Casein Protein

[Scotsmark]

bro ur confusing chemical score with bioavailability (BV). you cant have a higher BV then 100.

When the BV scale was first put together, whey isolate wasn't around. As we scale almost everything nowadays out of 100 (metric scaling) the top protein giving food was a whole egg, this, therefore got a rating of 100. When whey isolate came along, it was found that it had 1 1/2 times better absorption than egg so it had 156 as its BV.
Now, if you take whey isolate's BV as 100, as in can't go higher than 100%, egg gets something like 70-ish, this means that for the likes of chicken and beef, who both scored less than egg, their BV is even lower than the orginal grade.
This is why it's important to have good quality shakes in your daily diet.

[John Benz]

When the BV scale was first put together, whey isolate wasn't around. As we scale almost everything nowadays out of 100 (metric scaling) the top protein giving food was a whole egg, this, therefore got a rating of 100. When whey isolate came along, it was found that it had 1 1/2 times better absorption than egg so it had 156 as its BV.
Now, if you take whey isolate's BV as 100, as in can't go higher than 100%, egg gets something like 70-ish, this means that for the likes of chicken and beef, who both scored less than egg, their BV is even lower than the orginal grade.
This is why it's important to have good quality shakes in your daily diet.

Whey does not have a higher rating than the whole egg scotsmark. The bv of 100 means that 100 % of the egg is assimilated. Are you suggesting that you can absorb more than 100% of any food? This 156 bv is a fabrication of the big supp companies. Only the egg has a BV of 100. Whey is slightly lower than that on a proportionate scale. Even with their high BV rating, protein shakes are not as anabolic as whole food proteins.

[Scotsmark]

Whey does not have a higher rating than the whole egg scotsmark. The bv of 100 means that 100 % of the egg is assimilated. Are you suggesting that you can absorb more than 100% of any food? This 156 bv is a fabrication of the big supp companies. Only the egg has a BV of 100. Whey is slightly lower than that on a proportionate scale. Even with their high BV rating, protein shakes are not as anabolic as whole food proteins.

JB, I'm just passing info from Dr Colgan's book, I tend to trust what I read from him more than any of the other "gurus" out there (meaning the big supp companies and BB's paid by them to promote their products, I wasn't categorizing you in that statement)
I'm not doubting what you're saying either, eggs are the fabric of life itself, they contain all the ingredients needed to form living creatures, milk is what feeds these creatures (well mammals, anyway) and they grow from it.
I consume a good variety of protein sources; whole eggs, cartoned eggwhites, whey powders, soy milk, beef steaks, chicken, turkey, various types of fish, cottage and low fat cheeses.

[John Benz]

There is a lot more to the article, but I just pulled out the first part on bv ratings...

An objective and unbiased comparison

By Tom Venuto

June, 1999 | editorial -- Are protein supplements really better than protein foods?

Before attempting to answer this question, I should first preface it by mentioning that I do not sell supplements, nor am I associated with any supplement company, so you're getting an honest and unbiased opinion. Don't get me wrong; I am not anti-supplement by any means. It would simply be more accurate to say that I am "pro-food." There are a lot of good supplements on the market, and I use many of them, including a multi vitamin, creatine, thermogenic agents and essential fatty acid (EFA) supplements such as Flaxseed oil. Protein powders and meal replacements can also be indispensable if you don't have time to eat every three hours. However, protein supplements are not the master key to your success, real food is!

Did you ever notice how articles about protein in certain bodybuilding magazines are seldom objective? Instead, they all seem to be slanted towards hyping some "revolutionary" new product. Did you ever wonder why? In my opinion, most articles on protein supplements are nothing more than thinly disguised advertisements (some very thinly). Sometimes they give you a very persuasive-sounding argument, replete with dozens of references from scientific studies (mostly done on rodents, of course). They even give you an 800 number at the end of the article to order. (How convenient!)

When protein manufacturers throw around fancy words like cross flow microfiltration, oligopeptides, ion-exchange, protein efficiency ratio, biological value, nitrogen retention and glycomacropeptides, it sure sounds convincing, especially when scores of scientific references are cited. But don't forget that the supplement industry is big business and most magazines are the supplement industry. Lyle McDonald, author of "The Ketogenic Diet," hit the nail on the head when he wrote "Unfortunately, the obsession that bodybuilders have with protein has made them susceptible to all kinds of marketing hype. Like most aspects of bodybuilding (and the supplement industry in general), the issue of protein is driven more by marketing hype than physiological reality and marketing types know how to push a bodybuilder's button when it comes to protein "

Many nutrition "experts" (read: people who sell supplements), state that there are distinct advantages of protein supplements (powders and amino acid tablets) over whole foods. For example, they argue that whey, a by-product of the cheese-making process, is a higher quality protein than most whole food sources. There are many different methods of determining protein quality, including biological value (BV), protein efficiency ratio (PER), Net Protein Utilization (NPU), chemical score, and protein digestibility corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS). If you have ever seen advertisements for protein powders and supplements, you have undoubtedly heard of one or more of these measures of protein quality.

BV is one of the most commonly used and is arguably, the best measure of a protein's quality. BV is based on how much of the protein consumed is actually absorbed and utilized by the body. The higher the amount of protein (nitrogen) that is actually retained, the greater the BV. If a protein has a BV of 100, it means that all of the protein absorbed has been utilized with none lost. Whole eggs score the highest of all foods with a BV of 100, while beans have a BV of only 49.

Protein quality is certainly an important issue, but it is one that has been enormously overstated and even distorted for marketing purposes. Whey protein is truly an excellent protein with a biological value at or near 100. Many advertisements list whey as having a BV between 104 and 157, but if you look in any nutrition textbook it will tell you that it is impossible to have a BV over 100. In "Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism," BV is defined as "a measure of nitrogen retained for growth and/or maintenance that is expressed as a percentage of nitrogen absorbed." When a protein supplement is listed as having a BV over 100, the company has intentionally manipulated the number for marketing purposes or unintentionally confused BV with another method of rating protein quality. Certain whey proponents claim that whey is "superior to whole egg" so the percentage sign on BV had to be dropped and the scale extended beyond 100. It was noted by bodybuilding writer Jerry Branium in IRONMAN magazine that in a study where the BV of whey was reported to be 157, the author confused BV with chemical score. Chemical score is a comparison of the amino acid pattern in an ideal reference protein to a test protein and therefore the number can exceed 100. 157 was actually the chemical score and not the BV.

.......
References
1) Groff, James, et al, Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism, West Publishing company, 1995.
2) Fruhbeck, Gema. Slow and fast dietary proteins. Nature, 391: 843-844
3) Boirie, Y. et al. Slow and fast dietary proteins differently modulate postprandial protein accretion. Proc National Acad Sci, 94: 14930-14935, 1997
4) Lemon, Peter, Protein and Exercise: update, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Vol 19, No. 5, S179 - S190, 1987
5) Carraro, F., et at, Effect of exercise and recovery on muscle protein synthesis in human subjects. Amer Journal of physiology, 259: E470, 1990
6) Lemon, Peter, Is increased dietary protein necessary or beneficial for individuals with a physically active lifestyle? Nutrition reviews, 54:S 169-175, 1996 7) Bounous, G., et al, The immunoenhancing property of dietary whey protein concentrate. Clinical and Investigational Medicine, 11: 271-278. 1988.
8) Sadler, R., The benefits of dietary whey protein concentrate on the immune response and health. S Afr. J Dairy Sci, 24: No 24, 1992
9) Bounous, G., Dietary whey protein inhibits the development of dimethylhydrazine-induced malignancy. Clinical and Investigational Medicine, 12: 213-217, 1988
10) Bounous, G., et al, The biological activity of undenatured dietary whey protein; role of glutathione. Clinical and Investigational Medicine, 14: 4, 296-309, 1991
11) Netzer, Corinne. The Complete Book of Food Counts. Dell Publishing, 1997
12) Katch, Katch & McArdle, Exercise Physiology; Energy, Nutrition and Human Performance, Wiliams and Wilkins, 1996.

[GetBigger]

This is correct. I just reposted a few thoughts I wrote on another board about 5 years ago. I know lifts will disagree about the soy protein part.

http://www.ANABOLIC-ENHANCEMENT.COM/...d.php?p=178670

i agree 100% with that.

p.s. mrhtbd no idea who she is i just thought she was smokin.