40 vs. 70g of Food Protein per Meal? No Ceiling Effect for Improvement(s) in Net Protein Balance (+65% w/ 70 vs. 40g)

This study does almost everything right and yet, it still needs a follow-up study to address the question whether the results would be the same for fast(er) digesting proteins such as whey protein where 'more', i.e. ever-increasing boluses of protein, could actually increase the amount of protein that is being fed into gluconeogenesis, bros.

You've read it here, you've read it elsewhere: Simply doubling your protein intake ain't going to double your gains. That's true and the latest data from the Center for Translational Research in Aging and Longevity at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences ain't going to change that.

The questionable, if not incorrect overemphasis on postprandial (meaning right after you ingested a protein shake) and/or post-exercise and -prandial (meaning after the protein shake you consumed right after a resistance training workout) skeletal muscle protein synthesis of the vast majority of studies that investigate the effects of different doses of protein on acute protein kinetics has, however, given rise to the intrinsically flawed idea that any extra protein (in excess of 20-40g of high EAA protein, depending on the study you look at | the younger the subjects, the less appears necessary) would be wasted.

High-protein diets are much safer than pseudo-experts say, but there are things to consider...

Practical Protein Oxidation 101

5x More Than the FDA Allows!

More Protein ≠ More Satiety

Satiety: Casein > Whey? Wrong!

Protein Timing DOES Matter!

High Protein not a Health Threat

In the experiment for their latest paper, Kim, Schutzler, Schrader, Spencer, Azhar, Ferrando and Wolfe went one step further. In a previous study in older subjects (discussed at the SuppVersity News a year ago | read it), the authors have already proven the ...

Read my article about the previous study.

"potential importance of suppression of protein breakdown in response to dietary [meaning intake from food] intake of meals containing two levels of protein totaling either 0.8 or 1.5 g protein/kg/day...

[More specifically, they] found that at both levels of dietary protein [i.e. 0.8 or 1.5 g protein/kg/day from food] whole body net protein balance became positive in the fed state compared with the fasted state, mainly due to reductions in protein breakdown" (Kim. 2015) 

This novel focus on the response to (a) food proteins and (b) the important net protein balance differentiates the study at hand, as well as the previously quoted preceding study from the rest of the pack which focused entirely on the response of muscle (often to various forms of protein supplements, instead of foods) and may thus (a) underestimate the total anabolic response to feeding and (b) give the false impression that it takes protein supplements to maximize the postprandial/postworkout protein anabolic response... to cut a long story short, Kim et al. are completely right to say that it is thus only...

"[...] reasonable to examine whole body effects of exercise in the context of quantifying the anabolic response to different levels of dietary protein [as they did it in their latest study in which they] have quantified protein kinetics (protein synthesis (PS), breakdown (PB), and net balance (NB)) at the whole body level before and throughout the response to two levels of protein intake in mixed meals with or without prior resistance exercise in healthy young adults, [hypothesizing] that 1) the whole body net anabolic response (NB) would be greater with intake of 70 g protein, compared with 40 g protein in mixed meals; and 2) the whole body net anabolic response to either level of dietary protein in mixed meals would be greater following resistance exercise" (Kim. 2016).

To test this hypothesis, the scientists recruited twenty-three healthy subjects [18–40 yr] who didn't suffer from diabetes, or any other active malignancy within the past 6 mo, didn't have gastrointestinal bypass surgery, a chronic inflammatory disease, low hematocrit or hemoglobin concentration, low platelets, concomitant use of corticosteroids, any unstable medical conditions, and who already performed resistance exercise more than once per week.

Table 1: Subject characteristic (before the experiment | Kim. 2016)

We are thus dealing with previously trained, albeit not exactly jacked young subjects (see Table 1 for detailes subject characteristics) who may be considered representative of 'the average gymgoer' who were randomly assigned to the resistance exercise group (X) or the resting group (R).

"The resistance exercise bout consisted of 3 sets of 10 repetitions of bench press, lateralis pull-down, leg press, and leg extension each at 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1 RM, the maximum weight that can be lifted for 1 repetition). Each set was completed within 30 s. The rest interval between sets was <2 min, and the entire exercise bout was completed in ∼45–50 min" (note: the subjects trained only on day 4 | my emphasis in Kim. 2016).

To standardize the subject's dietary intake(s) the meals for both, the medium and high protein groups were provided for both, the 3-day run-in period (intended to be dietary normalization period) before the metabolic study and the metabolic study on day 4.

This is not the end of the 30g of protein per meal rule: Why's that? Well, first of all the scientists measured total body protein turnover. It is thus not possible to say how much of the 65% decrease in protein breakdown was muscle specific (some people will argue the answer is zero). In addition to that, the study at hand provides evidence only for the acute effects of a single large high protein meal. The chronic effect could be different or less pronounced - especially if this meal is consumed as part of a diet that is already high in protein.

The protein source of choice was, just as in the previously cited study in older individuals (Kim. 2015) 85% lean ground beef from a local grocery that was formed into patties weighing 113.4 g (4 oz) or 283.5 g (10 oz) of the beef (pre-cooked/raw).

Table 2: Macronutrients of 3-day run-in on day 1–3 and metabolic infusion study on day 4; Values are expressed as means SE. Each subject consumed his or her respective interventional foods based on their sex; n number of subjects. X, exercise group; R, resting group; MP, low protein; HP, higher protein; M, male; F, female; CHO, carbohydrate (Kim. 2016)

Subjects were asked to record time of meal consumption and percentage of meal consumption and to photograph the meal before and after consumption, as well as to return all unused or empty meal/supplement packaging on the morning of the fourth day when they reported to the lab for the metabolic study (only subjects who achieved a minimum compliance of 80% consumption of meals progressed to the metabolic study).

Timing may matter albeit only for trained individuals, it seem.

Remember: For trained individuals timing may matter - While the evidence for nutrient and protein timing may be skinny (Kerksick. 2008; Aragon 2013; Schoenfeld. 2013), it's not as if there was no data suggesting that you want to put a special emphasis on consuming adequate amounts of high quality [=high essential amino acid (EAA)] protein such as whey (or dairy in general), meat, eggs, fish, soy or pea protein in the vicinity of your workouts.

Needless to say that this does not imply that you "wasted" your time whenever you fail to get your protein shake or high protein meal in within X minutes after your workout! 

By the means of phenylalanine as a tracer amino acids, the subjects' individual whole body protein kinetics were calculated based on the determinations of the rate of appearance (Ra) into the plasma of phenylalanine and tyrosine and the fractional Ra of endogenous tyrosine converted from phenylalanine as in the previous study (18). The analysis of this data yielded the following results (Kim. 2016): (a) Exercise did not significantly affect protein kinetics and blood chemistry, the feeding, however, (b) resulted in a positive net protein balance (NB) at both levels of protein intake, but...

• 

  Figure 1: Changes in rates of whole body protein net balance (NB), synthesis (PS), and breakdown (PB) from the fasted state in response to meal containing 40 g (MP) or 70 g (HP) of dietary protein with prior resistance exercise (X) or time-matched resting (R | Kim. 2016).

  the net protein balance (NB) was  65% greater in response to the meal containing HP vs. MP (i.e. 40g vs. 70g of protein; P < 0.00001) - irrespective of exercise, 
• the greater NB with HP was achieved primarily through a 66% greater reduction in protein breakdown (PB) and to a lesser extent stimulation of protein synthesis (for all, P < 0.0001), and 
• the HP resulted in greater plasma essential amino acid responses (P < 0.01) vs. MP, with no differences in insulin and glucose responses - likewise without sign. differences in the exercise (X-MP and X-HP) vs .the resting (R-MP and R-HP, respectively, in Figure 1) condition. 

As the scientists point out in the conclusion of their study, the ingestion of an increased amount of protein in form of a whole protein (in this case lean beef) will thus significantly improve the whole body net protein balance in the rested and trained state in healthy, young male and female subjects - mostly due to a previously often overlooked reduction in protein breakdown.

Bottom line: The study addresses an important question that had been left open in the previously discussed study in older subjects, i.e. 'Is the beneficial effect of increased protein intakes an age-specific phenomenon?' - with the answer being 'no, it isn't' and the study providing further evidence of the benefit of extra protein in both a sedentary and resistance training context, the study at hand provides further incentive to 'super-size" your average per meal protein intake to achieve total protein intakes way beyond the USDA recommendation of only 0.8g/kg body weight.

Latest Study Shows that a 3.3 g/kg High-Protein Diet is Safe -- And Yes, This Means it Doesn't Hurt Your Kidney or Liver | more

What the study does not do, however, is to address the question whether that's the same for fast-absorbing (more anabolic) whey protein, where both, the protein anabolic response (i.e. acute postprandial protein synthesis) as well as the postprandial protein breakdown could still show a ceiling effect in both, young and older individuals. Until this interaction with protein quality / the type of protein will not have been investigated, it still appears to make sense to aim for a higher per meal (and thus total) protein intake - after all, Antonio et al. (2016) have only recently shown that the often-cited potential detrimental effects on your health simply don't exist | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Antonio J, Ellerbroek A, Silver T, et al. A high protein diet has no harmful effects: a one-year crossover study in resistance-trained males. J Nutr Metab. 2016.
• Aragon, Alan Albert, and Brad Jon Schoenfeld. "Nutrient timing revisited: is there a post-exercise anabolic window?." Journal of the international society of sports nutrition 10.1 (2013): 1.
• Kerksick, Chad, et al. "International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: nutrient timing." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 5.1 (2008): 1.
• Kim, Il-Young, et al. "Quantity of dietary protein intake, but not pattern of intake, affects net protein balance primarily through differences in protein synthesis in older adults." American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism 308.1 (2015): E21-E28.
• Kim, Il-Young, et al. "The anabolic response to a meal containing different amounts of protein is not limited by the maximal stimulation of protein synthesis in healthy young adults." American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism 310.1 (2016): E73-E80.
• Schoenfeld, Brad Jon, Alan Albert Aragon, and James W. Krieger. "The effect of protein timing on muscle strength and hypertrophy: a meta-analysis." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 10.1 (2013): 1.

Net Protein Retention and Dietary Protein: When It Comes to Steaks, More Helps More - By Inhibiting Protein Breakdown

Want to maximize net protein retention? Order another one... another steak ;-)

In view of the WHO's recent epidemiological bogus publication, ... ah I mean their review of the epidemiological research that said that "red meat kills", it is quite surprising that the study Il-Young Kim and colleagues conducted in healthy young adults was even approved by the ethics committee of their respective research institutions. After all, the study involved measuring the whole body protein kinetics of young men and women after the consumption of ~40g (moderate protein, or MP) or, even "worse", ~70g (higher protein, HP) of protein in form of red meat (85% lean ground beef) in a regular food matrix (=as part of a normal meal | see Table 1 for an exact overview of the macronutrient content).

You can learn more about protein intake at the SuppVersity

Are You Protein Wheysting?

More Protein ≠ Autom. Fat Loss

More Protein ≠ More Satiety

Protein: Food or Supplement?

Protein Timing DOES Matter!

Too Much Whey Pro-Diabetic?

Whole protein kinetics? Yes, that's different from what you see in the average "whey protein builds muscle study", in which the researchers measure only the fractional protein synthesis. Kim et al. went one step further and measured the protein synthesis (PS), breakdown (PB), and net balance (NB) in their subjects, twenty-three healthy subjects [18 – 40 yrs] who were recruited from the Little Rock area using local newspaper advertisements and flyers posted around the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) campus and the Little Rock area. Now, it's not like humans had a display you can use to read these variables, so eventually, they were still calculated based on the determinations of the rate of appearance (Ra) into the plasma of phenylalanine and tyrosine, and the fractional Ra of endogenous tyrosine converted from phenylalanine as in a previous study by the same team of researchers (Kim. 2015a). Since this technique is unable to distinguish between the different sites of protein breakdown.and storage, the results of the study at hand could describe increases or decreases in splachnic (=organ) protein synthesis or breakdown, too. It is thus not possible to exclude a null effect on skeletal muscle protein synthesis and breakdown based on the available data.

Whole protein kinetics, two different amounts of protein, with and without exercise

There were yet other things Kim's study had in common with many of the aforementioned "whey protein studies": The study had a run-in that was included to minimize any potential effects of the protein content of the subjects' baseline diets. The subjects ate their high or medium protein meals in the fasted state and the participants - or at least some of them - also trained. To be more specific, the subjects were randomly assigned into an exercise group (X, n=12) protocol consisting of 3 sets of 10 repetitions of bench press, lateralis pull-down, leg press, and leg extension each at 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1 RM, the maximum weight that can be lifted for one repetition) at a pace of 30 sec per set (rest interval between sets was less than 2 min, and the entire exercise bout was completed in ~45 – 50 min), or a resting group (R, n=11).

Table 1: Overview of the macronutrient intake during the 4-day run-in and the actual experiment (Kim. 2015b)

So much for the study design. Let's take a look at the results now: When the scientists analyzed the data from the 7-h stable isotope tracer infusion protocol that was used to determine the rate of protein synthesis (PS), breakdown (PB) and net protein balance (NP), they realized that...

• exercise did not significantly affect protein kinetics and blood chemistry, while 
• feeding, in general, resulted in a positive net protein balance at both levels of protein intake,

Boring? You're right. This would hardly be a 'SuppVersity newsworthy' study if the researchers had not also confirmed what most of you probably already suspected: The high protein meal lead to a significantly greater increase in net protein balance than the medium protein meal.

Figure 1: It's the decrease in protein breakdown, not the marginal increase in protein synthesis that makes the difference between the net protein balance after the high and medium protein meals (Kim. 2015b).

Interestingly enough, this increase in net protein balance was achieved primarily through a greater reduction in PB and to a lesser extent stimulation of protein synthesis (for all, p<0.0001). This is an important results, because it suggests that all previously reported ceiling effects for protein synthesis could be irrelevant when we are talking about a potential limit of protein intake beyond which you won't be able to see further beneficial effects on body composition in general and the accrual of lean mas in particular.

Figure 2: The analysis of the inter-group differences in EAAs, glucose and insulin suggest that the difference is meadiated mainly by the increase in serum EAAs and not a "side effect" of increased, highly anticatabolic (Fukagawa. 1985) insulin.

Bottom line: When it comes to interpreting the results, two things are important. Firstly, it is worth mentioning that the previously described decrease in protein breakdown was achieved in response to a greater increase in plasma EAAs (p<0.01) - not in response to increased insulin levels (inter-group differences were non-significant over time). That's important because it means that you wouldn't see the same effect by simply adding more insulinogenic carbs to the meal in order to increase the levels of one of the most powerful inhibitors of protein breakdown: insulin (Fukagawa. 1985)!

Sounds great, right? More helps more! True, there's yet (a) the previously hinted at problem that we can't tell if what the scientists measured was muscle or splachnic protein. Furthermore, the results of the study are (b) valid only if the protein comes from slow-digesting meat. From previous research, I discussed in detail back in 2013, already, we know that the ingestion of similarly high amounts of fast digesting proteins, like whey, does not inhibit, but rather trigger an increase in protein breakdown and gluconeogenesis that uses the ingested protein as a substrate. Now, that doesn't mean that using too much whey protein will cost you muscle mass. What it does mean, though, is that you'll be "Protein Wheysting" if you mistakenly believe that the results of Kim's study apply with a very slow digesting protein source apply turbo-proteins, as well.

So what's the verdict?  Don't economize on protein, but don't fool yourself to believe that with protein more is always always better. Maybe I should also remind you that when you're dieting a high protein intake can yield better results than a very high one and that's a conclusion from a metabolic ward study | Tell me and others what you think on Facebook!

References:

• Fukagawa, N. K., et al. "Insulin-mediated reduction of whole body protein breakdown. Dose-response effects on leucine metabolism in postabsorptive men." Journal of Clinical Investigation 76.6 (1985): 2306.
• Kim, Il-Young, et al. "Quantity of dietary protein intake, but not pattern of intake, affects net protein balance primarily through differences in protein synthesis in older adults." American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism 308.1 (2015): E21-E28.
• Kim, et al. "The anabolic response to a meal containing different amounts of protein is not limited by the maximal stimulation of protein synthesis in healthy young adults." Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab (November 3, 2015b). doi:10.1152/ajpendo.00365.2015.

Vitargo™, Red Bull™ + Co. Research - Are They Worth It? Beef Can Keep Up W/ Whey For Gains! "Creatine Loading" = Too Much of a Good Thing - ISSN Research Review '15 #1

When you're running on a treadmill it obviously takes more than one serving of Red Bull or other commercial energy drinks to kickstart your workout performance | learn more below.

Initially, I wanted to cherry pick only the most interesting study results that were presented in form of poster presentations at the Twelfth International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) Conference and Expo in 2015. After looking at the research that is - as of now - only available in form of (albeit often detailed) abstracts, I decided that there are way too many interesting studies to cover only three of them in depth or all of them only cursory. Accordingly, I decided to start a SuppVersity Mini Special with this being the first out of 3-4 issues in which I will briefly discuss the most significant results of those of the roughly two dozen studies, I (a) believe are of greatest interest to you and (b) feel comfortable talking about without having all the details in form of the still to be published full texts.

Read more about ISSN and other studies at the SuppVersity

Vitargo, Red Bull, Creatine & More | ISSN'15 #1

Pump Supps & Synephrine & X | ISSN'15 #2

High Protein, Body Comp & X | ISSN'15 #3

Keto Diet Re- search Update | ISSN'15 #4

The Misquantified Self & More | ISSN'15 #5

BCAA, Cholos-trum, Probiotics & Co | ISSN'15 #6

• The latest research on Vitargo(TM) -- The mere fact that the latest study on Vitargo(TM) was presented in "three servings", on the latest ISSN meeting, i.e. (1) on the glucose and insulin response (Almada. 2015), (2) on the incretin response (Anzalone. 2015) and (3) on the power output during a subsequent bout of resistance exercise (Van Eck. 2015), could raise some concerns about the objectivity of the results, but is as Patrick Jacobs kindly reminded me common scientific practice.. So, let's put the skepticism aside and take a look at the study design and results.
  
  

  

  Post-Workout Glycogen Repletion | Read my overview article.

  Sixteen resistance trained men participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized crossover study, which consisted of three testing sessions, each separated by one week. In sessions 1-3, subjects completed a glycogen depleting cycling bout of 60 minutes at 70% VO2 max, followed by six, one-minute sprints at 120% VO2 max.
  
  Immediately post-exercise subjects ingested a placebo (PLA), or a low molecular (LMW) or high molecular weight (HMW) CHO (=Vitargo(TM)) solution (10%) providing 1.2g/kg body weight CHO; assigned randomly. Blood samples were taken prior to ingestion and every ten minutes for 2h.
  
  For the "first" and "second" serving of the study this was enough. These mini-presentations dealt with the insulin, glucose and incretin response to the two supplements, only. For the "third serving", however, the scientists included performance data from a subsequent bout of exercise, during which the participants did 5 sets of 10 repetitions of back squats (75% 1RM) "as explosively as possible" (if subjects paused for more than 2 seconds or were unable to complete a rep, resistance was lowered by 13.6 kg | Van Eck. 2015).
  

  

  Figure 1: Overview of the most relevant results (LMW = low molecular weight CHO vs. HMW = Vitargo (TM) high molecular weight CHO) from Almada (2015), Anzalone (2015) and Van Eck (2015).

  As you can see in my overview of the most relevant results, the scientists did not find practically meaningful differences in study I-II. In study III, which compared the effects of low to high molecular weight carbohydrates (LMW vs. HMW) on squat performance 2h after the glycogen-depleting workout, this was slightly different:

  "HMW conferred a likely beneficial effect in Sets 4 and 5 (92.5% and 88.7% likelihood, respectively), compared to PLA; while ingestion of LMW conferred only a possibly beneficial effect (68.7%) and likely beneficial effect (83.9%) in Sets 4 and 5, respectively" (Van Eck. 2015).

  And still, if you read the conclusion, "the ingestion of a HMW CHO solution providing 1.2 g/kg CHO may allow athletes to sustain power output in a subsequent resistance training session when time between training sessions is limited" (Van Eck. 2015), carefully, you will notice the words "likely" and "possibly" which signify the putative nature of the effect. What may be even more relevant than that, is yet that few of you will do glycogen-depleting exercises at 4:00 pm and hit the gym again for an intense leg workout at 6:00 pm. Accordingly, the practical relevance of the "sustained power output" Van Eck et al. observed is probably restricted to a small group of professional athletes. For people who fall into this category or strength athletes training twice a day, though, using Vitargo (TM) may in fact offer significant benefits.
• Beef and whey support lean mass gains similarly effectively -- If you are asking yourself if beef isolate protein is a good or at least decent replacement for whey, the post-workout protein supplementation "gold standard" some people can't use due to its (albeit low) lactose content, a recent study from the University of Tampa (Sharp. 2015) has the answer you are looking for.
  

  

  Figure 2: Relative improvements in muscle size (hypertrophy) and body fat (fat loss) in response to beef isolate or whey protein supplementation; expressed relative to maltodextrin placebo (Sharp. 2015).

  As the data in Figure 2 tells you, it will make a good replacement! If we go by the average increase in lean mass and loss of fat mass, the beef isolate that was consumed in amounts of 2x20g per day either immediately after each of the 5 weekly workouts (3 resistance training, 2 cardio; 8 weeks total, daily undulating periodization) or at a similar time in the day, you may even argue that the beef protein had the overhand over its "milky" competitor. If we take the individual variations into account, though, the 1% lean mass and almost 3% fat loss advantage (DXA values) of the beef protein turns out to be statistically non-singifican.
  
  The same goes for differences in strength gains, of which the researchers found that they were identical not just in the two supplement, but also in the supplement and control groups. The lack of additional power during the bench press test may, as the researchers point out, be ascribed to both increases in neural and morphological adaptations" (Sharp. 2015) which would "negate" (ibid.), or as I would phrase it, 'override' potential additive effects of any of the protein supplements (whey and beef, alike).
• Energy drinks a waste of money on the treadmill? At first sight, the results of the latest study by Sanders et al. (2015) do in fact suggest that energy drinks were a total waste of money for those of you who are consuming them before a regular cardio workout on the treadmill. After all, none of the tested drinks lead to statistically significant improvements in either perceived treadmill exercise performance or running economy assessed via oxygen consumption at 70% treadmill exercise.

In contrast to treadmill running, the performance during a cycling time-trial can be improved by the consumption of an energy drink - a potential explanation for the difference may be that the subjects in the Ivy study consumed 2x  more Red Bull than the subjects in Sanders' study.

Energy drinks don't work? Well, the overall research shows a more diverse picture. While a previous study by Astorino et al. (2012) and a similar study by Candow et al. (2009) that tested the effects of Red Bull on repeated sprint performance and its effects on time to exhaustion, respectively, yielded similarly disappointing results, Ivy et al. (2009) and Forbes et al. (2007) found benefits. More specifically, the researchers observed significant increases in upper body muscle endurance (yet no effect on anaerobic peak or average power during repeated Wingate cycling tests in young healthy adults | Forbes. 2007) and improved cycling time-trial performance (without concomitant increase in perceived exertion | Ivy. 2009) - albeit with 2x more Red Bull than in the study at hand (500ml vs. 250ml).

• Now, some of you may argue that all you care about when you buy an energy drink is that it makes it easier for you to hit your target time on the treadmill. Well, I can understand that, but in view of the fact that neither of the caffeine laden 8.4 oz. Red Bull®, 16 oz. Monster Energy ®, 2 oz. 5-hour ENERGY® drinks affected the subjects subjective rates of perceived exertion, it does appear questionable that these drinks can actually help you.
  
  It does thus stand to reason that Sanders et al. conclude that the "results [of their latest study] do not support manufacturers' claims regarding their product's ability to boost performance" (Sanders. 2015). The scientists are yet also right that it would be necessary to find out whether time trial or time to exhaustion sprint and endurance performance benefit, as respective studies may be better suited to reliably "assess if these energy drinks can, in fact, improve exercise performance" (ibid.) - and in view of the fact that previous studies with corresponding outcomes yielded conflicting results (see blue box above), I can fully subscribe to that: We need more (non-sponsored) quality studies ;-)
• More evidence that creatine loading is not the way to go -- In Gann et al.'s latest study, fourteen (Cr = 7, Pl = 7) non-resistance-trained (i.e. < thrice weekly, 1 year prior) men between the ages of 18-30 were randomly assigned by age and body weight to orally ingest a powdered dextrose placebo or creatine monohydrate (Gann. 2015).
  
  After baseline strength and body composition testing procedures, participants ingested creatine or placebo at a dose of 0.3g/kg lean body mass/day (≈ 20-25g/day) for a 5 day loading phase immediately followed by a 42-day maintenance phase at a dose of 0.075g/kg lean body mass/day (≈ 5-7g/day). The participants followed a periodized 4 day per week resistance-training program split into two upper body and two lower body workouts per week, for a total of 7 weeks. Blood and muscle samples were obtained at Day 0, 6, 27, and 48. Statistical analyses were performed utilizing separate two-way ANOVA for each criterion variable employing a probability level of ≤ 0.05.
  

  

  Figure 3: Don't be fooled by shiny ads! While there is evidence that some forms of creatine will be faster absorbed than creatine monohydrate, only the addition of dextrose (and ALA or baking soda) have actually been shown to increase the muscular retention of creatine in experiments (Jäger. 2011) 

  As you'd expect, the addition of creatine lead to significant increments in total body mass (p = 0.03) and lean body mass (p = 0.01). What creatine did not do, though, was to affect the amount of body fat the subjects were carrying around. The latter decreased to a similar extent in both groups in response to resistance training, alone (p = 0.001) - without any effect of creatine supplementation. Much to my personal surprise, the same was the case for the subjects' muscle strength, which was - likewise - increased to the same extent in both groups.
  
  So what? Well, in contrast to the uncommon lack of effect on muscle strength, the lack of effect on body fat is sad, but had to be expected. Both findings are yet not why this study made the SuppVersity Cut. That is or rather was Gann's observation that the loading phase lead to significant increases in of urinary creatine (p = 0.036), and urinary creatinine (p = 0.01) in the creatine group compared to placebo. This "excess amounts of serum and urinary creatine and urinary creatinine content" (Gann. 2015) provides further evidence that the (still common) practice of creatine loading is useless and 100% safe certainly only in the short term. In the long term, however, I'd highly suggest that you avoid super-dosing on creatine - I mean, why would you want to use 20g per day, when 3-5 g per day is enough (Wilder. 2001) and more than will "lose" once the creatine levels of your muscles are saturated (the exact washout time is unknown, but studies indicate it may be >40 days of consuming no creatine at all | Deldicque. 2008)?

Intra-workout BCAA supplements are marketed specifically to resistance trainees. If they do have anti-catabolic effects, though, those are - just like potential fatigue reducing effects - significantly more likely to occur in endurance trainees | learn more

What else? In the bottom line of this mini-series I will briefly reference those studies that did not make the SuppVersity Cut for various reasons. Studies like those on the benefits of BCAAs, for example (Kephart. 2015 or Mumford. 2015). For this kind of study I would need the full-text, not just the abstract to tell you how relevant conclusions like the "BCAA supplement did not appear to enhance recovery benefits compared to a CHO control", "a few areas of performance were bolstered to a point of practical importance"(Kephart. 2015) or "BCAA supplementation [...] may benefit immune function during a prolonged cycling season" (Mumford. 2015), actually are. As soon as the corresponding full papers you have published I will obviously make good for any performance-relevant information I may be missing by ignoring the abstracts, today | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Almada, Anthony L., et al. "Effect of post-exercise ingestion of different molecular weight carbohydrate solutions. Part 1: The glucose and insulin response." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 12.Suppl 1 (2015): P30.
• Astorino, Todd A., et al. "Effects of red bull energy drink on repeated sprint performance in women athletes." Amino acids 42.5 (2012): 1803-1808.
• Anzalone, Anthony J., et al. "Effect of post-exercise ingestion of different molecular weight carbohydrate solutions. Part II: The incretin response." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 12.Suppl 1 (2015): P31.
• Candow, Darren G., et al. "Effect of sugar-free Red Bull energy drink on high-intensity run time-to-exhaustion in young adults." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.4 (2009): 1271-1275.
• Deldicque, Louise, et al. "Kinetics of creatine ingested as a food ingredient." European journal of applied physiology 102.2 (2008): 133-143.
• Forbes, Scott C., et al. "Effect of Red Bull energy drink on repeated Wingate cycle performance and bench-press muscle endurance." International journal of sport nutrition and exercise metabolism 17.5 (2007): 433.
• Gann, Joshua J., et al. "Effects of a traditionally-dosed creatine supplementation protocol and resistance training on the skeletal muscle uptake and whole-body metabolism and retention of creatine in males." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 12.Suppl 1 (2015): P2.
• Ivy, John L., et al. "Improved cycling time-trial performance after ingestion of a caffeine energy drink." International journal of sport nutrition 19.1 (2009): 61.
• Jäger, Ralf, et al. "Analysis of the efficacy, safety, and regulatory status of novel forms of creatine." Amino Acids 40.5 (2011): 1369-1383.
• Kephart, Wesley C., et al. "Ten weeks of branched chain amino acid supplementation improves select performance and immunological variables in trained cyclists." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 12.Suppl 1 (2015): P20.
• Mumford, Petey, et al. "Effects of sub-chronic branched chain amino acid supplementation on markers of muscle damage and performance variables following 1 week of rigorous weight training." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 12.Suppl 1 (2015): P29.
• Sanders, Gabriel J., et al. "The effect of three different energy drinks on oxygen consumption and perceived exertion during treadmill exercise." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 12.Suppl 1 (2015): P1.
• Sharp, Matthew, et al. "The effects of beef protein isolate and whey protein isolate supplementation on lean mass and strength in resistance trained individuals-a double blind, placebo controlled study." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 12.Suppl 1 (2015): P11.
• Van Eck, Leighsa E., et al. "Effect of post-exercise ingestion of different molecular weight carbohydrate solutions. Part III: Power output during a subsequent resistance training bout." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 12.Suppl 1 (2015): P32.
• Wilder, Nathan, et al. "The effects of low-dose creatine supplementation versus creatine loading in collegiate football players." Journal of athletic training 36.2 (2001): 124.