In Western societies over the last few decades the ideal of female beauty has been well … thin. It’s a look showcased by androgynous looking models who glower at the camera rather than risk appearing overly anxious to please. The message is that they are invincible, empowered and yes … thin. Even when they seem coy or vulnerable on the pages of a fashion magazine, you know it’s an act because behind the pose and the artful lighting, the business of image marketing is a deadly serious game.

The rail thin androgynous look is rarely natural and in extreme cases involves a regimen of dieting, pill taking, purging and even induced vomiting. A number of models have become seriously ill as a result of the pressure to remain significantly thinner than their biological norm. Some have even died as a result of being chronically malnourished.

This ‘fashionable’ form of self- abuse has begun to change of late as the fashion industry responds to well publicized dangers associated with self-induced thinness. Some fashion houses are now even imposing mandatory weight requirements for models – a few pounds above the skeletal ideal that was du rigeur in times past.

Beauty is big business. Entire professions owe their existence to the creeping narcissism that won’t allow even the best looking among us to believe that nature’s handiwork is quite good enough. There is always more that can be done. A few hair plugs, a tummy tuck, a face lift. There never seems to be any end to what the image conscious believe they need to do in order to achieve an approximate degree of perfection.

The more vanity surgery people get done, the more they interfere with the natural template each of us has inherited. Someone with an unfashionably long nose and a chin that recedes a little too much, is unlikely to be perceived as unattractive if he or she refuses to be found wanting in comparison with some designated beauty ideal. True beauty is often flawed. The young Barbra Streisand was plain by glamor standards, and yet succeeded in captivating audiences. True beauty is also after all, about attitude. There is something genuinely beautiful about a woman who is no fashion magazine siren and yet who is possessed of unpretentious confidence and flair. If a person doesn’t view themselves as unattractive, it’s much less likely other people will.

Women who are obsessed with their physical ‘flaws’ and who believe that a diet or cosmetic surgery will make everything alright, are in some cases compensating for a lack of self-confidence or low self-esteem. What they often discover is that the cosmetic work fails to do the trick. The self-doubt returns, along with more obsessing about body parts that require improving. It’s a never-ending cycle in some cases.

The adage “to thine own self be true” should also apply to physical appearance. Self-acceptance and a sense of humor, go a long way toward making the best of natural assets.

Everybody knows that calories are the enemy, and that more calories equals more weight gained. Therefore, most people believe that losing weight is as simple as cutting way back on calories.

It’s just simple mathematics, right?

After all, if you’re eating 3,000 calories per day and you cut back to 1,000 calories per day, then those extra 2,000 calories have to be burned from your body, right?

It’s as simple as 2 + 2 equals 4, right? Well, this is not exactly true.

First, let’s talk about the average person who begins a diet. The scenario usually goes something like this…

One day you look in the mirror and you finally get fed up with the way your body looks (or the way that your clothes fit) – and on this day you get “angry” with yourself, and you begin cutting way back on calories in an attempt to starve yourself thinner.

So you officially begin your “starvation diet.”

On the first day you skip breakfast altogether (after all, you’re so filled with anger and motivation that it’s easy to skip breakfast).

Then, a few hours later your motivation quickly gives way to severe hunger – since your body is not accustomed to being without calories for so long.

Finally, by lunchtime you’re so hungry that you feel weak and miserable, but yet you tell yourself that you can make it through this tough hunger (after all, you don’t want to look like a quitter to your friends and family who know that you’re dieting).

So you have a small piece of fruit for lunch perhaps, bravely trying to stick to your plan of starving yourself thin.

Then, hours later when dinnertime arrives you’re so hungry and weak that you have a big migraine headache – and you’re beginning to realize that starving yourself might not be such a good idea after all.

However, you try to hold out for another day or two on this miserable diet – since nobody likes to feel like a quitter.

So you’ll probably hold out for another day or two, making yourself miserable in the meantime.

There are even some brave dieters who may hold out for a week or so, possibly even 2 weeks for the bravest of dieters.

However, regardless of how long you hold out — the result is still the same.

You see, even after 2 weeks of starving you won’t have made any noticeable difference to your body when you look in the mirror.

Why?

Simple, because the weight lost during a starvation diet is largely water weight, not real weight loss. This water weight will be gained back immediately when you stop dieting and begin eating normally again.

Also, when you starve yourself your body begins burning fewer calories each day — so even though you’re eating fewer calories each day you must remember that your body is also burning fewer calories.

For example, let’s say that you normally eat 2,500 calories per day (before you begin dieting). Then, you suddenly try to starve yourself by eating only 1,000 calories per day.

Guess what?

Even though you’re eating 1,500 fewer calories per day your body will begin burning 1,500 fewer calories per day – so your weight will remain the same even though you’re starving yourself.

When your body begins burning fewer calories it’s called a weight loss “plateau.” This is why virtually all starvation dieters cannot make the scale go down after about 2 weeks of dieting.

This is why even the most determined of “starvation dieters” always fail after just a couple of weeks.

The truth is that “noticeable” weight loss simply cannot be achieved by starvation, and it’s pointless to even try that type of diet.

True weight loss can only be achieved by giving your body the right types of calories at the right times each day. Your body is like a big engine, and the truth is that it needs all 3 types of calories (protein, carbs, and fat) to some degree.

The best way to lose weight is to effectively manage these 3 types of calories, so that your body receives the proper amount of protein, the proper amount of carbs – and also the proper amount of fat each day.

Everybody knows that calories are the enemy, and that more calories equals more weight gained. Therefore, most people believe that losing weight is as simple as cutting way back on calories.

It’s just simple mathematics, right?

After all, if you’re eating 3,000 calories per day and you cut back to 1,000 calories per day, then those extra 2,000 calories have to be burned from your body, right?

It’s as simple as 2 + 2 equals 4, right? Well, this is not exactly true.

First, let’s talk about the average person who begins a diet. The scenario usually goes something like this…

One day you look in the mirror and you finally get fed up with the way your body looks (or the way that your clothes fit) – and on this day you get “angry” with yourself, and you begin cutting way back on calories in an attempt to starve yourself thinner.

So you officially begin your “starvation diet.”

On the first day you skip breakfast altogether (after all, you’re so filled with anger and motivation that it’s easy to skip breakfast).

Then, a few hours later your motivation quickly gives way to severe hunger – since your body is not accustomed to being without calories for so long.

Finally, by lunchtime you’re so hungry that you feel weak and miserable, but yet you tell yourself that you can make it through this tough hunger (after all, you don’t want to look like a quitter to your friends and family who know that you’re dieting).

So you have a small piece of fruit for lunch perhaps, bravely trying to stick to your plan of starving yourself thin.

Then, hours later when dinnertime arrives you’re so hungry and weak that you have a big migraine headache – and you’re beginning to realize that starving yourself might not be such a good idea after all.

However, you try to hold out for another day or two on this miserable diet – since nobody likes to feel like a quitter.

So you’ll probably hold out for another day or two, making yourself miserable in the meantime.

There are even some brave dieters who may hold out for a week or so, possibly even 2 weeks for the bravest of dieters.

However, regardless of how long you hold out — the result is still the same.

You see, even after 2 weeks of starving you won’t have made any noticeable difference to your body when you look in the mirror.

Why?

Simple, because the weight lost during a starvation diet is largely water weight, not real weight loss. This water weight will be gained back immediately when you stop dieting and begin eating normally again.

Also, when you starve yourself your body begins burning fewer calories each day — so even though you’re eating fewer calories each day you must remember that your body is also burning fewer calories.

For example, let’s say that you normally eat 2,500 calories per day (before you begin dieting). Then, you suddenly try to starve yourself by eating only 1,000 calories per day.

Guess what?

Even though you’re eating 1,500 fewer calories per day your body will begin burning 1,500 fewer calories per day – so your weight will remain the same even though you’re starving yourself.

When your body begins burning fewer calories it’s called a weight loss “plateau.” This is why virtually all starvation dieters cannot make the scale go down after about 2 weeks of dieting.

This is why even the most determined of “starvation dieters” always fail after just a couple of weeks.

The truth is that “noticeable” weight loss simply cannot be achieved by starvation, and it’s pointless to even try that type of diet.

True weight loss can only be achieved by giving your body the right types of calories at the right times each day. Your body is like a big engine, and the truth is that it needs all 3 types of calories (protein, carbs, and fat) to some degree.

The best way to lose weight is to effectively manage these 3 types of calories, so that your body receives the proper amount of protein, the proper amount of carbs – and also the proper amount of fat each day.

Everybody knows that calories are the enemy, and that more calories equals more weight gained. Therefore, most people believe that losing weight is as simple as cutting way back on calories.

It’s just simple mathematics, right?

After all, if you’re eating 3,000 calories per day and you cut back to 1,000 calories per day, then those extra 2,000 calories have to be burned from your body, right?

It’s as simple as 2 + 2 equals 4, right? Well, this is not exactly true.

First, let’s talk about the average person who begins a diet. The scenario usually goes something like this…

One day you look in the mirror and you finally get fed up with the way your body looks (or the way that your clothes fit) – and on this day you get “angry” with yourself, and you begin cutting way back on calories in an attempt to starve yourself thinner.

So you officially begin your “starvation diet.”

On the first day you skip breakfast altogether (after all, you’re so filled with anger and motivation that it’s easy to skip breakfast).

Then, a few hours later your motivation quickly gives way to severe hunger – since your body is not accustomed to being without calories for so long.

Finally, by lunchtime you’re so hungry that you feel weak and miserable, but yet you tell yourself that you can make it through this tough hunger (after all, you don’t want to look like a quitter to your friends and family who know that you’re dieting).

So you have a small piece of fruit for lunch perhaps, bravely trying to stick to your plan of starving yourself thin.

Then, hours later when dinnertime arrives you’re so hungry and weak that you have a big migraine headache – and you’re beginning to realize that starving yourself might not be such a good idea after all.

However, you try to hold out for another day or two on this miserable diet – since nobody likes to feel like a quitter.

So you’ll probably hold out for another day or two, making yourself miserable in the meantime.

There are even some brave dieters who may hold out for a week or so, possibly even 2 weeks for the bravest of dieters.

However, regardless of how long you hold out — the result is still the same.

You see, even after 2 weeks of starving you won’t have made any noticeable difference to your body when you look in the mirror.

Why?

Simple, because the weight lost during a starvation diet is largely water weight, not real weight loss. This water weight will be gained back immediately when you stop dieting and begin eating normally again.

Also, when you starve yourself your body begins burning fewer calories each day — so even though you’re eating fewer calories each day you must remember that your body is also burning fewer calories.

For example, let’s say that you normally eat 2,500 calories per day (before you begin dieting). Then, you suddenly try to starve yourself by eating only 1,000 calories per day.

Guess what?

Even though you’re eating 1,500 fewer calories per day your body will begin burning 1,500 fewer calories per day – so your weight will remain the same even though you’re starving yourself.

When your body begins burning fewer calories it’s called a weight loss “plateau.” This is why virtually all starvation dieters cannot make the scale go down after about 2 weeks of dieting.

This is why even the most determined of “starvation dieters” always fail after just a couple of weeks.

The truth is that “noticeable” weight loss simply cannot be achieved by starvation, and it’s pointless to even try that type of diet.

True weight loss can only be achieved by giving your body the right types of calories at the right times each day. Your body is like a big engine, and the truth is that it needs all 3 types of calories (protein, carbs, and fat) to some degree.

The best way to lose weight is to effectively manage these 3 types of calories, so that your body receives the proper amount of protein, the proper amount of carbs – and also the proper amount of fat each day.

Everybody knows that calories are the enemy, and that more calories equals more weight gained. Therefore, most people believe that losing weight is as simple as cutting way back on calories.

It’s just simple mathematics, right?

After all, if you’re eating 3,000 calories per day and you cut back to 1,000 calories per day, then those extra 2,000 calories have to be burned from your body, right?

It’s as simple as 2 + 2 equals 4, right? Well, this is not exactly true.

First, let’s talk about the average person who begins a diet. The scenario usually goes something like this…

One day you look in the mirror and you finally get fed up with the way your body looks (or the way that your clothes fit) – and on this day you get “angry” with yourself, and you begin cutting way back on calories in an attempt to starve yourself thinner.

So you officially begin your “starvation diet.”

On the first day you skip breakfast altogether (after all, you’re so filled with anger and motivation that it’s easy to skip breakfast).

Then, a few hours later your motivation quickly gives way to severe hunger – since your body is not accustomed to being without calories for so long.

Finally, by lunchtime you’re so hungry that you feel weak and miserable, but yet you tell yourself that you can make it through this tough hunger (after all, you don’t want to look like a quitter to your friends and family who know that you’re dieting).

So you have a small piece of fruit for lunch perhaps, bravely trying to stick to your plan of starving yourself thin.

Then, hours later when dinnertime arrives you’re so hungry and weak that you have a big migraine headache – and you’re beginning to realize that starving yourself might not be such a good idea after all.

However, you try to hold out for another day or two on this miserable diet – since nobody likes to feel like a quitter.

So you’ll probably hold out for another day or two, making yourself miserable in the meantime.

There are even some brave dieters who may hold out for a week or so, possibly even 2 weeks for the bravest of dieters.

However, regardless of how long you hold out — the result is still the same.

You see, even after 2 weeks of starving you won’t have made any noticeable difference to your body when you look in the mirror.

Why?

Simple, because the weight lost during a starvation diet is largely water weight, not real weight loss. This water weight will be gained back immediately when you stop dieting and begin eating normally again.

Also, when you starve yourself your body begins burning fewer calories each day — so even though you’re eating fewer calories each day you must remember that your body is also burning fewer calories.

For example, let’s say that you normally eat 2,500 calories per day (before you begin dieting). Then, you suddenly try to starve yourself by eating only 1,000 calories per day.

Guess what?

Even though you’re eating 1,500 fewer calories per day your body will begin burning 1,500 fewer calories per day – so your weight will remain the same even though you’re starving yourself.

When your body begins burning fewer calories it’s called a weight loss “plateau.” This is why virtually all starvation dieters cannot make the scale go down after about 2 weeks of dieting.

This is why even the most determined of “starvation dieters” always fail after just a couple of weeks.

The truth is that “noticeable” weight loss simply cannot be achieved by starvation, and it’s pointless to even try that type of diet.

True weight loss can only be achieved by giving your body the right types of calories at the right times each day. Your body is like a big engine, and the truth is that it needs all 3 types of calories (protein, carbs, and fat) to some degree.

The best way to lose weight is to effectively manage these 3 types of calories, so that your body receives the proper amount of protein, the proper amount of carbs – and also the proper amount of fat each day.

Everybody knows that calories are the enemy, and that more calories equals more weight gained. Therefore, most people believe that losing weight is as simple as cutting way back on calories.

It’s just simple mathematics, right?

After all, if you’re eating 3,000 calories per day and you cut back to 1,000 calories per day, then those extra 2,000 calories have to be burned from your body, right?

It’s as simple as 2 + 2 equals 4, right? Well, this is not exactly true.

First, let’s talk about the average person who begins a diet. The scenario usually goes something like this…

One day you look in the mirror and you finally get fed up with the way your body looks (or the way that your clothes fit) – and on this day you get “angry” with yourself, and you begin cutting way back on calories in an attempt to starve yourself thinner.

So you officially begin your “starvation diet.”

On the first day you skip breakfast altogether (after all, you’re so filled with anger and motivation that it’s easy to skip breakfast).

Then, a few hours later your motivation quickly gives way to severe hunger – since your body is not accustomed to being without calories for so long.

Finally, by lunchtime you’re so hungry that you feel weak and miserable, but yet you tell yourself that you can make it through this tough hunger (after all, you don’t want to look like a quitter to your friends and family who know that you’re dieting).

So you have a small piece of fruit for lunch perhaps, bravely trying to stick to your plan of starving yourself thin.

Then, hours later when dinnertime arrives you’re so hungry and weak that you have a big migraine headache – and you’re beginning to realize that starving yourself might not be such a good idea after all.

However, you try to hold out for another day or two on this miserable diet – since nobody likes to feel like a quitter.

So you’ll probably hold out for another day or two, making yourself miserable in the meantime.

There are even some brave dieters who may hold out for a week or so, possibly even 2 weeks for the bravest of dieters.

However, regardless of how long you hold out — the result is still the same.

You see, even after 2 weeks of starving you won’t have made any noticeable difference to your body when you look in the mirror.

Why?

Simple, because the weight lost during a starvation diet is largely water weight, not real weight loss. This water weight will be gained back immediately when you stop dieting and begin eating normally again.

Also, when you starve yourself your body begins burning fewer calories each day — so even though you’re eating fewer calories each day you must remember that your body is also burning fewer calories.

For example, let’s say that you normally eat 2,500 calories per day (before you begin dieting). Then, you suddenly try to starve yourself by eating only 1,000 calories per day.

Guess what?

Even though you’re eating 1,500 fewer calories per day your body will begin burning 1,500 fewer calories per day – so your weight will remain the same even though you’re starving yourself.

When your body begins burning fewer calories it’s called a weight loss “plateau.” This is why virtually all starvation dieters cannot make the scale go down after about 2 weeks of dieting.

This is why even the most determined of “starvation dieters” always fail after just a couple of weeks.

The truth is that “noticeable” weight loss simply cannot be achieved by starvation, and it’s pointless to even try that type of diet.

True weight loss can only be achieved by giving your body the right types of calories at the right times each day. Your body is like a big engine, and the truth is that it needs all 3 types of calories (protein, carbs, and fat) to some degree.

The best way to lose weight is to effectively manage these 3 types of calories, so that your body receives the proper amount of protein, the proper amount of carbs – and also the proper amount of fat each day.

By Linda Orlando

Centuries ago, refined sugar was a rare luxury reserved for the very rich, and most common people didn’t even know what it tasted like. Now, after several hundred years of an increasingly industrialized society, practically everyone the world over has at least tasted sugar, and it is such a commonplace condiment in most restaurants and many households that it is hard to imagine a world without the tiny white granules making life sweeter. But over the course of the last few decades, the critics of sugar have become more numerous and more vocal, with more and more research studies, books, and articles detailing the evils of overindulgence of sugar. It can rot your teeth, it can give you diabetes, it can make you gain weight—it can cause a whole host of horrible eventualities for those who eat it on a regular basis! Despite the fact that sugar has been around for centuries, the girth of Americans has been expanding for only the last few decades, so obviously our tastes have changed and our lifestyles have become more sedentary. So people nowadays feel compelled to avoid sugar at all costs. But sweetness is something that few people can do without, particularly in today’s society, and as a result the market for artificial sweeteners has steadily grown.

The first widely used artificial sweetener was saccharin, marketed under various brand names, most commonly Sweet N’ Low. Although saccharin enjoyed great popularity for years after it was introduced, later research studies showing a link to cancer in lab rats caused many regular users to abandon it and return to using sugar. And then came aspartame. Aspartame, marketed under the names NutraSweet, Equal, and others, became popular immediately as an alternative to the cancer-causing saccharin, and before long it seemed as though every single dietary product on the market contained aspartame. But then people started hearing whispers of a conspiracy to have aspartame approved by the FDA despite research studies showing how harmful it can be. The whispers steadily turned into roars, and now there are hundreds of websites, books, journal articles, and research studies devoted to publicizing the dangers of aspartame. Because many of those claims are based in a solid foundation of research, the public approval of aspartame began to wane slightly at the end of the 20th century, with many doctors advising their patients to stop using it, and many regular users once again returning to sugar.

And then came Splenda. The American public was understandably a bit gun-shy about artificial sweeteners, but because of the rapidly advancing interest in low-carb dieting begun by the Atkins Diet Revolution books, Splenda appears to have transcended the public’s fears. Splenda’s initial appearance on the consumer market was as an ingredient in Diet Rite cola in 1998, with its initial target audience being diabetics, but it was soon swept up in the low-carb craze of the 21st century. Splenda began being sold as a standalone product in 1999, and now it is by far the top-selling non-sugar sweetener. Sales of real sugar are down, and major soft drink manufacturers are frantically working to get their Splenda-ized products to market. Coke’s version was just released a few weeks ago. Splenda sales reach almost $200 million a year, and its manufacturer has had trouble keeping up the demand.

The main selling point of Splenda, according to its advertising slogan, is that it is “made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar.” This sounds absolutely impossible, since Splenda is calorie-free, so a little exploration on the manufacturer’s website should clear things up—but it really doesn’t. A one-paragraph summary of the “patented, multistep process” says that they begin with sugar and convert it, at the molecular level, to sucralose, which is an “essentially inert” ingredient. A spokeswoman explains that pure sucralose is 600 times as sweet as sugar, so it has to be combined with granular “bulking ingredients” for consumers to use it in a tabletop powdered version. Since its introduction, Splenda has rapidly attained a rather aristocratic bearing among artificial sweeteners; the Splenda logo on dietetic products is reminiscent of the “Intel Inside” assurance on personal computers.

The popularity of Splenda, while exciting and promising to consumers in their quest for sweetness without guilt, has ignited an interesting war of words among the three giants of the sweetness industry. According to Merisant, the makers of Equal, Splenda’s marketers have duped their fans, and the “made from sugar” claim tricks consumers into thinking that Splenda is all natural. Merisant has sued Tate & Lyle, the U.K.-based manufacturers of Splenda, to get them to clear up the confusion. And now the Sugar Association has jumped into the fray as well, with a specific website (www.truthaboutsplenda.com) containing the sort of all-out assault on a rival that is almost never seen in consumer marketing. The site trumpets, ”Splenda is not natural and does not taste like sugar. The sweetness of Splenda derives from a chlorocarbon chemical that contains three atoms of chlorine in every one of its molecules.” It goes on to say that Splenda consumers ”are actually eating chlorine,” and it suggests that the product is unsafe and has not been thoroughly tested. The site sports several articles supporting their claims, as well as a forum for people to share their personal stories and opinions, and links to anti-Splenda action groups. As for the Splenda camp’s reaction to this smear campaign, they have now sued the Sugar Association for making ”false and misleading claims.”

So the questions for the consumer now seem to be painfully clear. Is it better to attempt to cut calories by filling your body with something artificial that doesn’t quite taste like sugar and might do you bodily harm over the long haul? Or is it better to use the old tried-and-true sweetener, refined sugar, which has been proven to do you bodily harm over the long haul if you use too much? The correct answer depends on who you ask. But there’s plenty of information available to help you come up with your own answer. Be an informed consumer and do your research, and then decide how much you’re willing to risk to satisfy your sweet tooth.

Studies show that soy offers benefits that casein and whey don’t provide. This is one of the reasons why many supplement manufacturers now combine all three proteins as a means of harvesting the benefits associated with each one.

Studies have shown that soy may protect against cardiovascular disease, provide prevention against or relief from post-menopausal symptoms in women, and even stimulate thyroid function in rats. We also know that Soy Protein Isolates are high in branched-chain amino acids, glutamine, and Arginine. Since soy is a legume, soy is low in methionine, an essential amino acid. Therefore, it may be necessary to combine it with another protein that contains methionine in adequate amounts and that is why many protein manufacturers use soy as an ingredient in their blends (so that the many differing proteins will complement each other-whey and casein will make up for the aminos soy is missing and vice versa).

Another benefit of using soy is that it is priced low in comparison to casein, whey, and milk derived proteins. Soy also has the potential to help women in their postmenopausal years; studies on the long term use have not been done as extensively with men. However, soy contains phytoestrogens, which can act in both an estrogenic and anti-estrogenic fashion. It is the phytoestrogens that allow soy to exert its protective benefits on postmenopausal women.

Please note that until more is understood about the effect of phytoestrogens in men, taking more than 60 grams of soy protein per day may not be a good idea. This is especially true for children of both sexes as giving an estrogen mimicking substance to them may lead to gynocomastia in males (breast development) as well as hormonal imbalances and faster development in females. If the statement above, that soy has been shown to stimulate thyroid function in rats, has you thinking of its possible fat loss qualities, think again, as recent evidence indicates that soy may actually lower thyroid hormone levels in people (in contrast to rats).

Another thing to consider is that vegetable proteins do not contain tertiary bonds as animal proteins do. In order for humans to be able to digest, absorb, and make use of soy protein, it must first be broken down or “isolated.” This pre-digestion process is done via solvents, which are known to leave a residue. The solvents used to isolate or break down the soy protein create residual “non-solvent” amino acids consisting of free form amino acids stuck to non free form amino acids.

The importance of this is that free form amino acids are absorbed by the enterocytes (intestinal lining cells) via active diffusion. Active diffusion is another form of “lock and key” interaction between a receptor embedded in the enterocytes’ cell membrane and a specific amino acid. The amino acid binds to the receptor and gets “actively sucked into” the enterocyte where it then gets sent to the liver via the portal vein for release into the general circulation.

The problem with soy isolates is that the “non-solvent” amino acids (consisting of free form amino acids stuck to non-free form amino acids) bind to the enterocyte receptors and also get “actively sucked into” the enterocyte; however, because these aminos have non-free form amino acids stuck to their opposite end, these also get pulled into the receptor causing intestinal perforation and damage due to their much larger molecular size. Not a good thing, causing bleeding and compromising gut health as well as promoting a lower or suppressed immune system.

Recently soy has been thought to contribute to Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), thought to be caused by intestinal lining perforations such as those mentioned above.

In my opinion, the benefits of using soy do not outweigh the risks. However, I will leave this for a future discussion.

© 2007 Lucho Crisalle, RD, internationally recognized expert in nutrition created the What Works! Ezine. Go to www.exerciseandnutritionworks.com to get your copy of our FREE REPORT “The Truth About FAT LOSS And The Way To A Leaner You – REVEALED!

Ask any bodybuilder about protein, and they will tell you that “Whey is King.” Unfortunately, that is about as far as most people’s knowledge about protein goes, and most athletes and fitness enthusiasts, have no idea why whey is the best source of protein or that there are differing qualities and benefits from different types of whey protein.

The major players in the field of protein are (in ascending order of quality) Soy Protein, Casein, Whey Protein Concentrates (WPC), Whey Protein Isolates (WPI-which can come from ion exchange process or microfiltration), and Hydrolyzed Whey Protein (HWP).

Being that soy is the only vegetable protein mentioned, and since it is quite controversial, we will discuss it separately in Part II. We will start by defining casein and the differing types of whey.

So, What is the Difference?
There are differing qualities of proteins that can be derived from milk; these are casein and whey. Whey is the liquid left over during the cheese making process after the casein in milk is converted into curds. The lowest quality and least expensive form of protein is Caseinate, and can be found in the form of Calcium Caseinate, as well as many other variations such as Potassium Caesinate, etc. As the name implies, it comes from “casein” before it is converted into curds.

A 1997 study titled “Slow and Fast Dietary Proteins Differently Modulate Postprandial Protein Accretion” published in the National Academy of Sciences journal indicated casein may be anticatabolic because it prevents protein breakdown. Because of its larger molecules, casein is digested slower than whey protein and maintains elevated amino acid levels in the blood for a longer period of time.

There are many benefits in maintaining elevated amino acid levels in blood as this has been shown to diminish muscle breakdown (catabolism) as well as having an anabolic effect. If your body is trying to repair muscle tissue, it needs amino acids in the bloodstream to be able to do so. It would be hard for a builder to build you a house with no materials; the same holds true for muscle repair and growth: they cannot take place without the presence of adequate amounts of amino acids in our bloodstream.

Although casein is the lowest priced and least refined of the proteins derived from milk, it is a bit higher in glutamine, tyrosine, threonine, and arginine content than whey protein. That is why a good refined whey protein supplement (such as an Isolate, or Hydrolysate) will usually have these amino acids added to it. Casein also moves slower through the digestive tract, which may allow for better absorption of amino acids and growth factors as well as making it a better meal replacement protein due to its longer and slower transit time (which translates to longer satiety or a feeling of being full). By using casein as a meal replacement protein, we are less likely to experience hunger than if we use a protein supplement with a faster gastric emptying time (one that leaves the stomach more quickly).

The benefit of slower digestion and transit time is that it is thought that slower transit time may allow for a higher absorption of certain components that may not be absorbed from proteins that go through the proximal bowel at a faster rate. Therefore, casein is the best choice to use when our schedule does not allow us to have normal food. Still, normal food would be more beneficial as it takes much longer to leave the stomach and maintains our blood glucose levels better controlled than a “liquid lunch” since the “liquid lunch” does not require much work from the stomach in the form of digestion.

High quality food should be our first choice for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. If your schedule does not allow the “luxury” of setting aside enough time to prepare or purchase an adequate meal, casein is the best choice for a meal replacement if long term satiety is the goal. Possibly the biggest benefit of using a high quality casein protein supplement is its potential in functional properties being researched in hospitalized patients, infants and animals, such as immune enhancing and antiviral properties.

Whey protein concentrate (WPC) is the next step up from caseinate and it comes from the liquid left over during the cheese making process (whey). In its raw form whey contains lactose, fat, salt, and other proteins. Originally all whey protein was made from whey sources left over from the manufacturing of cheese. If supplement manufacturers use this lower quality source of raw materials, harsh acids have been used to separate whey from casein resulting in a lower quality whey protein supplement.

Now there are companies that make whey and casein specifically for supplement manufacturers by extracting it from whole milk for the sole purpose of creating higher quality supplements, making the quality of whey protein today superior to the ones previously available.

There are many different processes designed to separate or filter the valuable fractions of protein found in whey. These range from microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis filtration, dynamic membrane filtration, ion exchange, as well as many others that are being tested to yield the best product that contains as many of the beneficial health promoting portions of whey while leaving the impurities out.
These beneficial fractions include alpha-lactalbumin, beta-lactoglobu?lin, glycomacropeptides (GMP), lactoferrin, lactoperoxi?dase, immunoglobulins, lysozymes, and many more being studied to determine their role in health benefits. Whey protein derived from ultrafiltration is referred to as Whey Protein Concentrate (WPC). The ultrafiltration process does not remove any fat or denatured protein from the whey. For the WPC to be considered high quality, special processing prior to the ultrafiltration is necessary to remove the majority of the fat present in whey as well as separating out denatured protein and casein particles left over from the cheese making process if the raw material (whey) was acquired secondary to the processing of cheese.

WPC’s can yield a product ranging from 20% up to 85% protein. They could be 20% protein and 85% fat and lactose, which is usually the case when not specified in a product. If the concentrate consists mostly of protein, it usually states so in the label; if it consists mostly of fat and lactose, your intestines will let you know with gas and bloating.

The way to tell if your WPC is high quality (highest percent protein as opposed to lactose and fat) is by looking at the label and calculating the percentage of protein compared to the total weight of the serving size. As an example, if your protein serving size is 23.5g and it yields 20g of protein per serving, the easy math is 20 – 23.5 = .8510 x 100 = 85.10% which means your protein serving contains 85.10% protein.

Keep in mind that flavoring agents, sweeteners, gums, and even fiber in some supplements take up some of the volume of the total serving weight. This formula is to be used only with WPC supplements or any other supplement that consists of only protein as a way of determining the percentage yield of protein per serving. This formula is NOT to be used with Meal Replacement Powders (MRP’s) as these contain fat and carbohydrates in “meal-like-quantities” and would show the protein yield to be very low as it is being compared to the entire serving.

Because of the many benefits of the differing types of protein that we will cover in this article, most protein supplement manufacturers “blend” or combine proteins for specific purposes ranging from slow gastric emptying time for meal replacement purposes, or quick emptying time for post workout recovery. It is these different blends that can also make a product superior or low quality, depending on the differing qualities and quantities of the proteins used in their blends. The protein yield formula described above CAN and SHOULD be used in single source as well as multi source proteins as long as they DO NOT contain a considerable amount of carbohydrates, fats, fiber, creatine, etc., as these other components will cause the formula to yield a lower and less desired protein per serving value or number. High quality supplements will use WPC with at least 80% protein content.

If the manufacturer is trying to reduce cost, they will use a product yielding a lower percentage of protein, meaning that more fat and lactose will be found in the product. This is easy to determine even without doing the math as these products tend to give you gas and cause bloating due to the lactose and fat content.

Whey Protein Isolates (WPI) are at a higher level than WPCs. Once we have whey protein concentrate (WPC) if we want a higher quality product we move on to making Whey Protein Isolates (WPI). This is a process by which WPC is purified by “isolating” the highly soluble protein found in whey from the fat and lactose leaving less than 1% lactose and less than 2% of the fat found in the WPC, and by completely removing the denatured protein, salt, etc. As noted above, there are many processes by which WPI is produced, yet they fall under either Microfiltration or Ion Exchange. These processes are very different in temperature, pressure, etc. and therefore yield very different end products.

Once the fat, denatured protein and casein particles have been removed, the proteins in whey are separated from the liquid. The ultrafiltration and microfiltration processes use a microscopic filter or membrane to separate the whey proteins from the lactose, salt, and water in the whey causing the protein to become more concentrated and purified, while the ion exchange process separates the proteins out based upon their electrical charge.

The original ion exchange or “column method” consists of pumping whey through a column impregnated with a special resin that has been chemically treated to have a surface electrical or “ionic charge.” This causes different ions from the protein to bond or stick to the resin and the remaining impurities flow through the column and are discarded.

The main problem with ion exchange is that some of the beneficial fractions (alpha-lactalbumin, beta-lactoglobu?lin, glycomacropeptides [GMP], lactoferrin, lactoperoxi?dase, immunoglobulins, lysozymes, etc) will not bind to resin and will be discarded as they also flow through the column. The column is then rinsed with water containing chemical buffers that change the surface charge of the resin causing the release of the amino acids and protein into the buffered solution.

The protein released into the buffered solution must now undergo another step to remove most of the buffer solution. This additional step is another ultrafiltration system which unfortunately does not remove all of the sodium from the buffer solution.

Yet another problem associated with Ion Exchange whey protein isolate includes high sodium content in the final product, as well as up to 10% denatured protein caused by the chemical reaction between the resin the protein was bound to and the buffer used to release it, and the loss of GMP’s and other immune system boosters.

The benefits of the Ion Exchange process is that it is able to remove nearly all the fat and lactose creating a product that is up to 90% pure. A newer method of separating molecules is called a “stirred bead reactor system” and it usually does not cause damage to the active compounds found in whey protein.

The Ion Exchange process was the first process developed to produce whey protein isolates from Whey Protein Concentrate. Because ion exchange was the only way to produce WPI early on, it was then considered to be the highest quality isolate. After the development of microfiltration, it was found that the whey protein isolates produced via microfiltration had a much higher nutritional profile than that of isolates created via the ion exchange method. There are many reasons why WPI created via microfiltration is a superior product. These reasons range from lower sodium content due to elimination of the use of solvents, to not having chemically denatured protein, and most notably, reclamation of immune boosting fractions as compared to the ion exchange method which loses them.

Microfiltration WPI, one of the highest quality protein supplements, is produced by starting with high quality milk sourced WPC and filtering it through special membranes under low temperature and low pressure. These special membranes allow only soluble protein to pass through its microscopic pores leaving salt, fat, lactose and denatured proteins behind. Although this process is started with a high quality WPC, because it is a WPC it still is turbid due to its salt, fat, lactose, and non soluble protein content.

Once these unwanted particles are isolated from the high quality protein, a crystal clear liquid is all that is left over. The next step is to dry this crystal clear liquid to create a powder, and here is one of the steps where manufacturers can go astray.

The only way to create a superior product is to let the liquid dry into a powder by using a low temperature dryer. A low temperature dryer is a very expensive and slow way of creating a powder from the crystalline liquid. Many manufacturers opt to use a high temperature dryer as it is much faster and cheaper to use than a low temperature one.

It does not take a degree in chemistry to realize that heat denatures (breaks down) protein. The whole idea of running the WPC through a membrane was in part to remove denatured protein, so why add a step that takes your product backwards? High quality WPI will only be dried into a powder using low temperature spray dryers as the high temperature dryers will denature the protein and yield a much lower quality product.

Whey Protein Hydrolysates (WPH), or hydrolyzed whey protein, is further processing of whey isolate by breaking down the long protein chains into smaller portions or peptides. To “hydrolyze” something means to break it down into smaller particles (usually by adding water). The higher the degree or percentage of hydrolysis, the more broken down the whey protein isolate (smaller size), and the faster the absorption. Labeling laws allow manufacturers to call a product “hydrolyzed whey” when it may contain 1/10th of 1% hydrolyzation. The key is to find out what percentage of hydrolyzation the product consists of.

The highest quality hydrolysates will be 100% Whey Protein Hydrolysates which have a bitter taste by definition and therefore are not used in high amounts. Along with the bitter taste, comes a bitter high price as it is the highest quality and most expensive protein available today. Some manufacturers have been able to produce a 100% hydrolysate that does not have a bitter taste, yet is rather expensive compared to other protein supplements.

In the duodenum or proximal bowel where protein is absorbed in the human body, dipeptides and tripeptides (protein “chains” consisting of two and three amino acids) enter freely into intestinal cells to be absorbed into the bloodstream.

This is why a hydrolysate is the best type of protein to use post workout as we want the amino acids to enter our bloodstream and be delivered to muscle cells as quickly as possible so that repair and growth can start right away. Due to the high cost of 100% hydrolyzed whey, a blend consisting of whey isolate and hydrolyzed whey would be optimal for post workout use.

Many manufacturers like to also include Caesinate and WPC in their post workout protein blends as a means of addressing both ends of the spectrum: fast increase of amino acids into the bloodstream by using WPI and HWP, and extended elevated amino acid levels by using Caseinate along with WPC. I personally prefer using the HWP as I want the amino acids to enter my muscle cells right away.

Stay tuned for Part II, where I will move on and discuss Soy Proteins – The Good, The Bad and The Ugly