Yeast Hydrolysate Powered Fat Loss: 7% Reduction in Total Body Fat and 14% Reduction in Abdominal Fat - W/out Diet?

Will the fat-burning magic of 1g/day of yeast hydrolysate dissolve the fat that's still covering the last 2 packs?

It sounds like a marketing scam and I must warn you, one of the authors of a soon-to-be-published paper on the basis of which I came up with this headline is actually with a company that specializes in food additives.

This obviously warrants a heightened degree of suspicion, but it does not mean that the study results could or even must be doctored. I would thus suggest, we take a look at what the Korean scientists from Jeonju University, the University of Seoul, the Korea University and the Neo Cremar Company Ltd. actually did and found before we jump to any premature conclusions about the validity or non-validity of the data.

What exactly is yeast hydrolysate?

I guess, the first thing we have to address is what exactly it was Jung et al. administered to their 24 male and 30 female participants  with body mass indices (BMI) of at least 25 kg/m² (the obesity cut off in the Asia-Pacific region is 25 kg/m²). To this end, it's best to look at how this "supplement" was produced (if you want the short version fast forward to the first red box ;-)

1. 

   You've read about the anti-Crohn's effects of saccharomyces cerv. (bakers yeast) in the SuppVersity Facebook News, recently.

   Saccharomyces cerevisiae (IFO 2346) is incubated in a growth medium containing 2% molasses, 0.6% (NH4)2SO4, 0.1% MgSO4$7H2O, 0.2% KH2PO4, 0.03% K2HPO4,  for 3 days at 30°C.
2. After incubation, the culture is centrifuged at 10,000g for 20 minutes.
3. Immediately after the cells are removed from the centrifuge, they are suspended in 20 mM phosphate buffer (pH 7.0) and hydrolyzed with 1000 units of bromelain at 30 C for 4 h.

The result of this third step actually is already a, but not yet the hydrolysate. To achieve the "good stuff", it is then centrifuged at 10,000g for 20 min. The small molecules which are then removed from the supernatant are then passed through a 10 kDa molecular-weight cutoff membrane and eventually lyophilized - et voilà!

"Hold on! So what do I need?" Before you hit the "too complicated button" at the bottom of this page, let me briefly point out that you don't need to understand or memorize the production process. The thing you have to look for, when you are shopping for corresponding products is a yeast hydrolysate with a maximal molecular weight (that's ~ the size of the indiv. peptides) of <10kDa that was produced from Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

In the study at hand, the of this 3+1 step process was packed into 500 mg pouches before it was handed over to the subjects in the active arm of the study (the placebo contained dextrin). 

Figure 1: Inter-group baseline differences for weight + body composition for men and women (Young. 2014)

Both the placebo and yeast supplements had to be taken twice a day 30 min before breakfast and dinner. So far that all sounds like standard procedure. If you take a look at the outcome of the randomization process, you will yet see that there are non-negligible inter-group differences in body composition (see Figure 1): In conjunction with the high fat mass, the low body weight and lean mass of the ladies in the control group, could have significant effects on the change in body weight. Unfortunately, the scientists did not test the significance of this difference, but a 39% gap in lean body mass that comes hand in hand with a 13% higher fat mass can be expected to have a very relevant effect on the outcome of any dietary intervention.

Speaking of dietary interventions! there was no dietary intervention.

I know, it sounds hilarious, but there was no dietary intervention. All the participants had to do was to consume the 1g of yeast hydrolysate or the 1g of dextrin in 2x500mg servings 30 min before breakfast and dinner. That's at least what they were advised to do.

Figure 2: Changes in energy intake (% baseline) and body composition (Young. 2014)

The data in Figure 2 does yet tell you that what they actually did (voluntarily, though) was "dieting". This is particularly true for the female study participants, who reached caloric deficits of 26% by week 6-8 and 28% by week 8-10. Against that background it's not that surprising that the statistical significant changes in body comp were only observed in the female study participants.

There are no effects on resting metabolic rate! The notion that the reduced energy intake is the main, if not the only driving force of the fat loss Jung et al. observed in the study at hand is supported by observations the researchers made in a previous study from 2011 (Jung. 2011a). In the said study, the 20 obese females (body fat >28%) in the yeast group did experience a non-significantly improved fat loss compared to the control group. They did yet also suffer from a "higher" reduction in resting metabolic race (-9.69kcal/day vs. -4.35kcal/day) - similarly non-significant as the weight loss difference, obviously.

This does not mean that the yeast extract doesn't work - quite the contrary, for the average individual who is neither willing nor able to adhere to a caloric deficit without the help of tools like this, it could actually come very handy. For the average physical culturist, it would yet obviously be more interesting if yeast hydrolysates had spot reducing qualities (learn more about spot reduction). And if we take another look at the full text of the study, we could actually argue that this is basically what the authors suggest, when they refer to the results of previous studies and state:

"Yeast hydrolysate increases the reduction of body fat in obese individuals compared with placebo, which supports the hypothesized abdominal fat-lowering effects of yeast hydrolysate" (Young. 2014)

If you look at the study at hand, the question we would have to answer should thus read: Are the abdominal and total fat mass disproportionate. Or to say it differently: Did the subjects lose signifcantly more abdominal than total fat? And in view of the previously discussed problem: Did this vary between male and female participants? Unfortunately, the scientists didn't do us (or rather me) the favor of doing this for us, already. Therefore I had to do the calculations and plotting for Figure 3 myself:

Figure 3: Relative change in body fat mass and abdominal fat thickness (Jung. 2014)

As the text in the box in Figure 3 already tells you, the existing discrepancy between the reduction in total body fat and abdominal fat thickness does not necessarily "prove" the spot reducing prowess of yeast hydrolysate. We do after all know that in the chubbier folks the unhealthy fat in / on the midsection is usually the first to go.

Is the fat loss really localized? 

Furthermore, a previous study by the same researchers clearly refutes the abdominal specific fat loss effects. The corresponding paper was published in 2011 in the Journal of Food and Biochemistry (Jung. 2011a; same paper I referenced in the box above), and despite the fact that the researchers observed a trend for an increase in weight loss within only 4 weeks on the same <10kDa yeast hydrolysate, the fat loss results of the obese women who participated in the study were at best triceps (-2.15 vs. -1.05mm reduction in skinfold thickness in yeast vs. control) and not belly specific (-1.70 vs. -1.08mm reduction in skinfold thickness in yeast vs. control).

Unfortunately, I cannot tell you whether the same can be said of the 2009 paper by Suh et al., because the online archive of the Journal of Food Science and Nutrition, where it was published starts in March 2011. In view of the fact that it was not "ab-specific" in obese women, I really doubt that it will have has particularly pronounced effects on the waistline of female college students - a subject group of whom you would expect that they are at least somewhat closer to the fitness and leanness level of the average SuppVersity reader.

If you are looking for alternative, yet not necessarily more effective purported spot-reduction supp- lements / techniques, you may want to (re?)read the recent SuppVersity article about green tea, green clay & magnesium sulfate soaked "plaster body wraps" | read more

Is yeast hydrolysate an effective tool in your weight loss arsenal? A definitive answer to this question is yet still lacking. Personally, I would spend my money otherwise, because I have never had a problem with cutting back calories, when I decided that this is necessary to lose weight. If, on the other hand, you belong to those people who are constantly hungry, it may be worth trialling a once month supply of yeast hydrolysate caps (or sachets).

The only thing you should be prepared for is that it is not going to work if you don't diet. In all of the human studies I've seen so far, the weight loss went hand in hand with a reduction in calorie intake; and despite the fact that there is good evidence that the His-Pro (=Cyclo) peptides in yeast hydrolysates have additional value as potent antioxidants (Jung. 2011b), their subsequent effect on glucose metabolism will depend on a baseline increase in inflammation. In other words: The bigger your belly, gluttony and baseline inflammation, the greater the benefits.

References:

• Jung, E. Y., Kim, S. Y., Bae, S. H., Chang, U. J., Choi, J. W., & Suh, H. J. (2011a). Weight reduction effects of yeast hydrolysate below 10 kDa on obese young women. Journal of Food Biochemistry, 35(2), 337-350.
• Jung, E. Y., Lee, H. S., Choi, J. W., Ra, K. S., Kim, M. R., & Suh, H. J. (2011b). Glucose Tolerance and Antioxidant Activity of Spent Brewer's Yeast Hydrolysate with a High Content of Cyclo‐His‐Pro (CHP). Journal of food science, 76(2), C272-C278.
• Jung, E. Y., Hong, Y. H., Kim, J. H., Park, Y., Bae, S. H., Chang, U. J., & Suh, H. J. (2012). Effects of Yeast Hydrolysate on Hepatic Lipid Metabolism in High-Fat-Diet-Induced Obese Mice: Yeast Hydrolysate Suppresses Body Fat Accumulation by Attenuating Fatty Acid Synthesis. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 61(2), 89-94.  
• Jung, E. Y., Cho, M. K., Hong, Y. H., Kim, J. H., Park, Y., Chang, U. J., & Suh, H. J. (2014). Yeast hydrolysate can reduce body weight and abdominal fat accumulation in obese adults. Nutrition, 30(1), 25-32.
• Suh, H. J. (2009). The weight reduction effect of yeast hydrolysate-SR101 on female college students. Journal of Food Science and Nutrition, 14(2), 123-128.

Confirmed: All Wheys, Not Just Hydro Whey Boost Glucose Uptake And Liver + Muscle Glycogen Supercompensation. Plus: How Could Taurine Be Involved in This Benefits?

Do it or don't? If the question is about consuming whey protein, the answer is clear: Do it! Use whey!

As a diligent student of the SuppVersity you will remember my previous article "The Glucose Repartioning Effects of Isoleucine: Falsely Underappreciated BCAA and Its Dipeptides Maximize GLUT-4 Expression and Ramp Up Muscular Glucose Uptake" (read more). If you don't let me briefly bring you up to speed in back in February, I told you about the beneficial effects of a class of isoleucine peptides in whey protein hydrosylate [as the study at hand goes to show you, this is important, see bottom line] on glucose transporter (GLUT-4) expression and thus glucose uptake in skeletal muscle.

Today I am pleased to be able to continue and expand on this discussion based on the results of the latest study from the same group of researchers from Sao Paulo, Brazil (Morato. 2013).

Whey, an anti-diabetic glycogen supercompensation tool

As Morato et al. point out, their own study is by no means the only one that supports the very special insulin sensitizing activity of whey proteins. In fact, whey is already touted as potential anti-diabetic. If the medical orthodoxy or rather it's "legislative" arm was not trapped by its own dogmas WPH [whey protein hydrolysate] would already be a central part of the dietary recommendation for type II diabetics. With the current study being the first to show that a whey protein based diet will lead to chronically increased GLUT-4 expression and thus help to lower blood glucose and improve glycogen storage, the study at hand is albeit similarly interesting for the average musclehead and his obese type II diabetic neighbor.

Figure 1: Effects of casein, whey and whey hydro(lysate) diets on GLUT-4 expression, baseline insulin, liver glycogen and muscle glycogen levels (g/100g tissue; Moreto. 2013)

Apropos obese neighbor. You should go and convince him to go to the gym with you. After all, the rodent data in figure 1 clearly shows that WPH leads its trumps only when it is combined with training - in this case treadmill running for 60 minutes at 15 m/min (the exercise took place 16 h before the sacrifice; so the increases are not in response to the exercise! they are just amplified by chronic endurance during).

Suggested read: "The Overlooked Glucose Repartioning Effects of Isoleucine" (read more)

While exercise alone is well known to boost GLUT-4 expression and subsequent glucose uptake significantly (Christ-Roberts. 2004; Kuo. 2004; note. GLUT-4 activity correlates with the degree of muscular clycogen depletion, so no "5 min rest, 2 sets all out and go home workouts!"), the addition of a whey protein hydrosylate with a pre-hydrolysation level of 12.5% (think of it as being enzymatically "pre-digested) as the sole protein component of the baseline diet (15% protein total, 7% fat from vegetable oil, 68% carbs from sugar and corn starches) of the 48 male Wistar rats in the experiment at hand did turn the +100% increase from exercise alone into a  +160% increase.

I have to admit, the increased GLUT-4 uptake per se may not be news, but this is in fact the first chronic feeding study where it was observed in conjunction with higher glycogen levels - ca. 90%, 70% and a whopping 400% in the heart, the musclulature and the liver in the sedentary state for both WPH and regular whey protein. That's certainly impressive, but you got to remember that this is a result of combining whey with a high carbohydrate diet (69% of the diet vs. 7% fat) which provides the necessary readily available substrate for optimal glycogen super-saturation (=packing in more glycogen than you usually could).

You will and can very well live with the insulin spike!

Though it may not look like it in figure 1, you got to be aware that the values were not taken right after the ingestion of a meal, let alone a protein shake. In other words, it is almost certain that the whey protein groups will have had higher insulin levels immediately after a meal (note: Casein is still way more insulinogenic than meat or eggs).

I've gone into quite some detail on why insulin spikes (in the presence of glucose) are not a problem, but rather a vital necessity in a previous post (read it)

"One of the primary means to increase the concentration of GLUT-4 in the plasma membrane is through insulin-regulated trafficking (Zorzano. 2005). However, in the present experiment, no increase was noted in serum insulin levels in the groups consuming WPH.

The experimental design of the study focused on the moment of greatest mobilization of glucose transporter-4, and the animals were sacrificed 2 h after consuming the meal; this was too long an interval to observe the maximum plasma insulin response." (Morato. 2013)

It is thus a given that the  GLUT-4 translocation was at least supported by profound and temporary (at least in the presence of an adequate carbohydrate intake, their temporary nature is what makes the whey induced insulin spikes physiologic and beneficial vs. pathological and detrimental as chronic elevations would be; learn more). According to Morato et al. this is however not the only way the ingestion of whey affected the translocation of GLUT-4 (upstream) and the subsequent uptake of glucose into the muscle and liver (downstream):

Translocation of GLUT-4 to the PM [plasma membrane] can also be stimulated in an insulinindependent manner. Carneiro et al. (2009) accomplished this through taurine activation of the insulin pathway, thus raising the GLUT-4 concentration in the plasma membrane independent of insulin. However, the molecular mechanism behind this effect has still not been elucidated (Carneiro. 2009).

There is actually evidence that would suggest that whey protein hydrolysate is not simply not superior, but actually inferior to regular whey proteins when it comes to improvements in body composition in athletes (read more)

In the exercised animals of the WP and WPH groups, the plasma concentrations of taurine (Table 1) were greater (p,0.05) than those in the control group consuming CAS. This could explain, at least in part, the greater translocation of GLUT-4 in the WP and WPH groups.

After investigating the amino acid composition of the WP and WPH, it was found they were rich in sulfur amino acids (Table 2), and methionine and cysteine are endogenous precursors of taurine. Thus, the consumption of WP or WPH provided a greater amount of substrate for the endogenous production of taurine than casein, and the presence of this amino acid may have facilitated activation of the insulin pathway and cell capture of glucose, as indicated in the literature." (Morato. 2013; my emphases)

That's quite a surprising insight, isn't it? I mean, as a SuppVersity reader you have long known about the anti-diabetic prowess of taurine, but who would have suspected that it could be #3 alongside the active isoleucine dipeptides and the insulin release among the mechanisms behind the profound beneficial effects whey has on glucose? I mean, there is basically no taurine in whey.

SuppVersity readers have known for years, that whey is far superior to an amino acid (AA) mixture with the same AA make-up (read more)

Bottom line: Yep, this is support for a previous advice I've gicen: You better never run out of whey protein for both, health and performance reasons. Personally, I am yet most fascinated by the potential involvement of endogenous (=your body's own) taurine synthesis. That 's certainly going to be a topic in Sunday's 2nd installment on supplements to improve and maintain insulin sensitivity (read part I on lifestlye modifications here).

Pratically speaking the most important and eventually less surprising message of the study at hand is however that it does not necessarily have to be whey protein hydrolysate. The regular whey protein did an outstanding job, as well, and the "real-world" = visible / noticeable differences are propably non-significant.

In this context, some of you may also remember the results from another recently published study by Lollo et al. (read it) which did in fact suggest that the muscle building and body recompositioning effects of whey hydrolysate are inferior and not superior to those of regular whey.

References:

• Carneiro EM, Latorraca MQ, Araujo E, Beltra M, Oliveras MJ, et al. Taurine supplementation modulates glucose homeostasis and islet function. J Nutr Biochem. 2009; 20: 503–511.
• Christ-Roberts CY, Mandarino LJ. Glycogen synthase: key effect of exercise on insulin action. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2004; 32: 90–94.
• Kuo CH, Hwang H, Lee MC, Castle AL, Ivy JL. Role of insulin on exercise-induced GLUT-4 protein expression and glycogen supercompensation in rat skeletal muscle. J Appl Physiol.  2004; 96: 621–627.
• Morato PN, Lollo PC, Moura CS, Batista TM, Carneiro EM, Amaya-Farfan J. A dipeptide and an amino acid present in whey protein hydrolysate increase translocation of GLUT-4 to the plasma membrane in Wistar rats. Food Chem. 2013 Aug 15;139(1-4):853-9.
• Zorzano A, Palacín M,Gumá A. Mechanisms regulating GLUT 4 glucose transporter expression and glucose transport in skeletal muscle. Acta Physiol Scand. 2006. 183: 43–58.

Whey Protein Hydrolysates Were Yesterday! Study Shows Salmon Protein Hydrolysate Can Deliver Protein Even Faster, But Does This Also Mean They Are More "Anabolic"?

That's salmon, yes, but it's not processed enough to compete with any hydrolysate. Well, unless you decide to eat and regurgitate it - after some time, obviously, 'cause "hydrolyzed" proteins are in the end only pre-digested proteins.

As a SuppVersity reader you know that the amount of protein is not the only determinant of the potential muscle building effects of a given protein source. The digestion time and thus the amount of protein that is released into the bloodstream on a "per minute"-basis, as well as the amino acid profile (preferably all essential amino acids (EAAs) and a high amount of leucine) are also important determinants of the "anabolic" qualities of a given protein source.

Using a quite unique multi-compartmental dynamic model that closely simulates in vivo gastrointestinal tract digestion in humans scientists from the Institute of Nutrition and Functional Foods (INAF) at the Université Laval in Quebec, did now determine that salmon not whey protein hydrolysates are the "numero uno", when it comes to digestion speed.

You can learn more about protein intake at the SuppVersity

Are You Protein Wheysting?

Cod protein for recovery

Protein requ. of athletes

High EAA protein for fat loss

Fast vs. slow protein

5x More Than FDA Allows

If you take a closer look at the data in Figure 2 at the bottom of the article, you will notice that salmon and whey hydrolysates were not the only products the scientists tested (I would love to help you along with the amino acid compositions, but unfortunately the full text does not provide any details and Hofseth  Biocare the producer of the salmon protein hydrolysate does not disclose if it's made from fish heads or salmon filets... I am not kidding, scientists have been investigating methods to produce salmon protein hydrolysates from the waste material for years; cf. Gbogour. 2004).

In view of the fact that we don't really know if salmon has similar real-world pro-anabolic effects, it may thus be at least as interesting to compare the digestion speed of whey hydrolysates and isolates.

Figure 1: Nitrogen distribution throughout the TIM-1 compartments at the end of the 2 hour digestion. SHP, salmon protein hydrolysate; WPH-High, whey protein hydrolysate extensively hydrolysed; WPH-Low, whey protein hydrolysate weakly hydrolysed; WPI, whey protein isolate (Framroze. 2014)

The latter is, as you can see in Figure 1, only significant if the hydro-whey is "extensively hydrolyzed". The difference between regular hydro-whey and the two whey isolates, on the other hand, is too to assume that it may - by any means - be relevant.

Figure 2: Data shows how much of the protein content is released in the course of a 120min digestion period (Framoze. 2014).

Let's not jump tp conclusions, here: In spite of the fact that the nitrogen digestibility data in Figure 2 supports the notion that salmon is not just the faster digesting, but also the more bioaccessible protein source. The currently available evidence on the effects of salmon protein hydrolysates on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, fat loss, blood pressure and inflammation - all things where we have plenty of evidence for beneficial effects of whey protein - is non-existent. Considering the fact that salmon protein hydrolysates are probably even more disgusting than their whey counterparts, I would thus not go and buy the next best product you can possibly find on the Internet.

Reference: 

• Framroze, Bomi, et al. "Comparison of Nitrogen Bioaccessibility from Salmon and Whey Protein Hydrolysates using a Human Gastrointestinal Model (TIM-1)." Functional Foods in Health and Disease 2014; 4(5):222-231  
• Gbogouri, G. A., et al. "Influence of hydrolysis degree on the functional properties of salmon byproducts hydrolysates." Journal of food science 69.8 (2004): C615-C622.