2

Post workout, will an animal based protein powder (such as casein, whey) be better absorbed or utilized by the body than a vegan one (pea, soy, rice, blend), even if they contain the same exact amino-acid profile?

I've often heard that animal based protein powders are better for muscle growth - especially whey - right after a high intensity workout.

However, the justification I've been given has to do with their superior amino-acid profile as compared to vegan protein powders, and not their absorption or utilization. But, I've found that if one is willing to spend a little more money, vegan protein powders with amino-acid profiles equivalent to those of animal protein powders can be found.

How do the different protein powders compare when they've been made to have the same exact profile? Is there a difference in their absorption just by virtue of them being plant-based? If there is, how significant is it?

Thanks!

  • Sorry, but I think you missed the mark a bit for this site. Questions on nutrition aren't on-topic here unless you angle it in a way that is directly related to exercise. It's a good idea to have a look at any site's on-topic guidelines before spending too much time writing a question. – Alec Jul 2 at 19:28
  • @Alec I understand, no need to say sorry. Is there any way I could edit it to make it more on-topic? I AM referring directly to building muscle and having the most benefit from exercise with the protein, creatine, and omega 3 parts...perhaps I could make it more about that, or just about the protein, and re-ask it? Thank you! – xicihuz Jul 2 at 19:35
  • Nutrition questions should specifically be about pre-workout and post-workout. It seems your question is more of a biology question, it would have to be diverted away from what you actually want to ask, which would defeat the purpose. To be clear, just because the question is about the food intake of someone who works out, doesn't mean it directly related to the exercising itself, which is what this site is focused on. I would suggest one of the other sites, but I'm not too familiar with their on-topic rules either. But perhaps check out Biology and/or Medical? – Alec Jul 2 at 22:52
  • @Alec of I got rid of everything that I could think of that would make this question unsuitable for this site :( ...and, yep, I had to get rid of most of my work, but hopefully its okay now. – xicihuz Jul 3 at 3:49
  • Yeah, that looks alright to me. I've re-opened the question. I would say it's still on the border, but at least if the question is open, the community has the chance to decide en masse. – Alec Jul 3 at 11:52
4

To answer your question directly, there is no inherent difference between plant and animal amino acids. If the amino acid profile of one source is identical to another, its potential value or utility is also identical. Most amino acid are, after all, created by plants, and subsequently consumed and utilised by the grazing and foraging animals that we farm for meat. And those amino acids are passed down the food chain from plant to animal, and animal to human. The rate of absorption of each amino acid is proportional to its relative concentration, and the rate at which it is characteristically absorbed.

Some amino acids are sythesised by animals, however. Of the 21 amino acids common to all life, human beings are incapable of synthesising nine. These are the ‘essential’ amino acids. An additional six are deemed ‘conditionally essential’, since the rate of their synthesis is inadequate under certain conditions. Nevertheless, regardless of the source, the amino acids are chemically identical, and therefore indistinguishable by the body.

What does vary from source to source are so-called ‘anti-nutritional factors’, which broadly describe components that inhibit the digestibility, absorption, and/or utility of the available protein. These factors include certain food chemicals accompanying the protein sources, as well as the products of heat (i.e. Maillard reactions) and chemical processing—and they apply to both animal and plant sources.

The widely-used Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) rating was developed jointly by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organisation (WHO) in 1989. Although it is now over 30 years old, it remains a good general indicator of protein bio-availability, defined as “the proportion of the total amino acid that is digested and absorbed in a form suitable for protein synthesis.” However, the rating has a number of limitations, including its inability to account for endogenous (inside the body) losses of amino acids due to the aforementioned anti-nutritional factors, and the fact that protein from one source is not consumed in isolation from other food sources. The ‘quality’ and bio-availability of any protein source is likely dependent on all other components of the diet.

All of that said, we can assume that limiting intake of known anti-nutritional factors—glucosinolates, trypsin inhibitors, haemagglutinins, tannins, gossypol, uricogenic nucleobases, and Maillard reaction chemcials such as oxidized forms of sulphur amino acids, D-amino acids, and lysinoalanine (LAL)—will maximise the bio-availability of our dietary protein.

I hope that is helpful.

| improve this answer | |
  • Thank you! So, what do they refer to when they talk about the"bio-availability" of protein and PDCAA ratings? Its all quite confusing for to me! – xicihuz Jul 4 at 13:23
  • @xicihuz: The terms ‘bio-availability’ and ‘digestibility’ are attempts to qualify and quantify the ability for dietary essential amino acids (AAs) to be utilised at a cellular level. There certainly are differences between sources, but they are not so simply distinguished by being either of plant or animal origin. Numerous ‘anti-nutritional factors’ affect the body's ability to utilise AAs—and they apply to both plant and animal sources. The ultimate ‘quality’ of a protein, therefore, includes not only its amino acid profile, but also its source, processing, and what it is combined with. – POD Jul 4 at 17:14
  • @xicihuz: It is worth noting, also, that the PDCAA rating—now over 30 years old—is rather limited in its ability to reflect the true utility of a protein source, since it fails to account for many of the factors discussed above. – POD Jul 4 at 17:19
  • @xicihuz: I have modified my post to expand upon these comments. I hope it proves helpful. – POD Jul 4 at 18:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.