditions, the previously invoked "20g limit" does not exist. In other words, the ingestion of 20g of whey protein after a bout of resistance training does not maximize fractional protein synthesis in the myofibrillar compartment of the exercised muscles in older non-frail men. Moreover, ...

[m]yofibrillar FSR in the non-exercised leg (fed only) was significantly increased with W20 and W40 compared with W0, with no significant difference observed between W20 and W40. [...] in the W20 and W40 exercised legs, myofibrillar FSR was statistically elevated above the W0 and W10 exercised legs. Furthermore, myofibrillar FSR for W40 was approximately 32 % greater than for W20 (p < 0.02).

With the increase in FSR from 20g to 40g still being more than just marginally significant (+32%!), I would bet any money (well, sort of ;-) that we would not see significant ceiling effects with 60g of whey... maybe not even with 80g.

So what? Replace your 400ml shaker with a huge barrel to dissolve 1kg of whey post-workout?

The stark contrast to previous findings in younger individuals, as well as the overall somewhat ridicolous "exercise" protocol (I mean, 3 sets à 10 reps with one leg?) does yet raise the question how significant these results actually are. Yang et al. obviously believe that the age of the subjects may be the underlying reason for these discrepancies and state:

Given the evidence that the muscle protein synthetic response following resistance exercise is blunted in aged muscle, our data and that of others suggest that consuming a relatively high amount of dietary protein after resistance exercise may, potentially, increase rates of MPS in the elderly to the same extent as in young adults.

And while this obviously could factor in, the trainee in me tells me that you can as well walk in the park to induce the same "protein synthetic response" as with 3 sets of 10 reps (just to make sure: this is not a scientifically validated fact ;-)

Figure 2: Fractional  protein synthesis in the Moore study, where a ceiling effect occurred and the Yang study, where it was absent (data based on Moore. 2008 and Yang. 2012)

If we know look at the absolute FSR in response to real exercise, like the 4 sets of leg presses, leg curls and leg extensions, the young subjects in the 2009 study by Moore et al. (Moore. 2008), Yang and his colleagues mention in support of the 20g limit (by the way: Moore et al. used 20g of egg protein with "only 1.2g of leucine"), and the "walk in the park"-type single-legged leg extensions from the study at hand, I personally would say that it is much more likely that there is an overall physical upper limit for fractional protein synthesis. This would imply that the combined effect of the nutritional and the exercise stimulus would be rate limit, simply because the amino acid transport into the cell is limited.

We still miss lots of pieces of the puzzle and search for them in the wrong places

Personally, I feel that these results confirm my gut feeling that the current focus on a) the 2h post-workout window after a single workout, b) the signaling over the substrate function of protein ingestion and c) the narrow-minded focus on whey or even leucine, in isolation, may have helped us to elucidate the important role of mTOR & co, but are of  little to no practical relevance for the average gymrat. What, for example, happens if you co-ingest whey + casein? What is the influence of the whole foods meal, I have ~45min after my shake at the gym? What will the insulin spike (3x over baseline for the 40g whey group in the study at hand) do to my blood sugar levels (catecholamins, cortisol, glucagon, ...), if I have a "real" workout under my belt and my liver and muscle glycogen stores are depleted? These are only a few examples of questions, which are in my humble opinion of much greater importance, than the "ideal" amount of whey, let alone leucine, I am supposed to take after my workouts.

Science Round-Up Seconds: Looking at Fast, Slow & Total Protein Intake Again. More Than 2g/kg Protein = Madness?

Just out: Part I of my interview with Sean Casey from CasePerformance. This part of the three-part interview includes a basic protocol that may help you get your macronutrient and energy intake right (I put an emphasis on the word "basic", here ;-).

If you have not downloaded the podcast of yesterday's installment of the SuppVersity Science Round-Up (show starts at ~70min), I suggest that you do that first, because I am not going to repeat what I have said on air already, but will be serving you a second course, instead of the seconds or a "reheated" news from yesterday. Thus listening to the show first will help you understand the relationship between the digestive speed of various proteins and the potential disadvantage of fast digesting amino acids (and proteins) in terms of the net protein retention. And to make the "news dish" even more palatable I am going to season the data and conclusions from the review I mentioned on air with some additional sources and references, as well as two recent studies on protein intake (one with a focus on the elderly).

Just in case you are missing something: Since I personally consider the other studies I did not mention yesterday boring compared to this one, I will focus solely on protein intake and postpone the interesting study snippets to tomorrow's installment of On Short Notice.

As I already mentioned yesterday, the data on protein digestion times and much of what I am going to discuss today comes from a 2006 review of the literature by Bilsborough and Mann (Bilsborough. 2006). Being what it is, namely a review, it does obviously have the downside of deriving the data from various studies. So take the exact values (specifically those in figure 1) with some of the often-cited 'healthy skepticism'. The same goes for the scientists' conclusions, of which the unquestionably most important and probably undisputed one is:

"Rapidly absorbed amino acids despite stimulating greater protein synthesis, also stimulate greater amino acid oxidation, and hence results in a lower net protein gain, than slowly absorbed protein (54). Leucine balance, a measurable endpoint for protein balance, is indicated in Figure 1, which shows slowly absorbed amino acids (~ 6 to 7 g/h), such as CAS and 2.3 g of WP repeatedly taken orally every 20 min (RPT-WP), provide significantly better protein balance than rapidly absorbed amino acids." (my emphasis in Bilsborough. 2006)

Another hypothesis, which does certainly make sense, bu is probably not going to be very popular in the fitness and boydbuilding community is invoked within the following considerations Bilsborough and Mann put on paper:

Figure 1: Protein uptake (mind the different scales on top vs. bottom) from different protein sources in g/h (Bilsborough. 2006)

"This 'slow' and 'fast' protein concept provides some clearer evidence that although human physiology may allow for rapid and increased absorption rate of  amino acids, as in the case of WP (8 to 10 g/h), this fast absorption is not strongly correlated with a 'maximal protein balance,' as incorrectly interpreted by fitness enthusiasts, athletes, and bodybuilders. Using the findings of amino acid absorption rates (using leucine balance as a measurable endpoint for protein balance), a maximal amino acid intake measured by the inhibition of proteolysis and increase in postprandial protein gain, may only be ~ 6 to 7 g/h (as described by RPT-WP, and casein), which corresponds to a maximal protein intake of 144 to 168 g/d." (my emphasis in Bilsborough. 2006)

We tend to ignore and overread things, we don't like, so let me briefly repeat the most important message here: If postprandial protein gain maxes out at 6-7g/h and the day has no more than 24h you math would tell you that eating more than 144-168g of protein per day is bogus.

"You are kiddin' me!? More than 168g/protein per day is bogus?"

Figure 2: The existing differences in fractional protein synthesis (FSR) are "biologically probably insignificant" - in other words given they have the same muscle mass sprinters, bodybuilders and even endurance athletes have the same FSR (Mittendorfer. 2006)

To support their argument that the exuberant protein intake, as it is praticed by fitness enthusiasts, athletes, and bodybuilders who have an incorrect understanding of the relation between fast absorption of proteins and "maximal protein balance" is total bogus, Bilsborough and Mann cite a previous paper by Rennie who reports that the increase in protein synthesis saturates even when amino acids are infused directly and continuously into the blood stream at ~12 g/h for an 80kg individual (Rennie. 2001).

In a similar context, Mittendorfer et al. report in a 2005 paper that the protein synthesis rates in human muscles are neither determined by anatomical location nor fiber-type composition, as the differences they observed were <15% and thus "biologically probably insignificant" (Mittendorfer. 2006). The relative increase in sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar protein synthesis were +100% and +200%, respectively (see figure 1 on the right). It may be possible that you can squeeze a little more after a workout, but let's be honest, you also got to sleep and I would hope you are not even remotely considering hooking yourself up with an AA infusion over night ;-)

"So is protein bad for me?"

Two notes on more recent studies: Deutz and Wolfe are soon going to publish an "opinion paper" in the Journal of Clinical Nutrition that's titled "Is there a maximal anabolic response to protein intake with a meal?" Their answer that it isn't is however misleading, because they are dealing with "high protein meals" of 30g and total protein intakes of 1.5g/kg (Deutz. 2012). Of much greater significance not just in the context of this individual blogpost, but also with respect to the dietary guidelines and thus public health is a paper by Volpi et al. in the Journals of Gerontology in which they demand that the guidelines for protein intake in the elderly have to be revised (Volpi. 2012). Just like me they put a much greater emphasis on the importance of hitting the threshold intake (~30g total protein) with every meal than on the total amount of protein in the diet and point out that the data from the latest NHANES study clearly suggests that older individuals reach this threshold - if anything - with dinner.

Don't get me wrong I don't want to put you off protein (both literally as well as metaphorically ;-) - but there is a physical reality out there that is full of thresholds, which are often more than just upper limits and you can hardly argue with Bilsborough and Mann as far as their conclusion with respect to physically active people and their effort to build and preserve body protein is concerned:

"Diminished reserves of TCAI through restricted carbohydrate intake [which would become necessary if you don't won't to overeat with too much carbs on top of all the protein] could potentially bring about an early onset of fatigue, decrease exercise performance, and promote muscle catabolism. As protein absorption of real foods is approximately 1 to 4 g/h, and fat is absorbed at approximately 14 to 18 g/h, the need for adequate glucose to prevent muscle gluconeogenesis and hence preserve lean muscle is important and further supports the need for a minimum carbohydrate intake, especially for active people. A carbohydrate intake of 120 to 150 g/d could be sufficient with active people consuming > 150 g/d from a large variety of cereals, whole grains, fresh fruit, and vegetables." (Bilsborough. 2006)

Actually I believe there is no additional "bottom line" necessary here (aside from picking the right "whole grains" and "cereals", of course): Protein is the building block for lean muscle tissue, but what happens on a construction site if you have plenty of building blocks, but neither electricity (carbs), nor gasoline (fats) to power the devices (let alone beer to satisfy the workers *rofl*)? Right, nothing happens! And in the end you can be happy if the part of the house that's already standing won't whither away and fall apart...

I guess among you there will be only few who still fall into the category of mislead protein worshipers, but just to make sue: 2g/kg is more than enough and my longstanding suggestion that 1.5g/kg would do as well - if it's from EAA rich protein sources, even better - still stands.


References:

• Bilsborough S, Mann N. A review of issues of dietary protein intake in humans. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006 Apr;16(2):129-52.
• Deutz NE, Wolfe RR. Is there a maximal anabolic response to protein intake with a meal? Clin Nutr. 2012 Dec 1.
• Mittendorfer B, Andersen JL, Plomgaard P, Saltin B, Babraj JA, Smith K, Rennie MJ. Protein synthesis rates in human muscles: neither anatomical location nor fibre-type composition are major determinants. J Physiol. 2005 Feb 15;563(Pt 1):203-11.
• Rennie MJ. Control of muscle protein synthesis as a result of contractile activity and amino acid availability: implications for protein requirements. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2001 Dec;11 Suppl:S170-6. 
• Volpi E, Campbell WW, Dwyer JT, Johnson MA, Jensen GL, Morley JE, Wolfe RR. Is the Optimal Level of Protein Intake for Older Adults Greater Than the Recommended Dietary Allowance? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2012 Nov 26.