In recent weeks, the results of a lab test of protein from various well-known supplement brands have been circulating. The question, however, is whether the quality of the supplements is poor or if the quality of the lab test itself is poor.
“Another one bites the powder”
“There goes another one,” I thought. Another supplement that turns out not to deliver what was promised. However, it wasn’t just one, but six different supplements. Moreover, it involved a few big names. Names like GNC’s Muscle Milk, BSN’s Syntha 6, Optimum Nutrition’s Gold Standard Whey. Precisely the brands some turn to when they don’t trust cheaper brands. It’s awkward when it turns out that even these more expensive supplements don’t live up to their promises.BCAAs
Trainers and bloggers have been tripping over each other since last month to lower their buying advice for these supplements, and I saw the proverbial stock prices drop. Specifically, on an important aspect, the amount of Branched Chain Amino Acids (BCAAs), the tested supplements were found to offer less than promised. But then I looked at the research and the responses to it.The Research
“For now,” only the summary of the research is available[1]. The goal of this project was to develop a laboratory experience suitable for college students using nutritional supplements. An active ingredient in protein based nutritional supplements are the branched chain amino acids (BCAA) which have been linked to a quicker recovery for muscle. BCAA consist of three amino acids: leucine, isoleucine and dehydrogenase. These supplements are usually made from whey protein in milk. The objective in this study was to measure the level of BCAAs in a variety of supplements and milks using the leucine dehydrogenase enzyme assay. Supplements were prepared and were first hydrolyzed to release the amino acids. BCAAs were measured using the leucine dehydrogenase enzyme assay and arginine was measured with a colorimetric test. In order to validate the method, the complete hydrolysis of protein was demonstrated using SDS-PAGE as well as the Lowry assay. Proteins of known amino acid composition were hydrolyzed and the levels of BCAA and arginine were measured and compared to the predicted values based on the sequence of the protein. D. Lamela, Richard Stockton College The three leucine, isoleucine and….. dehydrogenase? Ok, a typo. They obviously mean valine as the third BCAA. I make such mistakes sometimes too. But it sets a bit of a tone regarding the quality of the research. Because the research seems to contain more dubious aspects. If you don’t follow the summary after the fourth sentence, that’s not surprising. After all, it’s difficult matter, something for men in white coats who live for test tubes. Let’s therefore look at a simple table of the results. On the right, you see depicted the number of milligrams of BCAAs that the supplement should contain, and on the left, how much it actually contains according to the research. Now some will look at the results a few times and then bring both hands to their open mouth in shock. You deliberately pay more for a “good brand,” and you still get screwed over.Quality of the Research
“Botched work by a group of students” is, however, the general opinion of the commentators on reddit [2]. The test method used is an experimental one according to the researchers although I found a study from 1978 that describes this as well as a research from 1996 [3,4]. The validity of this method is questioned online because the results of this method were not compared to those of the proven HLPC (High-performance liquid chromatography). But there is criticism of the execution above all. Even the most benevolent commentator (who claims to be someone with a Ph.D. teaching the method used) states that the quality of the research leaves much to be desired. Unlike HLPC, the (student?) researchers use an enzyme called leucine dehydrogenase to demonstrate the amount of BCAAs. To use this method, the protein must first be broken down into individual amino acids through a process called hydrolysis. I once wrote an ridiculously detailed piece about hydrolyzed protein, if you’re interested. With the gels shown at the bottom of the poster below, the researchers want to demonstrate that the hydrolysis is completed and thus the protein is completely broken down into individual amino acids. However, the quality of these gels is considered very poor.Fraud?
Of course, the researchers cover themselves by saying that further research and validation of their findings are needed. There have also been studies conducted that use HLPC as the testing method. In Labdoor’s research, two products from GNC were also tested [5]. In this case, on the total amount of protein. GNC’s “Lean Shake 25” scored 23% lower than indicated on the packaging. Another product, the “MassIVProPerformance,” however, scored as the best of the five products they tested in total by delivering the promised 60 grams of protein. Labdoor explains that HLPC cannot be fooled by “amino spiking.” This is a method that has been used by the industry to influence tests based on nitrogen analysis. A fact that shows that some distrust towards the supplement industry is not strange. Especially not when we regularly hear reports about things we wouldn’t expect to find in supplements. How complicated the correct measurement methods are is evidenced by the fact that Labdoor had to adjust the first results of the Lean Shake 25 after new research they conducted together with a third party. In the first test, they scored even lower, but what matters is that we should not accept research results without a critical look. As for the lab test at Richard Stockton College, it is difficult to determine its value. Apparently, it’s already from last March but is now suddenly reaching the blogosphere. This is evident, among other things, from the fact that the summary of the research was downloaded more last month than in the entire period since publication. The research is published in The FASEB Journal, “among the world’s most cited biology journals.” However, it is not clear to me what the status is now. The full research still seems not to have been published a year later, and this seems more like an “original research article” that they also publish. The manufacturers of the tested brands have not responded to the research. Perhaps that will change now that more attention is being paid to it.So?
And with that, we don’t know much more than we knew. Some supplements deliver what they promise, others don’t. If you really want to know what you’re getting in terms of protein and BCAAs, you would have to buy a bunch of chickens and a few cows. Enjoy your homemade whey and casein alternated with fresh eggs and chicken breast that you know for sure haven’t had water added to them. Good luck It’s good to have some barking watchdogs from time to time to keep the industry on its toes, but I wouldn’t throw away my Gold Standard Whey just yet (not that I have it). On the other hand, there are always plenty of alternatives to choose from. I was already going for cheap anyway. If I’m going to get screwed over, at least it’s cheap. References:- fasebj.org/content/29/1_Supplement/559.25#aff-1
- reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/4jn0hv/muscle_milk_syntha_6_isoflex_cellucor_and_optimum/
- Toshihisa Ohshima, Haruo Misono & Kenji Soda (1978) Determination of Branched-chain l-Amino Acids and Their Keto Analogs with Leucine Dehydrogenase, Agricultural and Biological Chemistry, 42:10, 1919-1922
- Philip R. Beckett, Dana S. Hardin, Teresa A. Davis, Hanh V. Nguyen, Diane Wray-Cahen, Kenneth C. Copeland, Spectrophometric Assay for Measuring Branched-Chain Amino Acid Concentrations: Application for Measuring the Sensitivity of Protein Metabolism to Insulin, Analytical Biochemistry, Volume 240, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 48-53, ISSN 0003-2697
- labdoor.com/article/labdoor-tests-25-canadian-supplements
