40g Casein Build Lean Muscle Overnight: 27% Elevated MPS Even W/Out Training (30% W/ Ex) - And That in 70-Y+ Olds!

40g Casein Build Lean Muscle Overnight: 27% Elevated MPS Even W/Out Training (30% W/ Ex) - And That in 70-Y+ Olds!

build muscle casein dairy dairy protein elderly high protein pre-bed prebed protein protein supplements sarcopenia sleep

Pre-bed protein (meal or shake) is always a good idea, no matter if you're young or old, if you work out in the PM or not - you don't want to miss the increased overnight protein synthesis.

Gaining muscle over night? No news! You will probably remember the two previous articles on "pre-bed protein ingestion", i.e. "12-Week Study: 25g Bed-Time Protein Almost Doubles Size & Increases Strength Gains" (read it) and "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!" (read it), but still! With this being the first study to show that even (on average) 71-year-olds can "build muscle overnight" with nothing but 40g of casein being ingested ~30 minutes before they went to bed, it is probably the most impressive of the previously referenced studies.

High-protein diets are much safer than the mainstream 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?

There is, allegedly, no long-term data (=actual gains) such as the increase in lean mass after 6-12 weeks, but with this study, which was actually designed to test the hypothesis that...

"[...] that physical activity can augment the impact of presleep protein ingestion on overnight muscle protein synthesis [in] 23 older men (71 6 1 y) who ingested 40 g casein protein intrinsically labeled with L-[1-13C]-phenylalanine and L-[1-13C]-leucine before going to sleep with (PRO+EX8; n = 11) or without (PRO; n = 12) a bout of physical activity being performed earlier in the evening" (Holwerda. 2016),

the study results (that were, by the way, only marginally in line with the scientists hypothesis from the previously cited introduction) exceed my personal expectations, significantly.

Figure 1: Overnight myofibrillar protein FSRs after PRO+EX (n = 11) or PRO (n = 12) presleep treatment in older men as calculated with L-[ring-2H5]-phenylalanine (A) or L-[1-13C]-leucine (B) as tracer. Values are means 6 SEMs. Data were analyzed with an unpaired Student s t test. *Different from PRO, P , 0.01. FSR, fractional synthetic rate; PRO, 40 g protein in rested state; PRO+EX, 40 g protein after resistance-type exercise (Holwerda. 2016)

Before we start discussing the results, though, let's take a look at what the authors of the study actually did: After their subjects had ingested the 40g of labelled casein (I cannot tell if that was micellar casein, but I can tell you that the scientists got it on the free market and that it was produced by Dr. Oetker, Germans and countrymen of the Dutch scientists will know the company), the authors measured the subjects' overnight protein digestion and absorption kinetics and myofibrillar protein synthesis rates by combining primed, continuous infusions of L-[ring-2H5]-phenylalanine, L-[1-13C]-leucine, and L-[ring-2H2]-tyrosine with the ingestion of intrinsically labeled casein protein.

Suggested Read for everyone w/ parents and grandparents: Creatine Will Protect Grandpa's Muscle Even if He Doesn't Train!? More Reasons "E-veryone" Could Take Creatine | more

What did the workouts look like? As you may have gathered by now only the PRO+EX group worked out before going to sleep at the lab. Here's what they did (keep in mind: the average age was 70 years!): "The physical activity protocol consisted of 60 min of moderate-intensity, lower-body, resistance-type exercise. After 15 min of self-paced cycling at 100 W with a cadence of 60–80 rpm, subjects performed 6 sets of 10 repetitions on the horizontal leg press machine (Technogym BV) and 6 sets of 10 repetitions on the leg extension machine (Technogym BV). The first 2 sets of both exercises were performed at 55% and 65% 1RM, respectively, and sets 3–6 were performed at 75% 1RM. Subjects were allowed to rest for 2 min between all sets" (Holwerda. 2016).

As the results in Figures 1-2 clearly indicate, the relatively high amount of protein ingested before sleep was

• normally digested and absorbed, with 54% ± 2% of the protein-derived amino acids appearing in the circulation throughout overnight sleep, and
• significantly boosted the overnight myofibrillar protein synthesis rates

In that, the increase in MPS was +31% (0.058% ± 0.002%/h compared with 0.044% ± 0.003%/h; P < 0.01; based on L-[ring-2H5]-phenylalanine) with exercise and at least +27% (0.074% ± 0.004%/h compared with 0.058% ± 0.003%/h; P < 0.01; based on L-[1-13C]-leucine) without exercise.

Figure 2: Eventually, it's the net balance that counts and this is where training provided a non-significant, but potentially still relevant difference (see Figure 3 for tracer incorporation) in the elderly subjects of the study at hand (Holwerda. 2016).

Accordingly, more dietary protein-derived amino acids were eventually incorporated into de novo myofibrillar protein (~new muscle mass) during overnight sleep in the PRO+EX than in PRO treatment (0.042 ± 0.002 compared with 0.033 ± 0.002 mole percent excess; P < 0.05).

This difference between the actual amount of the traced amino acids that ended up in the muscle, was not just statistically significant (see Figure 3, in bottom line). The 10% vs. 20% difference between the PRO and the PRO-EX group is also of potential practical relevance as it increased from - over weeks the muscle gains in the PRO-EX group can thus be expected to be significantly larger. Damas et al. (2016) have, after all, been able to show only recently that the (logical) correlation between acute increases in protein synthesis and lean muscle gains that has previously been doubted does exist - if you account for muscle damage (which is reduced after 1-3 weeks of training).

Figure 3: The incorporation of traced aminos shows that the advantage of working out before sleep may matter.

Bottom line: While working out pre-bed may be best, Holwerda et al. have proven that granny & grandpa will unquestionably benefit from consuming 40g of slow-digesting casein protein (probably micellar casein) 30 minutes before going to bed - "post-workout", or not.

With additional exercise, the net protein accrual, i.e. the actually relevant difference between the amount of amino acids that is eventually incorporated into the muscle and not broken down will be 20% higher (Figure 3), though - a stat. sign. and potentially relevant difference, neither your grand parents, nor you should miss. So what? Train - hit the weights at 2-5 (max!) times a week and inspire the rest of your family to do the same | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Damas, Felipe, et al. "Resistance training‐induced changes in integrated myofibrillar protein synthesis are related to hypertrophy only after attenuation of muscle damage." The Journal of physiology (2016). Read the SuppVersity article about this study.
• Holwerda. "Physical Activity Performed in the Evening Increases the Overnight Muscle Protein Synthetic Response to Presleep Protein Ingestion in Older Men." First published June 8, 2016, doi: 10.3945/​jn.116.230086 J. Nutr. jn230086.

Protein Supps + Synthesis After 'Cardio': Milk (Natural 2:8 Whey:Casein) Protein is Best! Plus: 40g May Be Ideal Dose

Protein Supps + Synthesis After 'Cardio': Milk (Natural 2:8 Whey:Casein) Protein is Best! Plus: 40g May Be Ideal Dose

casein dairy high protein milk milk protein protein supplement protein supplements soy supplementation whey

Even though the study at hand has been conducted in an endurance training scenario, there's no reason to believe that the superiority of milk protein, the natural mix of whey and casein would be a "cardio-specific" thing. In fact, evidence to the contrary has been discussed previously, here and here.

Whey, casein, soy or the rarely used alternative, milk protein, what's best to kickstart the protein synthetic machinery even after endurance workouts? The absorption kinetics of the different proteins, the effects of which a group of scientists from Japan recently re-assessed would suggest that the answer is clear: whey protein, it's the fastest of the four proteins, contains the highest amount of BCAAs (esp. the mTOR- and MPS promoter leucine) content and has been repeatedly shown to rapidly cause significant hyperamonoacidemia (=extremely elevated amino acid levels in the blood | Boirie. 1997; Dangin. 2001; Norton. 2009).

In spite of the fact that whey is also the most insulinogenic of these proteins, it is yet also the one that has been shown to "maximize" amino acid oxidation, thereby contributing to a reduction in nitrogen retention (Boirie. 1997; Dangin. 2001). On the other hand, ingestion of CA causes slower but prolonged aminoacidemia and it has the best leucine net balance during the postprandial period (Boirie. 1997; Dangin. 2001), I've discussed in previous articles, such as "Protein Wheysting".

This is not an anti-high-protein article. It is one arguing in favor of "treating your protein right"

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?

This is where micellar casein (not sodium or calcium caseinate which are fast-, but slower-than-whey-absorbing "damaged" forms of casein, though) comes in. While casein does not produce the same rapid increase in serum amino acid levels it has been shown to cause moderate but prolonged muscle protein synthesis - the exact opposite of whey protein.

Figure 1: Fractional myofibrillar protein synthesis (A), plasma leucine (B) and plasma insulin (C) levels in young men after ingesting 0.3g/kg whey, casein or a protein-free control drink (Reitelseder. 2011)

The data from Reitelseder et al. (2011) illustrates the link between the time course of the myofibrilliar protein synthesis and a protein's digestion speed, the rate of appearance of leucine (Figure 1, B) in the blood and the protein's insulinogenic (Figure 2, C) effects quite nicely. It is thus only logical to assume and has in fact been shown that the co-ingestion of whey and casein, either mixed or as milk protein is superior to soy protein (SP) [22,23], but also to whey alone, even if the latter is "enhanced" with extra BCAAs and glutamine (learn more!)

Figure 2: As a SuppVersity reader you will rememeber that a previous study showed that whey + casein is profoundly more anabolic than whey that is combined with extra BCAAs and glutamine (Kerksick. 2006)

As the Japanese authors of the study at hand point out, these benefits are likely due to casein's ability to "contributes amino acids that have a prolonged protein-synthetic effect across the leg" - or, put more simply: whey pumps up the AA levels fast, so fast that your body gets wasteful; casein, on the other hand, provides them at a rate that's much more suitable for direct incorporation into the muscle.

Whey (open triangles) increases leucine +protein oxidation vs. casein (closed circles) in man (Boirie. 1997).

Thinking about the perfect mix: Wouldn't it make more sense to have more whey right after a workout and reduce the amount of casein? If that's what you are thinking right now, I have to warn you: As previously pointed out, there's a point of diminishing returns, when excess amino acids as you would increase them by increasing the amount of whey are oxidized and end up as "waste", namely ammonia (and after recycling urate) in your system. The increased leucine oxidation with whey (open triangles) vs. casein (filled circles), as it was observed by Boirie et al. 19 years ago in healthy subjects even though the subjects consumed 43g of casein and only 30g of whey to standardize the leucine content, attests to that. Needless to say, testing a 50:50 or even 60:40 ratio would be something for follow-up studies.

Table 1: Amino acids in milk (MP), caseinate (CA), whey (WP) and soy (SP) protein (Kanda. 2016).

What exactly the ideal ratio of whey to casein protein may be will still have to be determined (probably it'll depend on when you take your protein shake), but the 2:8 ratio, meaning 20% whey protein and 80% casein that was used in the study at hand is "nature's standard formula" and thus what your average milk protein will have. A protein, by the way, of which Kanda et al. wanted to confirm in their latest experiment that it "causes a prolonged increase in muscle protein synthesis compared to WP [whey protein]or CA [casein] alone" (Kanda. 2016).

In contrast to "the average" study, the Kanda et al. did so in the presence of an endurance, not a strength or no training stimulus at all and used both, the milk-derived proteins caseinate (CA | faster absorbing, non-micellar form of casein), whey (WP) & milk protein (MP) to soy (SP). You can review the individual amino acid composition of all four in Table 1 on the right and will notice that "technically speaking", i.e. judged based on its BCAA content, soy is the "worst muscle builder", whey the "best".

Time for the convenient, but annoying truth(s)!

Truth #1: It's a rodent study! That's convenient for the scientists, because using rodents is cheap and easy, but annoying for us, because rodents are a good model for humans, but only that - a model - and by no means the best one. Since we cannot switch the subjects, though, we have to live with the fact that the subjects in the study at hand were Sprague-Dawley rats with a bodyweight of approximately 150 g (at least there were many | n = 237) who were subjected to a swimming exercise protocol during which they swam for a whopping 2h.

You should care about postworkout protein synthesis! While previous studies had suggested that the FSR / MPS response to training and supplementation would not, a more recent study I discussed in detail, last week, clearly demonstrates that FSR / MPS does matter. Read it!

Now, where there's shadow, there's also light: The good thing about rodent studies (bad for the rats, though) is, after all, that, much in contrast to humans, rats can be sacrificed after an experiment like that and will thus allow researches to assess the effects of exercise and supplementation with the aforementioned proteins much more accurately than a single or even multiple muscle biopsies.

Table 2: Macronutrient profile of test proteins; milk (MP), caseinate (CA), whey (WP) and soy protein (SP | Kanda. 2016)

That does not fully compensate for truth #2, though, which is that the scientists made the mistake of using caseinate (Fonterra Co-operative Group, Ltd., Auckland, New Zealand), instead of the more expensive and slower/-est digesting (due to its micelle structure, which gels during the digestion process) molecularly intact micellar casein, of which one could expect that it may have postponed the peak in fractional protein synthesis (FSR) that occurred after 120 minutes with the caseinate even more (Figure 3, left).

Figure 3: Time course of the fractional protein synthesis after endurance exercise with all four proteins (left) and corresponding AUC values (~net protein influx, right | Kanda. 2016).

The previous hypothesis is obviously merely speculative and eventually irrelevant. I mean, micellar casein, or not, it is very unlikely that the overall AUC, i.e. the incremental area under the FSR curve and thus the net influx of protein into the muscle, would have been increased to a level that would top that of milk protein (black bar in Figure 3, right), which had a measurable, but not statistically significantly more pronounced effect on the protein influx than any other of the four proteins.

Bottom line: Yes, it's rodents, but eventually the study at hand simply extends previous studies (A, B) in humans, where the combination of whey + casein likewise outperformed the competition...

FSR during dose escalation study; the human equivalent dose (HED) of 3.09g/kg, the 100% dose, in rats is ~0.5g/kg in man and thus ca. 30-50g milk protein, depending on your body weight. (Kanda. 2015)

And when we are talking about "extending the existent research", it may be worth mentioning that the researchers also provide new evidence in regards to the "ceiling" or "muscle full"-effect that occurs when ingesting more protein won't yield any extra increases in protein synthesis. In the study at hand, this effect was reached at a human equivalent dosage of ca. 0.5g per kg body weight (that's the 100% dose in Figure 4) or ~ 40g which is - initially surprisingly - more than the often touted 20-30g (depending on the human study you cite). In view of the 20:80 mix of whey and casein, the lower leucine content and slower absorption of the latter, it is yet actually logical to need more milk protein vs. whey to "reach the ceiling" | Comment!

References:

• Boirie, Yves, et al. "Slow and fast dietary proteins differently modulate postprandial protein accretion." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94.26 (1997): 14930-14935.
• Dangin, Martial, et al. "The digestion rate of protein is an independent regulating factor of postprandial protein retention." American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology And Metabolism 280.2 (2001): E340-E348.
• Kanda, Atsushi, et al. "Effects Of Whey, Casein, Or Milk Protein Ingestion On Muscle Protein Synthesis After Endurance Exercise." MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE. Vol. 46. No. 5. 530 WALNUT ST, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-3621 USA: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, 2014.
• Kerksick, Chad M., et al. "The effects of protein and amino acid supplementation on performance and training adaptations during ten weeks of resistance training." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 20.3 (2006): 643-653.
• Norton, Layne E., et al. "The leucine content of a complete meal directs peak activation but not duration of skeletal muscle protein synthesis and mammalian target of rapamycin signaling in rats." The Journal of nutrition 139.6 (2009): 1103-1109.
• Reitelseder, Søren, et al. "Whey and casein labeled with L-[1-13C] leucine and muscle protein synthesis: effect of resistance exercise and protein ingestion." American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism 300.1 (2011): E231-E242.

Food Proteins Have Same Muscle Building + Fat Shredding Effects as Whey Protein Shakes, and Reduces Desire to Eat

Food Proteins Have Same Muscle Building + Fat Shredding Effects as Whey Protein Shakes, and Reduces Desire to Eat

build muscle dairy dieting eggs food protein high protein lose fat meat protein protein sources protein supplements regular protein whey

What's more muscle ana & fat catabolic?

It is not too long ago that I've written about the results of the first PRISE study (Arciero. 2014) on Facebook. In said study, the subjects, your average overweight to obese individuals, had been advised to use a protein-pacing strategy (P; six meals/day @ 1.4 g/kg body weight (BW), three of which included whey protein (WP) supplementation) combined with a sane multi-mode fitness program consisting of resistance, interval sprint, stretching, and endurance exercise training (RISE) to improve their composition - with quite astonishing results, by the way (Arciero. 2014).

More specifically, the subjects in the PRISE (vs. RISE = only exercise) arm of the study lost more more body weight (3.3 ± 0.7 vs. 1.1 ± 0.7 kg, P + RT) and fat mass  (2.8 ± 0.7 vs. 0.9 ± 0.5 kg, P + RT) and gained (P < 0.05) a greater percentage of lean body mass (2 ± 0.5 vs. 0.9 ± 0.3 and 0.6 ± 0.4%, P + RT and P, respectively | read old FT).

Yes, the high protein intake clogged the liver during overfeeding

Are You Protein Wheysting?

5x More Than the FDA Allows!

More Protein ≠ More Satiety

Protein Oxidation = Health Threat

Protein Timing DOES Matter!

More Protein = More Liver Fat?

The purpose of Arciero's newest study was now to "extend these findings and determine whether protein-pacing with only food protein (FP) is comparable to WP [whey protein] supplementation during RISE training on physical performance outcomes in overweight/obese individuals" (Arciero. 2016). To this ends, the scientists recruited thirty weight-matched volunteers who were prescribed either RISE training and a P diet derived from whey protein supplementation (WP, n = 15) or RISE training a P diet  with food protein being the major protein sources (FP, n = 15) for 16 weeks. Both interventions involved the previously discussed ingestion of six small meals, each day containing ~20–25 g of a high quality protein source.

Table 1: Sample Menus from the FP and WP nutritional intervention diet plans during the 16 week PRISE intervention. Menus were similar in macronutrient distribution (Arciero. 2016).

As you can see in Table 1, the sources of said 20-25g of protein differed significantly between groups; with eggs, greek yogurt, fish, poultry, beef, cottage cheese and other natural and rather slow- digesting protein sources replacing the fast-digesting whey protein (Classic Whey; Optimum Nutrition) from the previous study / in the current whey protein arm of the study.

"For all meals, participants were provided with a menu of foods from which to choose. Examples included milk, Greek yogurt, eggs, lean meats, fish, poultry, and specific plant sources, including legumes, nuts, and seeds. The number of recommended daily calories to consume was estimated to match the caloric requirements of each individual as measured by resting metabolic rate and measured/estimated physical activity level but was ad libitum, and not energy-restricted. Both groups followed the same protocol in terms of the timing of meals: all meals were evenly spaced throughout the day and one meal was consumed within one hour of waking in the morning and another two hours prior to bed. On exercise days, both groups consumed a protein meal (20–25 g) within 60 min [PWO, as bros'd call it ;-] after completion of exercise. For WP, they were required to consume this meal as 20–25 g of whey protein giving them a total of three servings of whey on exercise days. For FP, this required a protein-rich food meal of 20–25 g. On non-exercise days, both groups consumed similar amounts of total protein at each of their six meals per day" (my emphasis in Arciero. 2016).

Needless to say that all subjects in both groups participated in the same multiple exercise training regimen as described previously (Arciero. 2014). Briefly:

• 

  Figure 1: CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) flow chart of participants during the study intervention (Arciero. 2016).

  The training program consisted of four specific types of exercise: (1) resistance training; (2) interval sprints; (3) stretching/yoga/pilates; and (4) endurance exercise (RISE training; Supplementary Materials Table S2). 
• Subjects underwent four exercise sessions / week, and the sessions rotated through the four types of exercise, such that each of the four exercises was performed one day/week. 
• The resistance (R) training sessions were completed within 60 min and consisted of a dynamic warm-up, footwork and agility, lower and upper body resistance, and core exercises performed at a resistance to induce muscular fatigue in 10–15 repetitions and for two to three sets (in other words: they trained to failure). 
• A 30 s recovery was provided between sets and a 60 s recovery was allowed between different exercises (and they still grew | cf recent post on short rest). 
• The sprint interval (I) training sessions were completed within 40 min and consisted of 5–10 sets of 30–60 s of all-out exercise (remember "all-out" for an overweight untrained individual is miles away from "all-out" for an athlete, though) interspersed with 2–4 min of rest after each exercise. Participants were allowed to perform the sprints using any mode of exercise (treadmill, elliptical machine, stationary bikes, swimming, snowshoeing, cycling, rollerblading, etc.). 
• The stretching/yoga/pilates regimen was based on traditional yoga poses with modern elements of pilates training for a total body stretching, flexibility, and strengthening workout. All sessions were completed within 60 min and were led by a certified yoga instructor (PJA). It should be pointed out that it is not clear how important this part of the regimen was, but previous research indicates that yoga can actively reduce the ill effects of chronically elevated cortisol down (Kamei. 2000) and may thus help restore the natural "downs", which are required for the fat burning (yes, you read me right!) cortisol spikes. 
• Finally, endurance exercise training was performed for 60 min or longer at a moderate pace (60% of maximal effort). Participants were allowed to choose from a variety of aerobic activities, including walking, jogging, cycling, rowing, swimming, etc. 

To make it easier to grasp, I've included a tabular overview of the workout in Table 2 of this article. Here, RPE is, as usually the rating of perceived effort; C the choice of exercise modality; WB whole body exercises; S is stretching exercise; and the Xs, are exercise days. Ah, and not to forget, the  Exercise modalities available for C aka cardio were running, cycling, swimming, elliptical, rowing, cross-country skiing, etc.

Table 2: Overview of the subjects' workout schedule (Arciero. 2016).

While the subjects' body weight was obtained during each visit with a standard digital scale (Befour Inc., Cedarburg, WI, USA), their body composition was assessed by Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (iDXA; Lunar iDXA; GE Healthcare, Madison, WI, USA; analyzed using Encore software version 13.6; GE Healthcare). For the twenty-one participants who completed the intervention (WP, n = 9; FP, n = 12), the measures of body composition I plotted for you in Figure 2 can thus be considered highly reliable:

Figure 2: Changes in body composition fro pre- to post-study (Arciero. 2016)

As you can see, the body composition and the physical performance (Figure 3) significantly improved in both groups, regardless of whether the protein came from fast digesting leucine-packed whey protein or common (albeit high essential amino acid aka EAA food sources | p < 0.05 for the effect on performance and body comp, not the inter-group difference!).

Is this for athletes, too? The scientists think so, read their 2015 review of the literature discussing why "PRISE" may benefit not just the biggest loser, here - for FREE (Arciero. 2015)!

Now, this is not exactly surprising, what may come as an unwanted surprise for the protein supplement industry, though, is the fact that there was no effect of protein source on either the changes in body composition - including the reduction in visceral fat, where the "whey advantage" does yet point to a potential benefit of increased GLP-1 levels in response to fast(er) digesting proteins (read further to learn more reasons).

Figure 3: Pre-/post values of the most relevant performance markers assessed in the study (Arciero. 2016)

As the authors point out, there were likewise no significant differences in the performance markers (see Figure 3) or the health-relevant markers of cardiometabolic disease risk (e.g., LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol, glucose, insulin, adiponectin, systolic blood pressure), which significantly improved (p < 0.05) to a similar extent in both groups.

The reason it is still worth taking a closer look at the latter is that the higher baseline insulin and triglyceride levels in the whey protein group (171.8 ± 29.8 vs. 94.2 ± 8.5 mg/dL and 21.7 ± 10.5 vs. 9.6 ± 2.3 μg/dL, respectively) could explain the higher visceral fat loss despite identical food and protein (1.6-1.7g/kg) intakes in the whey protein group (see Figure 2) - at least some of the subjects who had been randomly assigned to the were simply significantly more metabolically deranged.

Compared to whey protein, food proteins suppress hunger more effectively (Arciero. 2016).

So what? Well, there's little doubt that the scientists' conclusion that their "results demonstrate that both whey protein and food protein sources combined with multimodal RISE training are equally effective at improving physical performance and cardiometabolic health in obese individuals" (Arciero. 2016) is accurate and not debatable.

That obviously does not mean that you cannot or should no longer use your protein powders (whey studies). What the results do indicate, though, is that previously untrained individuals (confirmation in athletes is warranted) are not missing out on performance gains or improvements in body composition if they cover their protein needs with regular high protein foods instead of supplemental whey protein - regardless of its faster digestion and higher leucine levels.

There's yet more: A brief glance at the figure to the right suggests that some people may even benefit from ditching the fast digesting, insulin spiking whey protein, due to the superior effect of "real" (= food) protein on hunger / your desire to eat, which was not sign., but measurably higher wit whey compared to "real" food protein in the study at hand | Comment!

References:

• Arciero, Paul J., et al. "Timed-daily ingestion of whey protein and exercise training reduces visceral adipose tissue mass and improves insulin resistance: the PRISE study." Journal of Applied Physiology 117.1 (2014): 1-10.
• Arciero, Paul J., Vincent J. Miller, and Emery Ward. "Performance Enhancing Diets and the PRISE Protocol to Optimize Athletic Performance." Journal of nutrition and metabolism 2015 (2015).
• Arciero, Paul J., et al. "Protein-Pacing from Food or Supplementation Improves Physical Performance in Overweight Men and Women: The PRISE 2 Study." Nutrients 8.5 (2016): 288.
• Kamei, Tsutomu, et al. "Decrease in serum cortisol during yoga exercise is correlated with alpha wave activation." Perceptual and motor skills 90.3 (2000): 1027-1032.