Total Protein, not its Whey-to-Casein Ratio Determines the Satiety Effects of a Standardized Chocolate-Vanilla Shake

No, that's not a photo from the study.

This is not the first SuppVersity article to discuss the satiating effect of dietary protein, but it's the only one addressing the notion that a lower whey-to-casein ratio in a high-protein milk beverage would go hand in hand with an increased satiety effect.

Why should it? Well, as Amelinda et al. (2016) point out, "whey and casein protein have different digestion rates" it is thus only logical to assume that combining them may result in a prolonged satiating effect.

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

Protein Oxidation = Health Threat

Protein Timing DOES Matter!

More Protein = More Liver Fat?

To test this hypothesis, the Indonesian researchers conducted a randomized, single-blind, cross-over study with 12 healthy, normal-weight men who received a standardized breakfast (tuna sandwich, which consisted of white bread and tuna sandwich spread, prepared to fulfill 20% of the individual DER with 16% of the energy coming from protein, 22% from fat and 62% from carbohydrate) followed by one of the three preloads in form of a milk beverage (140kcal) containing 15 g protein with whey-to-casein protein ratios of 20:80, 50:50, or 80:20.

Table 1: Energy and macronutrient content of the test beverages (Amelinda. 2016).

To assess the differential effects of the high vs. low whey / casein protein shake, the researchers assessed the subjective appetite ratings on a visual analog scale. What's more important, though, is that the scientists also measured the consecutive energy intake during (a) an ad-libitum lunch (spaghetti, fresh mushroom Italian sauce, corn oil, cheddar cheese, sugar, salt and pepper; prepared based on a standardized recipe and was mixed homogeneously by the same person for each test day the lunch provided 150 kcal / 100g with 13, 22 and 65% of the total energy provided by protein,
fat and carbohydrate, respectively) and (b) by the means of dietary recalls of food and drinks consumed during the remainder of the experimental day.

Figure 1: Mean subsequent energy intake during: (a) Lunch; (b) Remainder of the day; (c) Total energy intake. Error bars show 95% confdence interval (Amelinda. 2016).

In contrast to the authors' research hypothesis, their study showed that "there was no significant effect of the whey to casein protein ratio in milk beverages on the appetite ratings and subsequent energy intake" (Amelinda. 2016). If you take into account previous studies on the satiety benefits of high(er) protein intakes, too, the logical conclusion is that "[a] high protein content, as opposed to the type of protein, may be of greater importance in determining the satiating properties of protein and should be taken into account when developing weight loss products" (Amelinda. 2016).

Casein & whey - Many companies sell both. For a good reason! What's that reason? Well in combination they will do both, trigger and sustain maximal protein synthesis | learn more.

It may still make sense to choose specific whey-to-casein ratios: their effects on muscle protein synthesis. As previously discussed, it doesn't just make perfect sense to prolong the period of hyperaminoacidemia, i.e. the elevation of essential and non-essential amino acids in your blood, by adding some slow-digesting casein to your beloved post-workout whey shake, it has also been confirmed in a long-term study that this practice will actually produce a significant increase in lean mass gains in thirty-six resistance-trained males.

Ahh... and based on N=1 personal experience, I would like to add that real high protein foods are usually significantly more satiating than protein shakes | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Angela, Amelinda, et al. "Effect of Whey-to-Casein Protein Ratio in Chocolate-Vanilla Milk Beverage on Satiation and Acute Energy Intake." Kasetsart J. (Nat. Sci.) 49 (2016): 738 - 746 

12-Week Study: 25g Bed-Time Protein Almost Doubles Size & Increases Strength Gains - Where's the Catch?

Fridge raiding allowed, no even suggested! At least if what you take out of the fridge is a chilled protein shake - preferably one with at least some slow-digesting casein.

You will remember my provocative claim that you can "Gain 3.2kg of Lean Mass Over Night" from a 2012 SuppVersity article (read it | Groen. 2012). The claim was based on an extrapolation of the lean mass gains you would see within one year if the only thing you did was to consume one serving of slow digesting protein before bed - no training, no other dietary intervention.

Now, three years later, I am happy to tell you my prediction was not too far off. In fact, the provision of a shake containing 27.5 g of protein, 15 g of carbohydrate, and 0.1 g of fat right before bed even doubled the gains of the those 22 young, recreational active, but non-resistance trained men who had been randomly assigned to the active treatment (the energy-free placebo tasted identical).

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

Whey vs. Pea Protein

Needless to say that Tim Snijders and his colleagues had hypothesized that the provision of extra dietary protein before sleep would "further augment the gains in muscle mass, strength, and muscle fiber size during more prolonged resistance-type exercise training in healthy young men" (Snijders. 2015). That the extra-gains the subjects in the active group saw in response to 12-weeks of resistance training + supplementation would be that significant is yet something the scientists from the Maastricht University probably didn't expect, either.

Figure 1: Changes in cross sectional area and muscle size of type II fibers (Snijder. 2015).

Ok, the muscle diameter aka the "cross-sectional area" (CSA) increase of the quads in the PRO group was "onl" 75% not 100% higher and the whole body lean mass did not show a treatment effect (=similar increases in both groups), but the total change in 1RM of all strength tests, i.e. leg presses, extensions, chest press, shoulder press, horizontal row and vertical pull-down clearly confirm that the protein supplement did it job and it did it well (see Figure 2).

What did the exercise program look like? As previously mentioned, the subject trained thrice a week. Their training sessins were supervised and consisted of a a 5-min warm-up on a cycle ergometer that was followed by 4 sets on both the leg press and the leg extension machines (Technogym). While these 2 exercises were performed every training session, the additional exercises varied. More specifically, 2 sets on the chest press and horizontal row were alternated with vertical pull-down and shoulder press between every training session. Each exercise session ended with a 5-min cooling down period on the cycle ergometer. During the first week of the training period, the workload was gradually increased from 70% (10–15 repetitions) of 1RM to 80% of 1RM (8–10 repetitions). Thereafter, training was always performed at 80% 1RM. The weights and thus the workload was progressively increased (Note: Imho, that's the #1 factor why people don't make gains, in the real world: They forget to increase their weights!)

Figure 2: 1RM increased as well.

What we do have to keep in mind, though, is that the study participants did not, as most of you probably do, consume a protein shake right after their workouts. The addition of 25g of protein right before bed did thus increase the relative protein intake of the subjects in the PRO group by 0.6g/kg. The subjects in the PLA group, on the other hand, were stuck with their sufficient, but certainly not exuberant intake of 1.3g/kg body weight per day form dietary sources, a post-workout protein shake was not consumed by either of the two groups.

This does not negate the scientists' conclusion that "protein ingestion before sleep represents an effective dietary strategy to augment skeletal muscle mass and strength gains during prolonged resistance-type exercise training in healthy, young men." (Snijder. 2015), but it certainly raises the question if the differences would have been similarly pronounced if the protein intakes had been matched or if the scientist had compared post-workout vs. pre-bed consumption.

If you still haven't read my previous article on this topic, i.e. "3.2kg of Lean Mass Over Night W/ 40g of Slow Digesting Protein 30min Before Bed!? Over One Year, a Positive Nitrogen Balance and +20% FSR Could Make It Happen!", it is about time to do so.

So, what's the take-home message? While the study at hand clearly confirms the feasibility and usefulness of consuming another serving of quality protein (in this case 13.75 g of casein hydrolysate Peptopro + 13.75 g of casein) before bed, the results cannot be transferred 1:1 to the situation most of you will be in. If you consume about the same amount of protein right after your workout and/or have a (sign.) higher total protein intake (>1.3g/kg which is what the subjects in the study consumed from dietary sources) and are no rookie anymore, I would expect that the benefits will be sign. less pronounced - maybe even non-significant, or not even measurable. Before there's a follow up study to quantify the extent of this difference, it may still make sense to have a high protein snack before bed - specifically when you're bulking | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Groen, Bart, et al. "Protein ingestion before sleep improves postexercise overnight recovery." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 44.8 (2012): 1560-1569.
• Snijders, et al. "Protein Ingestion before Sleep Increases Muscle Mass and Strength Gains during Prolonged Resistance-Type Exercise Training in Healthy Young Men." The Journal of Nutrition (2015): Ahead of print.

High School Athletes on Dope? Not Really, But Roughly 1/3 Uses "Performance Enhancing Supplements"

"Don't you take those steroids!" Does this remind you of your mother, when, back in high school, you bought your first tub of creatine monohydrate? Recent doping "scandals" have, yet again, raised the awareness, or should I say panicky fear of parents and coaches that their children and wards are going to be delinquent, when they save their allowances for a shopping spree at the local GNC. Accordingly, many of them will not be happy to hear that a recent study published in the Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research (Piattolly. 2011) found that "[a]lmost a third [32.2%] of the high school sample surveyed reported using nutritional or performance enhancement supplements."

Figure 1: Type of performance enhancing supplement used by high school athletes (data adapted from Piattolly. 2011)

Interestingly, of those 32.2% of the young athletes that reported using supplements, the majority were male (87%) and in the age group of 15-17 year-olds. Prevalent sports were baseball (17.8%), football (32.7%), and track and field (22.3%) and the most popular supplements were protein shakes, multivitamins, NO2 boosters and creatine (cf. figure 1), of which more than 50% of the respondent used two or more in combination.

An interesting secondary finding of the study relates to gender differences and the afore mentioned role of parents in their children's choice and consumption of performance enhancing supplements:

When gender comparisons were made, significant t-tests demonstrated that young women rated higher on taking supplements to improve strength, increase size, decrease body fat (p < 0.05) to become a better athlete, and increase physique. With the exception of decrease body fat, all p-values were < 0.001. Significantly more young women reported learning about the supplement from a teammate or friend (p < 0.05), while young men reported learning about the supplement from their parents (p < 0.05).

It is, however, unsettling to know that other than the 25% of the athletes who "said they would consult a nutritionist or physician (25%)" to make sure they chose the right supplements, 26% of the young athletes conceded that "they would take a supplement that could harm their health if they could receive a scholarship".

In view of this last-mentioned result, the fears and anxieties of parents appear in a very different light. Banning or restricting the consumption of harmless supplements like protein shakes will yet hardly solve a dilemma that is rooted much more deeply within a scholarship system where athletic and lately cognitive performance is so tightly bound to the future prospects of adolescents that "doping" muscle and/or brain are on the verge of becoming the norm rather than the exception.