ONLINE DRIVERS MEDIA

One study wouldnt be enough to prove that pea is superior to whey as muscle builder, anyways.

In a recent study, French scientist investigated the effects of two types of protein supplementation on muscle thickness and strength in 161 moderate physically active (2–6 hours per week) male participants (mean age 22 years). More specifically, the scientists compared the effects of vegetable Pea protein (NUTRALYS®) vs. Whey protein and Placebo on biceps brachii muscle thickness and strength after a 12-week resistance training program. And as the headline already reveals: The pea protein had the upper hand, when it comes to biceps brachii size, but the way the gains were measured and superior strength gains in the whey group raise questions about whether the results of this study are practically relevant - meaning you have to switch from whey to pea.
These values are based on measurements of arm circumference of the right arm which were taken using a constant tension tape during maximal elbow extension at rest and during a maximal voluntary contraction (with maximal elbow flexion).

Figure 1: Overview of the study design.

"All subjects followed the same training routine, three times per week with a rest day between each session. Training was based on three exercises involving the elbow flexor and extensor muscles. The exercises soliciting the flexor muscles were arm curl and lateral pulldown. In the arm curl exercise, subjects sat with weights in their hands with a ~40° trunk/arm angle. They had to flex/extend the forearm over the arm. For the lateral pull-down, subjects sat with a bar in their hands above the head. They had to flex/extend the forearm over the arm with a vertical movement. The exercise soliciting the extensors was the bench press. Subjects were lying on their backs with a bar in their hands with a 90° trunk/arm angle, arms extended, and had to flex and extend their upper limbs vertically. Throughout the training program, the number of sets was progressively increased from 2 to 5 while the number of repetitions was reduced in parallel from 15 to 5 repetitions maximum (RM). In the final week, the subjects did three sets of 5 RM in order to preclude any fatigue for the D84 tests" (Babault. 2015).

Recovery between sets was identical for all workouts: 2–3 minutes. The load used for each exercise was regularly adapted during training depending on individuals’ maximum load (1-RM, one maximum repetition, evaluated every two weeks).

Figure 2: Muscle thickness in the 3 groups at baseline after 42 and 84 days. There was only a trend (£) for increased gains in the pea protein group (Babault. 2015).

Three measurements were made (at rest and contracted) along the length of the biceps, namely ¼, ½ and ¾ of the length of the upper arm (distance between the acromion process of the scapula and the lateral epicondyle of the humerus). Averaging was performed to obtain mean values for the circumference at rest and contracted.

Faulty measurements due to messed up timing?

That sounds great, but since the time of measurement is not mentioned, it may well be that all the values are fundamentally flawed. Why?

Well, as a SuppVersity reader you know that even in leg muscles, which are muss less prone to "the pump", "Cell Swelling Keeps Muscles "Pumped" For More Than 52h. Size Increases of Up to 16% After a Single Leg Workout!" (learn more).

Practically speaking, this means that the "size measurements" in the study at hand may be worthless if the scientists didnt wait for at least 72h-96h before they measured the sleeve sizes of their subjects.
The absence of information on the time-point at which the sleeve sizes were measured (suggestive of immediately post) and the fact that the strength gains do not reflect the alleged superiority of pea protein as muscle builders (see Figure 3) put a huge question mark behind the assumption that pea protein tends to produce greater muscle gains than whey.

Figure 3: It is strange that the "superior muscle builder" triggers the lowest gains in maximal isometric contractile force. Even the placebo group had greater strength gains - despite a lack of sign. differences at baseline (Babault. 2015).

Rather than "gains", the increases could in fact be a result of increased inflammation and the reduced "gains" in the whey group a result of its anti-inflammatory effects (Buckley. 2010; Sugawara. 2012; Kerasioti. 2013). The existing evidence of anti-inflammatory properties of pea protein (Ndiaye. 2012) does yet render this assumption questionable.
References:

• Babault, et al. "Pea proteins oral supplementation promotes muscle thickness gains during resistance training: a double-blind, randomized, Placebo-controlled clinical trial vs. Whey protein." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 12:3 (2015).
• Buckley, Jonathan D., et al. "Supplementation with a whey protein hydrolysate enhances recovery of muscle force-generating capacity following eccentric exercise." Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 13.1 (2010): 178-181. 
• Lang, Vincent, et al. "Satiating effect of proteins in healthy subjects: a comparison of egg albumin, casein, gelatin, soy protein, pea protein, and wheat gluten." The American journal of clinical nutrition 67.6 (1998): 1197-1204.
• Ndiaye, Fatou, et al. "Anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulating properties of an enzymatic protein hydrolysate from yellow field pea seeds." European journal of nutrition 51.1 (2012): 29-37.
• Kerasioti, Efthalia, et al. "Anti-inflammatory effects of a special carbohydrate–whey protein cake after exhaustive cycling in humans." Food and Chemical Toxicology 61 (2013): 42-46.
• Sirtori, Cesare R., et al. "Hypocholesterolaemic effects of lupin protein and pea protein/fibre combinations in moderately hypercholesterolaemic individuals." British journal of nutrition 107.08 (2012): 1176-1183.
• Smith, Christopher E., et al. "The effect of yellow pea protein and fibre on short-term food intake, subjective appetite and glycaemic response in healthy young men." British Journal of Nutrition 108.S1 (2012): S74-S80.
• Sugawara, Keiyu, et al. "Effect of anti-inflammatory supplementation with whey peptide and exercise therapy in patients with COPD." Respiratory medicine 106.11 (2012): 1526-1534.

If we go by the convincing results of the study at hand, the fasted cardio myth is obviously busted.

Sometimes the day youve been waiting for comes faster than youd thought... no, I am not talking about a teens eighteens birthday or Christmas (reminds me, I still have to buy a ton of presents), but rather of the recently hinted at "fasted cardio study" by Brad Jon Schoenfeld, Alan Albert Aragon, Colin D Wilborn, James W Krieger and Gul T Sonmez.

The study of which I wrote only 2 days ago in my article about the 50% increase in fatty acid oxidation in fasted vs. fed morning cardio (learn more). And it is in fact the study which may finally solve the "Is fasted cardio good for your weight loss?"-question.

In contrast to the previously discussed paper, Schoenfeld et al. who started with the common hypothesis that "performing aerobic exercise after an overnight fast accelerates the loss of body fat" (Schoenfeld. 2014), did not content themselves with measures of acute fatty acid oxidation. What they did was a study to investigate the actual changes in fat mass and fat-free mass following four weeks of volume-equated fasted versus fed aerobic exercise in young women adhering to a hypocaloric diet.
Needless to say that this study has the potentially to give us reliable insights with respect to the previously formulated question, because their subjects, twenty healthy young female volunteers were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 experimental groups,

• a fasted training (FASTED) group that performed exercise after an overnight fast (n =10) or
• a post-prandial training (FED) group that consumed a meal prior to exercise (n =10)

not for one or two testing days, but for 4 weeks! The training itself consisted of 1 hour of steady-state aerobic exercise on a regular treadmill (0% incline) and was performed for 3 days per week for the previously mentioned total study duration of 4 weeks.

"Subjects performed a warm-up for the first 5 minutes at an intensity equating to 50% of maximal heart rate (MHR), determined by the formula 220 - age, then increased intensity to 70% MHR for the next 50 minutes, and finished with a 5 minute cool down at 50% MHR. Heart rate monitors (model F7U, Polar Electro Inc, Lake Success, NY) were used to ensure that exercise remained at the appropriate intensity." (Schoenfeld. 2014)

To ensure that (a) the subjects actually trained and they would (b) only do the prescribed standardized volume of exercise, all training sessions were supervised by research assistants who were upper level undergraduate students in exercise science and the subjects were instructed to refrain from performing any additional structured exercise for the duration of the study.
Subjects were provided with customized dietary plans designed to induce a caloric deficit. In that, their total caloric intake was calculated on the basis of the Mifflin-St. Jeor Equation, which yields adequate, but obviously not 100% precise measurements of the resting metabolic rate (max. 10% off in non-obese adults according to Frankenfield. 2005). Since the same method was used for both groups, any possible inaccuracies, due to which the real caloric deficit among the women may not be identical to the calculated one, should carry no real weight, though. And we can simply assume that all women were in the same ~500kcal/day energy deficit the researchers thought to create.

Figure 1: Nutrient composition and total energy intake of the subjects in both groups (Schoenfeld. 2014)

In addition to their regular diet, the adherence to which was monitored on a regular basis, the subjects received a meal replacement shake either

• immediately prior to exercise for the FED group or
• immediately following exercise for the FASTED group,

with this nutritional provision carried out under the supervision of a research assistant. The "Pursuit Recovery" (Dymatize Nutrition, TX) shake you could also buy at your local GNC contains 250 calories, total, and 40 g carbohydrate (from maltodextrin and organic cane sugar), 20 g protein (from whey protein isolate + added leucine), and 0.5 g fat (residues).

Lets  take a look at the results now

As you can see in Figure 2, both groups showed a significant loss of weight (P =0.0005) and fat mass (P =0.02) from baseline, but no significant between-group differences were noted in any outcome measure (which means, that all the differences you see are "random").

Figure 2: Pre- vs. Post-study body composition measures (Schoenfeld. 2014)

As Schoenfeld et al. rightly point out, their findings clearly "indicate that body composition changes associated with aerobic exercise in conjunction with a hypocaloric diet are similar regardless whether or not an individual is fasted prior to training" (Schoenfeld. 2014) - in other words, in this pretty realistic scenario (I hope nobody starves himself after a 1h morning cardio session for another 4-8h) the myth that morning cardio on an empty stomach would accelerate fat loss is thus busted.
References:

• Frankenfield, David, Lori Roth-Yousey, and Charlene Compher. "Comparison of predictive equations for resting metabolic rate in healthy nonobese and obese adults: a systematic review." Journal of the American Dietetic Association 105.5 (2005): 775-789.
• Van Proeyen, Karen, et al. "Training in the fasted state improves glucose tolerance during fat-rich diet." The Journal of physiology 588.21 (2010): 4289-4302. 
• Schoenfeld, Brad, et al. "Body composition changes associated with fasted versus non-fasted aerobic exercise." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 11.54 (2014)