Comments on: What Are Good Sources of Protein? – Speed of Digestion Part 3

By: lylemcd

lylemcd — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:57:45 +0000

I’ve seen little to nothing looking at individual differences in protein digestion/absorption rates. They may exist but no-one has looked at it experimentally. There is research that older folks seem to respond better to faster proteins in terms of stimulating an anabolic response and, in that regard, they do differ from younger individuals.

By: john

john — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 16:11:50 +0000

just trying to get my head totally around the whole protein supplement thing for the purpose of gaining weight. At 55 I am finding it very difficult to maintain lbs. I have a very fast metabolism and am very active. So far I get the protein absorbtion rate stuff but each individuals food absorbtion rate must be a factor too. eg/ If my system process’s an 8 ounce protein drink with 30 grams of whey isolate quicker than someone elses, is it not likely that I miss out on a lot of the protein? I have also read some interesting info regarding aspergillus niger and aspergillus oryzae as “boosters” to protein absorbtion. Any comments regarding that?

By: Joel

Joel — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 03:18:33 +0000

Any chance you could stop yelling and being mean to random people on the internet long enough to answer my 6 month old question? Nevermind actually you seem like a prick and I’ll save myself the prick like answer. Good day.

By: lylemcd

lylemcd — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 23:15:04 +0000

Read it again and pay attention to the actual words. Both casein and whey hit the bloodstream at the same hour mark. But their overall kinetics are totally different. Seriously, please stop reading my site and buy Hooked on Phonics and learn to read.

By: C Wolf

C Wolf — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 19:40:48 +0000

Thanks. Exc review.

Although you reset at the end, calling whey ‘fast’ and casein ‘slow’ after you explained that both digest in 1 hour.

All this appears to support six small meals to even flow nutrition, etc.

By: Joel

Joel — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:46:19 +0000

sorry if I mis-spoke and I realized that bioavailability is a term used to describe the ease with which nutrients can be absorbed, and thus utilized by the body and biological value is a measure of protein quality, assessed by how well a given protein supports nitrogen retention in humans but what I meant to say is did you touch on how the BV is possibly one reason people choose whey? not to mention increased glutathione expression…although since most people mix there whey in milk doesnt it render this whole thing moot? (LOL,jk). thanks.

By: lylemcd

lylemcd — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:12:46 +0000

I thought I had somewhere in the series and I definitely did in the book. Sufficed to say that the above (which I think are really supposed to represent Biological Value) are incorrect.

By: Joel

Joel — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:44:00 +0000

I was wonder if you touched on bioavailability at all? Although no one has responded since 09 so…

Whey Protein 104+
Egg 100
Milk Protein 90
Fish 80
Casein 77
Soy 74
Beef 70

By: lylemcd

lylemcd — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:36:19 +0000

What do you think it was a comparison of then? Because contrary to bro-wisdom, soy is not the shit poor protein that most think.

And note that other research still supports the superiority of slower or fast/slow proteins to pure fast for mass gains.

By: DCH

DCH — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:26:47 +0000

Was anybody surprised that milk was better than soy? Was anybody even fooled that this was a comparison of fast vs fast/slow?