pre-workout nutrition

[javaguru]

Oh, BTW..if you do the search I'm pretty sure you'll find a post where I claim to use BCAA's in my workout shake without calling it protein....Not that anyone mistook my statement where they thought BCAA's are the same as a chicken breast.....

 

[Lifterforlife]

Borly, go to their website, go to supplements..look at theta aminos; I don't know if they still list the AA profile but it is a complete protein.

If it is a complete protein bro, then it is not a BCAA supplement.

Like I said, you can be an internet cowboy all you want but everyone knew what I was talking about on the thread. I've been giving protein advice on this forum for years.....do a search. Posting the amino acids doesn't make you an expert; I've given more than one lesson in biochem......

So, are they peptide bonded or free form? Do you have any idea? If you are buying this product, link to it. This is really getting very tiresome. Debating with an unarmed man is pointless.

 

[javaguru]

If it is a complete protein bro, then it is not a BCAA supplement.



So, are they peptide bonded or free form? Do you have any idea? If you are buying this product, link to it. This is really getting very tiresome. Debating with an unarmed man is pointless.

How do you define poly peptides? It has a full spectrum profie but it's approximately 80% BCAA"s ...which IMO qualifies as a BCAA supplement. What if I hydrolize whey...is it still a "protein" source to you or is it an amino acid supplement internet cowboy?

 

[Lifterforlife]

How do you define poly peptides? It has a full spectrum profie but it's approximately 80% BCAA"s ...which IMO qualifies as a BCAA supplement. What if I hydrolize whey...is it still a "protein" source to you or is it an amino acid supplement internet cowboy?

Hydrolyzed protein is basically pre-digested. There isn't much protein left, its basically amino acids and some small peptides. Hydrolysation of proteins simply means the breaking of peptide bonds.

No matter how you try to change the topic, if it is a full spectrum protein, even with 80% added BCAA's, which I doubt is out there, it is still a protein source with added BCAA's, not a BCAA supplement.

Bringing different things into the discussion does not win a discussion, usually a last resort before personal attacks, this is when a person knows they have lost a discussion. Thanks for admitting you have no case. Peace, out.

 

[Lifterforlife]

i like lifterforlifes approach very much and have been reading like crazy over the last days on protein windo PWO and i am indeed changing my thoughts on PWO nutrition in a big way, thanks LFL!

Chef, I wanted to get back with you on that "approach". That article that I posted was simply for reading material, and draw what conclusions one will from it.

I personally have a few problems with it. 1st and no. 1 on my question list is the "myth" of antioxidants actually hurting pwo. This is non sensical to me, I have been researching antioxidants for the better part of the last 30 yrs., and this flies in the face of all my research. He for one does not reference it at all, instead stating something nonsensical, one paper(Childs and buddies (2001))...what kind of paper is that?

I have other problems with it also.

Anyway, if you have ever read David Barr, his style is always to "debunk" conventional wisdom. Many times he makes valid points, but this is how he is "heard". These days to have anything published, you must be different so to speak.

He lists tons of references, but if you cross reference many of them, they don't really relate to his argument.

It is also wrong to pick one study and use it. Anyone who researches knows there are always conflicting research. The defining aspect of a research paper is naturally repeatability. Meaning, if you do this again, will you get the exact same result.

A fine example is caffine in drinks research. Doing a research study on it, I found one that states that caffine in coffee, soda etc. in fact acts like a diruetic. Conventional wisdom, right? Well, I found 3 that absolutely go counter to that one!

My point is maybe don't take too much of that paper to heart.

 

[gettinripped]

.....as the world turns.....

what a soap opera, i'm hooked

 

[javaguru]

Hydrolyzed protein is basically pre-digested. There isn't much protein left, its basically amino acids and some small peptides. Hydrolysation of proteins simply means the breaking of peptide bonds.

No matter how you try to change the topic, if it is a full spectrum protein, even with 80% added BCAA's, which I doubt is out there, it is still a protein source with added BCAA's, not a BCAA supplement.

Bringing different things into the discussion does not win a discussion, usually a last resort before personal attacks, this is when a person knows they have lost a discussion. Thanks for admitting you have no case. Peace, out.

pro·tein ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prtn, -t-n)
n.
Any of a group of complex organic macromolecules that contain carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and usually sulfur and are composed of one or more chains of amino acids. Proteins are fundamental components of all living cells and include many substances, such as enzymes, hormones, and antibodies, that are necessary for the proper functioning of an organism. They are essential in the diet of animals for the growth and repair of tissue and can be obtained from foods such as meat, fish, eggs, milk, and legumes.


I guess a poly peptide is a protein...I'm not trying to "win" anything as everyone already understood the point of my post and the fact you assumed I was using a free form BCAA supplement doesn't change the fact my post was accurate based on what I am consuming. Perhaps you should have asked what I was using before posting?

[edit] If you argue the validity of protein factory's product then take it up with them. So if I have a "Whey protein" supplement which is only required to be 80% protein(for a concentrate) I can't call it a " protein supplement" since it isn't 100% pure????? So what shall we call it????

 

[javaguru]

BTW, here is the definition of a supplement...
sup·ple·ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spl-mnt)
n.
Something added to complete a thing, make up for a deficiency, or extend or strengthen the whole.
A section added to a book or document to give further information or to correct errors.
A separate section devoted to a special subject inserted into a periodical, such as a newspaper.
Mathematics. The angle or arc that when added to a given angle or arc makes 180° or a semicircle. Also called supplementary angle.

So, if I consume a product that is designed to provide more than the naturally occuring amount it's a supplement. I don't know a single naturally occurring product containing more BCAA's....therefore...it's a supplement!

 

[javaguru]

A thirty second internet search and a PM or public post could have clarified everything for you. Don't be such a cowboy and jump on any opportunity to "prove" I'm smarter than you.

 

[Lifterforlife]

Chef, I wanted to get back with you on that "approach". That article that I posted was simply for reading material, and draw what conclusions one will from it.

I personally have a few problems with it. 1st and no. 1 on my question list is the "myth" of antioxidants actually hurting pwo. This is non sensical to me, I have been researching antioxidants for the better part of the last 30 yrs., and this flies in the face of all my research. He for one does not reference it at all, instead stating something nonsensical, one paper(Childs and buddies (2001))...what kind of paper is that?

I have other problems with it also.

Anyway, if you have ever read David Barr, his style is always to "debunk" conventional wisdom. Many times he makes valid points, but this is how he is "heard". These days to have anything published, you must be different so to speak.

He lists tons of references, but if you cross reference many of them, they don't really relate to his argument.

It is also wrong to pick one study and use it. Anyone who researches knows there are always conflicting research. The defining aspect of a research paper is naturally repeatability. Meaning, if you do this again, will you get the exact same result.

A fine example is caffine in drinks research. Doing a research study on it, I found one that states that caffine in coffee, soda etc. in fact acts like a diruetic. Conventional wisdom, right? Well, I found 3 that absolutely go counter to that one!

My point is maybe don't take too much of that paper to heart.

I wanted to put this up front again for Chef to hopefully see when he is on again.