MEGADOSING LEUCINE

[TheOtherOne55]

Did they build their muscle mass like that? A question you should ask yourself. If big Ramy all of a sudden decided he is going to train like he usually does, juice like he usually does but eat 50 grams of protein a day and make up the rest of energy expenditure with good fats and carbs...do you think he is going to shrink away to a broomstick? No he is not. If a guy juices his gdamn ass off to the tune of 5 grams of sauce and 15 ius of gh for years to create a 300lb physique and then he says "im going to used 500mg of test a week now and 4ius of gh a day"...do you think he is going to disenegrate into a broomstick? No he is not because he did certain things (above) to build that muscle mass. Now in this conversation the journey of how someone got to the apex of their muscle mass.....and what they are doing currently.... because their mind has been convinced of a "health benefit of vegan eating" or whatever is being terribly confused.

Nothing against Matt but you saw Matt when he went clean correct? He disintegrated. When he went back on his size came back. How do you calculate that in anything other than "getting back on" regardless of how he is eating?

People are always looking for the newest trick or secret. Do you know how many successful vegan bodybuilders there have been? Not many at all. Just sit back and observe...thats all you need to do. Since the 1990's huge bodybuilders have taken in a good amount of protein with heavy weights with drugs to get gigantic. Hundred of thousands of them. I mean the proof is in the pudding....so many people have done this successfully over the last 3 decades its kind of proven itself out hasnt it? We just take what hundreds of thousands of bodybuilders have done over the last 27 years and chuck it because 2 guys have muscle memory on their sides?

Totally understand your point. Question for you: do you think Sergio Olivia, Arnold, Craig Munson, and the beasts in 60s, 70s and 80s took 400g of protein in without protein powders being available? Personally, I dont think so. They were probably getting close to 1g/bw. Maybe a little more. So IMO, yes...you can build a well developed BIG physique and NOT have to pound 500g. Can you be a Ronnie Coleman mass monster? Probably not.

But the addition of powders have significantly (right around the 90's with the mass monsters) AND the need to push overall CALORIES higher have equaled much bigger bodybuilders, that's a fact.

Do most guys want to be 300lbs of rippling muscle? Probably not. If they do, they are probably going to have to push their calories higher—that means protein, carbs and fats.
While most of the guys on this board on this board are probably fine with a muscular 180-240lb physique—which can be attained without cramming protein.

 

[Mike Arnold]

error.

 

[Mike Arnold]

How many legitimate studies have you seen showing leucine / BCAA supplementation to actually increase muscle growth in individuals already eating a high protein diet? Not acute protein synthesis, muscle gain.

How many studies have you seen that shows SD or trestolone, or a 100 other bodybuilding drugs, leads to muscle gain in humans?

Just because scientists haven't conducted a certain study doesn't mean we can't attempt to draw conclusions based on the rest of the studies out there.

As I stated previously, just because protein synthesis is occurring, it does not necessarily mean muscle growth is occurring because many other factors also play a role in determining the end result. Muscle breakdown, for example.

However, protein synthesis is critical for muscle growth to occur...and the greater the rate of protein synthesis, assuming all other variables are equal, the greater the "potential" for muscle growth.

This is one of the main mechanisms by which AAS increase muscle growth--increased protein synthesis (in addition to many other factors), but we all know that taking steroids doesn't guarantee growth.

Tons of research shows that taking leucine with whole food or even protein powders further increases protein synthesis...and I have yet to see a study which shows that whole food can increase protein synthesis to the same degree as leucine.

And besides, what is considered a "high" protein intake. 1 gram per pound, 2 grams per pound, 3 grams per pound? What? I'll tell you this...a LOT of guys have trouble eating more than 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight per day...not only because of their appetite, but because of digestive issues. So, if it turns out that one has to eat 2-3 grams of protein per day to increase protein synthesis similarly to what is achieved with a lower quantity of whole food + leucine, I will take the whole food + leucine combo any day of the week.

There are a lot of unanswered questions, but until someone can actually SHOW similar increases in protein synthesis with whole food...and we know exactly how much whole food this requires, I am not going to just throw away all the research on leucine showing superior increases in protein synthesis (especially when we know that protein synthesis plays a key role in muscle growth), just because a few guys speculate that whole food alone can produce equal increases in muscle growth.

Furthermore, even if we had those answers, what if it was shown that we needed to eat 2.5 grams of protein per pound to achieve similar results? Does that mean that leucine is useless? Of course not. In my opinion, it would just further confirm its value, as there are a lot of guys who just can't tolerate that much whole food protein, either mentally or from a digestive standpoint.

There is a whole lot to consider here. Whether or not it is "possible" to achieve similar results with whole food alone is FAR from the only thing that matters.

 

[Deleted member 106824]

How many studies have you seen that shows SD or trestolone, or a 100 other bodybuilding drugs, leads to muscle gain in humans?

Just because scientists haven't conducted a certain study doesn't mean we can't attempt to draw conclusions based on the rest of the studies out there.

As I stated previously, just because protein synthesis is occurring, it does not necessarily mean muscle growth is occurring because many other factors also play a role in determining the end result. Muscle breakdown, for example.

However, protein synthesis is critical for muscle growth to occur...and the greater the rate of protein synthesis, assuming all other variables are equal, the greater the "potential" for muscle growth.

This is one of the main mechanisms by which AAS increase muscle growth--increased protein synthesis (in addition to many other factors), but we all know that taking steroids doesn't guarantee growth.

Tons of research shows that taking leucine with whole food or even protein powders further increases protein synthesis...and I have yet to see a study which shows that whole food can increase protein synthesis to the same degree as leucine.

And besides, what is considered a "high" protein intake. 1 gram per pound, 2 grams per pound, 3 grams per pound? What? I'll tell you this...a LOT of guys have trouble eating more than 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight per day...not only because of their appetite, but because of digestive issues. So, if it turns out that one has to eat 2-3 grams of protein per day to increase protein synthesis similarly to what is achieved with a lower quantity of whole food + leucine, I will take the whole food + leucine combo any day of the week.

There are a lot of unanswered questions, but until someone can actually SHOW similar increases in protein synthesis with whole food...and we know exactly how much whole food this requires, I am not going to just throw away all the research on leucine showing superior increases in protein synthesis (especially when we know that protein synthesis plays a key role in muscle growth), just because a few guys speculate that whole food alone can produce equal increases in muscle growth.

Furthermore, even if we had those answers, what if it was shown that we needed to eat 2.5 grams of protein per pound to achieve similar results? Does that mean that leucine is useless? Of course not. In my opinion, it would just further confirm its value, as there are a lot of guys who just can't tolerate that much whole food protein, either mentally or from a digestive standpoint.

There is a whole lot to consider here. Whether or not it is "possible" to achieve similar results with whole food alone is FAR from the only thing that matters.

And how many studies show SD or trestolone to be ineffective at achieving muscle growth? None.

Conversely, there is substantial evidence to suggest adding BCAAs to a high protein diet (and no one in any of these studies would ever set "high protein" at 2+g/lb) is ineffective at creating more muscle growth.

Not to mention whey protein is cheaper, ~25% BCAAs and has EAAs as well. If one really believes they don't get enough BCAAs in their diet they can just drink some whey.

Like I said earlier though, if someone really wants to push whole-food protein to low levels for some reason, have at it.

 

[Mike Arnold]

Totally understand your point. Question for you: do you think Sergio Olivia, Arnold, Craig Munson, and the beasts in 60s, 70s and 80s took 400g of protein in without protein powders being available? Personally, I dont think so. They were probably getting close to 1g/bw. Maybe a little more. So IMO, yes...you can build a well developed BIG physique and NOT have to pound 500g. Can you be a Ronnie Coleman mass monster? Probably not.

But the addition of powders have significantly (right around the 90's with the mass monsters) AND the need to push overall CALORIES higher have equaled much bigger bodybuilders, that's a fact.

Do most guys want to be 300lbs of rippling muscle? Probably not. If they do, they are probably going to have to push their calories higher—that means protein, carbs and fats.
While most of the guys on this board on this board are probably fine with a muscular 180-240lb physique—which can be attained without cramming protein.

Sure, but his point was that you need a lot of protein in order to achieve "maximum" results...and science is starting to bear that out...in terms of not only maximizing protein synthesis, but especially in terms of preventing protein breakdown.

In the past all the experts used to say "it's useless to consume more than about 40 grams of protein at a time because the body can't process more than that" (at one point some people even suggested that 20-25 grams was the limit)...or they would say "you only need to consume as much protein as necessary to maximize protein synthesis and no more".

We now know neither of those things are true. The theory that said "the body can only process and assimilate 40 grams of protein at once" is so silly I won't even address it. As for the 2nd one, science is now showing us that just because protein synthesis might be maxed out with 40 grams of whey and a couple grams of leucine, it does not mean that it will generate a maximum growth response because it doesn't maximize the prevention of protein breakdown, which requires much larger quantities of protein.

So, while we can certainly build a great physique without a lot of protein, large quantities of protein do increase our potential results.

I can attest to this on a persona level. I always got significantly better results by consuming 30 grams of whey and 50 grams of casein than just 40 grams of whey alone, even thought at the time science was telling us that consuming 80 grams of protein at once was overkill and a "waste". We were repeatedly told that 40 grams of whey (or any protein source) was "all it took" to maximize results, but bodybuilders have known for a long time that this is B.S.

When I would see clients eating 20-40 grams of whey before bed as their only protein source, one of the first things I would do, and which always resulted in superior muscle growth, was have them start consuming 60-100 grams of protein (from primarily slow digesting sources) right before bed. Nearly everyone would notice gains right away (and greatly improved recovery), especially when their overall protein intake wasn't that high.

 

[Mike Arnold]

error.

 

[Mike Arnold]

And how many studies show SD or trestolone to be ineffective at achieving muscle growth? None.

Conversely, there is substantial evidence to suggest adding BCAAs to a high protein diet (and no one in any of these studies would ever set "high protein" at 2+g/lb) is ineffective at creating more muscle growth.

Not to mention whey protein is cheaper, ~25% BCAAs and has EAAs as well. If one really believes they don't get enough BCAAs in their diet they can just drink some whey.

Like I said earlier though, if someone really wants to push whole-food protein to low levels for some reason, have at it.

Where is it? If it is there, please show me. I am not saying it doesn't exist. Admittedly, I haven't read much on the subject over the last 6-12 months.

But please, post this evidence if you know where it is at.

 

[Pheedno]

Totally understand your point. Question for you: do you think Sergio Olivia, Arnold, Craig Munson, and the beasts in 60s, 70s and 80s took 400g of protein in without protein powders being available? Personally, I dont think so. They were probably getting close to 1g/bw. Maybe a little more. So IMO, yes...you can build a well developed BIG physique and NOT have to pound 500g. Can you be a Ronnie Coleman mass monster? Probably not.

No idea what they're actual protein intake was but, as a light heavy competitor, it was not out of question to be eating 3lbs of cooked meat a day during prep. That is not including the eggs/whites and protein from nuts and ancillary items. Easy 400g without powders.

 

[Landmonster]

My understanding of the current research is that a certain leucine threshold needs to be met to maximize MPS. And getting this somewhat spaced throughout the day in ~4 or so "meals/feedings" is better than 1-2 larger meals. So if you're eating sufficient protein spaced throughout the day, then leucine supplementation isn't going to improve things, so for those who saw an improvement after supplementing with leucine, I'm guessing that the supplementation either filled a hole of inadequate protein or filled in long gaps of no protein.

Like I said, I'm one of those people who gained on Leucine.

I was eating 6 huge meals a day, each one consisting of 60+g of protein, each one spaced roughly 3 hours apart.

I was not in a deficit of protein or calories. I added 5g of leucine before each meal, and added muscle.

The reason is simple..... When you supplement with leucine, you receive a bolus dose all at once on a semi-empty stomach. While there may be 5g of leucine contained within a couple of chicken breasts, they digest slowly over a few hours. So you don't get the same effect.

If nothing else, we know that leucine stimulates protein synthesis. So taking leucine with every meal would ensure you're meeting the leucine threshold for each meal.

 

[OutToLunch]

Like I said, I'm one of those people who gained on Leucine.



I was eating 6 huge meals a day, each one consisting of 60+g of protein, each one spaced roughly 3 hours apart.



I was not in a deficit of protein or calories. I added 5g of leucine before each meal, and added muscle.



The reason is simple..... When you supplement with leucine, you receive a bolus dose all at once on a semi-empty stomach. While there may be 5g of leucine contained within a couple of chicken breasts, they digest slowly over a few hours. So you don't get the same effect.



If nothing else, we know that leucine stimulates protein synthesis. So taking leucine with every meal would ensure you're meeting the leucine threshold for each meal.

You feel you wouldn't have gained if doing everything you did without the added leucine?

 

[BigGame]

It's all about that mTor

 

[Elvia1023]

A very simple thing many could do is simply buy some EAA's and BCAA's (or leucine only) powders and see if it makes a difference. They are not expensive and many sites have sales on so buy 1 months supply and see for yourself. If it improves recovery and/or body composition then great. If not well at least you tried and you are down a small amount of $. So often with debated subjects like this many will pick their favourite expert and go on his/her opinion instead of actually seeing for themselves.

 

[Landmonster]

You feel you wouldn't have gained if doing everything you did without the added leucine?

I have stopped leucine due to cost and hassle, but I will add it back in again. I haven't been doing it in a few months.


I will report later in this thread if I gain any mass from it.


In the past... yes I felt like I gained from it. I carried a little tupperware container of Leucine around with me even out to restaurants and stuff.

 

[Landmonster]

Some of you guys may be underestimating the cost of this. :lightbulb:

You can buy Leucine in bulk online for like $25 per 500 grams. So, if you are eating 30g a day, you need to buy ~900 grams per month.

The net cost of your leucine bill would be $45 per month. Does it work? I feel like it does... (If you are doing BCAAs instead of leucine, you need to double your cost.)

Is that the best use of your $45? That is hard to say. If you are covering all your other bases, I would say yes.

If you're strapped for cash and don't care about health... does it work as well as $45 worth of Anadrol? ... no. But then again, this is legal, and side-effect free.


Dante... if you are reading this, PM me, and I'll post a Leucine log.

 

[Deleted member 106824]

Where is it? If it is there, please show me. I am not saying it doesn't exist. Admittedly, I haven't read much on the subject over the last 6-12 months.

But please, post this evidence if you know where it is at.

https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12986-016-0072-3

There's this which may have been posted. Lyle McDonald has quite a bit in his protein book, and generally it seems most experts agree they're unnecessary when consuming adequate protein (which can certainly be 1g/lb).

Having said that, I don't think they hurt anything, they may be beneficial for people trying to consume less protein, and like Elvia said someone can get them pretty cheaply and try them out. I have many times and never noticed a benefit but maybe others would. If one does think they experience a benefit, might as well keep taking them.

 

[Elvia1023]

Some of you guys may be underestimating the cost of this. :lightbulb:

You can buy Leucine in bulk online for like $25 per 500 grams. So, if you are eating 30g a day, you need to buy ~900 grams per month.

The net cost of your leucine bill would be $45 per month. Does it work? I feel like it does... (If you are doing BCAAs instead of leucine, you need to double your cost.)

Is that the best use of your $45? That is hard to say. If you are covering all your other bases, I would say yes.

If you're strapped for cash and don't care about health... does it work as well as $45 worth of Anadrol? ... no. But then again, this is legal, and side-effect free.


Dante... if you are reading this, PM me, and I'll post a Leucine log.

I see deals on all the time of buy 1 get 1 free. If you are a 20 year old on minimum wage that is one thing. But I would like to think most on here can afford approx $40 if it's something they really want to know. If they aren't too bothered then they don't buy anything. Look at it this way most people will buy things like coffees, subway sandwiches etc etc. I personally would swop the likes of that with $10 per week of aminos. Although I think it's mute going on about price as if someone can afford it they may do what I stated and if not they obviously won't. If someone is that poor then bodybuilding probably isn't for them. But sure if you are poor stick to the basics and bulk foods (rice, pasta, eggs, chicken, tuna, frozen veg etc) and don't waste your money on supplements.

 

[Mike Arnold]

A very simple thing many could do is simply buy some EAA's and BCAA's (or leucine only) powders and see if it makes a difference. They are not expensive and many sites have sales on so buy 1 months supply and see for yourself. If it improves recovery and/or body composition then great. If not well at least you tried and you are down a small amount of $. So often with debated subjects like this many will pick their favourite expert and go on his/her opinion instead of actually seeing for themselves.

Agreed. I was someone who saw results when adding leucine to my meals as well. I was never someone who ate a ton of protein because I didn't really like eating it. The highest I would ever go was (1 gram per pound of bodyweight, but adding leucine to my diet certainly appeared to benefit me.

 

[Mike Arnold]

https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12986-016-0072-3

There's this which may have been posted. Lyle McDonald has quite a bit in his protein book, and generally it seems most experts agree they're unnecessary when consuming adequate protein (which can certainly be 1g/lb).

Having said that, I don't think they hurt anything, they may be beneficial for people trying to consume less protein, and like Elvia said someone can get them pretty cheaply and try them out. I have many times and never noticed a benefit but maybe others would. If one does think they experience a benefit, might as well keep taking them.

When you say "they", are you referring to aminos in general, BCAA's, or ONLY leucine...because there is a difference.

Furthermore, while I try to keep up to date on the available research, I do NOT place expert "opinion" over real-world experience. How many times have we been told one thing by a handful of experts (sometimes even universally accepted), only to later be told they were wrong?

I have seen it happen dozens of times over the last 30 years. Not too long ago virtually every "expert" was telling us that 20-40 grams of protein per meal was the limit...and that anything beyond that was useless for muscle growth. Many bodybuilders adamantly disagreed with this and were accused of relying on "bro-science", but they were recently vindicated when science started to show that we can eat much more than 40 grams and continue to receive additional benefits...primarily by minimizing protein breakdown. Previously, protein synthesis rates were the only factor given meaningful consideration, which is how we ended up at the "20-40 grams per meal" rule. But what bodybuilders and coaches knew for 30 years took decades to be proven in the lab.


Then we had the debate about whether fasted or un-fasted cardio was better for fat loss. Generally speaking, bodybuilders have always said fasted cardio provides superior fat loss, but a few years ago some of the "experts" started telling us fasted cardio was inferior because of metabolic slowing during the overnight "fast". There were even some studies done which "supported" this approach. Of course, later studies conflicted with this "research" and now everyone is back to fasted cardio again...which has proven itself over and over in the real-world. Yet, we still lack irrefutable science to show that one way is better than the other, so we will almost certainly see someone challenge it again at some point in the future. What will bodybuilders do? Probably the same thing they have been doing all along--that which experience has shown works better.

I haven't yet read the study (in the link you provided), but I will do so very soon. Thank you.

 

[Deleted member 106824]

When you say "they", are you referring to aminos in general, BCAA's, or ONLY leucine...because there is a difference.

Furthermore, while I try to keep up to date on the available research, I do NOT place expert "opinion" over real-world experience. How many times have we been told one thing by a handful of experts (sometimes even universally accepted), only to later be told they were wrong?

I have seen it happen dozens of times over the last 30 years. Not too long ago virtually every "expert" was telling us that 20-40 grams of protein per meal was the limit...and that anything beyond that was useless for muscle growth. Many bodybuilders adamantly disagreed with this and were accused of relying on "bro-science", but they were recently vindicated when science started to show that we can eat much more than 40 grams and continue to receive additional benefits...primarily by minimizing protein breakdown. Previously, protein synthesis rates were the only factor given meaningful consideration, which is how we ended up at the "20-40 grams per meal" rule. But what bodybuilders and coaches knew for 30 years took decades to be proven in the lab.


Then we had the debate about whether fasted or un-fasted cardio was better for fat loss. Generally speaking, bodybuilders have always said fasted cardio provides superior fat loss, but a few years ago some of the "experts" started telling us fasted cardio was inferior because of metabolic slowing during the overnight "fast". There were even some studies done which "supported" this approach. Of course, later studies conflicted with this "research" and now everyone is back to fasted cardio again...which has proven itself over and over in the real-world. Yet, we still lack irrefutable science to show that one way is better than the other, so we will almost certainly see someone challenge it again at some point in the future. What will bodybuilders do? Probably the same thing they have been doing all along--that which experience has shown works better.

I haven't yet read the study (in the link you provided), but I will do so very soon. Thank you.

You may not be surprised to know Schoenfeld has recently put out a paper showing inferior / neutral fat loss with fasted cardio lol I'm sure the debate will continue for many years.

But overall I'm right there with you man, if you really feel you get a benefit from leucine based on your experience then go for it. As another example, there are hundreds of studies on creatine and it's universally accepted that it works, but I've tried 5-10 brands over the years and never noticed a benefit. So for ME, despite what the research says, I do not find it effective. I am surely in the minority (I believe the statistic is roughly 30% of people don't respond to it) but at some point when you've done this for 10+ years you learn your body. If people really experience a benefit from their BCAA / Leucine supplementation I'd never tell them to stop, I just personally haven't noticed a benefit.

Do you believe supplementing leucine alone is superior to supplementing all 3 BCAAs? If so, why is that?

 

[KillerStack]

Do you believe supplementing leucine alone is superior to supplementing all 3 BCAAs? If so, why is that?

It appears that the leucinemia (and quite possibly the ensuing intramuscular leucine concentration) is the driver of the MPS response and thus the recovery process. The addition of isoleucine and valine (the other branched-chain AAs) does not improve MPS (Churchward-Venne et al., 2014). This response is an underappreciated result considering many supplements contain combinations of the branched-chain AAs, which, based on our data, would not be advantageous to consume co-temporally because they share the same transporter (Hyde et al., 2003). Thus, as we speculated (Churchward-Venne et al., 2014), consumption of crystalline BCAA resulted in competitive antagonism for uptake from the gut and into the muscle and was actually not as effective as leucine alone in stimulating MPS. Despite the popularity of BCAA supplements we find shockingly little evidence for their efficacy in promoting MPS or lean mass gains and would advise the use of intact proteins as opposed to a purified combination of BCAA that appear to antagonize each other in terms of transport both into circulation and likely in to the muscle (Churchward-Venne et al., 2014).

Frontiers | Nutritional interventions to augment resistance training-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy | Physiology

Scheonfeldt paper you mentioned:

As noted in a recent review by Morton et al. [5], there is a paucity of evidence supporting a beneficial effect for BCAA supplementation in promoting increases in muscle protein synthesis or lean mass, and in fact there might be a detrimental impact given that the AAs appear to antagonize each other in terms of transport both into circulation and likely into the muscle.

https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-016-0128-9