Not on either side of this one, but isn't all protein, regardless of the source, broken down into the individual amino acids that are the "building blocks" of that particular protein? Aren't those amino acids then used by the body as needed, along with many other nutrients, to help repair/replace any tissue thats effected? Once digested, yes I realize that some are more easily digested than others, can the body really distinguish from what source those amino acids were derived? If you take a can of XYZ's protein, pull out the flavorings and various additives that supposedly makes it better than all the others, don't you have a can of amino acids? Regardless of the brand. This may be over simplified, but is it incorrect?
Yup, essentially you have complete proteins and that are broken down into the constituent amino acids and then reassembled or put to use to make energy via neoglucogenesis or whatever function the body sees fit.
So really the argument boils down to what comes with the protein and is that good or bad or better or same?
Essentially a tossup though from the point of a view as 10 grams of a complete protein is broken down just like 10 grams of another protein despite what marketing claims companies make.
And how it breaks it down, how quickly can be good or bad depending on one's goals. So in essence its a zen question.
One day Chuang Tzu and a friend were walking by a river. "Look at the fish swimming about," said Chuang Tzu, "They are really enjoying themselves."
"You are not a fish," replied the friend, "So you can't truly know that they are enjoying themselves."
"You are not me," said Chuang Tzu. "So how do you know that I do not know that the fish are enjoying themselves?"
So the answer to the original poster's query is it depends on the person or it could be looked at from a physics point of view
The question was raised: "If a man alone in the woods speaks, and his
wife cannot hear him, is he still wrong?"
I have considered this question in light of the principles of Modern
Physics and offer my thesis
In the year 1900 Max Planck discovered that the energy of light is
quantified. In 1905 Albert Einstein used Planck's Constant to write the
theory of the Photoelectric Effect, that light behaves as a particle
when it comes to energy transfer. Louis de Broglie proposed that
particles can have a wave nature and this fact was later verified.
These discoveries led Neils Bohr to propose a radical theory of the
atom, which was partially successful in explaining the emission spectra
of the hydrogen atom. Neils Bohr was compelled to introduce the
Principle of "Complementarity," that light is both a particle and a
wave.
The modern theories were extended when Max Born showed that the
distribution of energy was a function of probability. Further, Warner
Heisenberg wrote the Principle of Uncertainty, which says that it is
impossible to determine the exact location of an electron and the vector
direction of its momentum at the same time.
This was followed with the master stroke penned by Erwin Schrodinger.
Using the "Psi function" of Quantum Mechanics, Schrodinger could map the
"wave field" of any particle, thus giving us a theoretical explanation
for the structure of an atom and the entire periodic table of the
elements.
The Quantum mechanics predicts that a wave of a single frequency would
stretch out to infinite proportions, the superposition of a narrow range
of frequencies produces a standing wave function which can be localized
to a much more precise location. Thus the electron and its position
within an atom becomes a cloud of probability.
From this I infer that there are such states as being right and being
wrong, within certain parameters of uncertainty. Applying the Psi
function, the more vague the statement of the man the greater the
probability of him being correct. The narrower and more specific his
utterance the greater the likelihood of his being wrong.
Also, the Principle of Complementarity assures us that if a man alone in
the woods speaks, and his wife can not hear him, he is BOTH right and
wrong until he comes out of the woods.
In the analogy of Schrodinger's Cat, the cat in the box is both dead and
alive until someone opens the lid. The act of observing the phenomenon
determines the outcome.
Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that it doesn't matter what the man
says only his wife can determine whether or not he is correct.
The inevitable conclusion to the question of this thread is not what the posters on this thread say, but only the person drinking the protein shake can determine which is better, food or shake (depending on their goals and needs)
.gif "IP Gear")
