If you've ever been overwhelmed by the sheer number of protein powder options available, especially when it comes to whey and soy, you're not alone. Both offer unique benefits, making the choice far from straightforward. This article aims to provide a comprehensive comparison of whey and soy protein, specifically focusing on their effectiveness for weight loss, muscle building, and overall health.
Understanding Soy Protein
Soy protein is derived from soybeans, a legume that has been a staple in diets for centuries. The process involves dehulling and defatting the soybeans, after which the protein is processed into various forms such as soy protein concentrate, soy protein isolate, or soy flour. Soy protein isolate, commonly found in protein powders, contains minimal fat and carbohydrates, offering a high protein concentration.
Key Advantages of Soy Protein
- Complete Protein: Soy protein contains all nine essential amino acids that the body cannot produce on its own.
- Plant-Based: It's an excellent option for vegans and vegetarians, or those looking to reduce animal product consumption.
- Environmentally Friendly: Soy production generally requires less water and produces fewer greenhouse gases compared to animal-based proteins.
Isoflavones in Soy Protein
Soy protein is rich in isoflavones, plant-based compounds that mimic estrogen in the body. While this has raised concerns about hormonal effects, research suggests that moderate soy intake does not negatively impact hormone levels in healthy men.
Understanding Whey Protein
Whey protein originates from milk, specifically the liquid remaining after cheese production. This liquid is processed and dried into a powder, typically available as whey protein concentrate, whey isolate, or hydrolyzed whey. Whey isolate boasts the highest protein content and the lowest lactose levels, while hydrolyzed whey is broken down into smaller peptides for faster absorption.
Key Advantages of Whey Protein
- Complete Protein: Like soy, whey also provides all nine essential amino acids.
- High Leucine Content: Whey is rich in leucine, a branched-chain amino acid (BCAA) crucial for stimulating muscle protein synthesis.
- Fast Digestion: Whey is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream, making it ideal for post-workout recovery.
Considerations for Whey Protein
Whey protein is derived from dairy, making it unsuitable for individuals with milk allergies. Those with lactose intolerance may experience digestive issues unless they opt for whey isolate or lactose-free formulations.
Read also: The Ultimate Smoothie Guide
Nutritional Showdown: Soy vs. Whey
Both soy and whey proteins are excellent sources of protein. A standard 30-gram scoop of either typically provides 20-25 grams of protein. Whey protein generally contains slightly more BCAAs, particularly leucine, which gives it a slight advantage in stimulating muscle growth. Soy protein, however, offers a solid amino acid profile and a higher arginine content, beneficial for blood flow and nutrient delivery.
Digestion and Absorption
Whey protein is typically absorbed faster than soy protein, making it a popular choice for post-workout consumption. Soy protein's slower digestion can provide a sustained release of protein throughout the day. Calorie content is similar between whey isolate and soy isolate, and both can be lean protein sources with the right product selection.
Muscle Building: Which Protein Reigns Supreme?
Whey protein has a slight edge in stimulating muscle protein synthesis due to its high leucine content and rapid absorption. Studies have shown that whey triggers a stronger short-term increase in muscle-building activity compared to soy. However, soy protein can still effectively support muscle maintenance and growth when consumed in adequate amounts (20-25 grams per meal).
Long-Term Studies
Some studies comparing whey and soy over several weeks have shown slightly better gains with whey, while others found no significant difference. Consistent training and adequate overall protein intake are key factors in muscle development, regardless of the protein source.
Weight Loss: Which Protein is More Effective?
Protein aids weight loss by promoting satiety, increasing metabolism, and preserving lean muscle mass during fat loss. Both soy and whey proteins can contribute to these effects.
Read also: Muscle Gain using Ghost Whey
Appetite Suppression
Some research suggests that whey protein may have a slight advantage in appetite suppression and fat loss due to its rapid absorption and impact on hunger-regulating hormones. However, soy protein has also been shown to support fat loss when combined with exercise and a calorie-controlled diet.
Key Factors
The most important factors for weight loss are overall calorie balance and daily protein intake, rather than the specific protein source.
Health Benefits Beyond Muscle and Weight
Soy protein is known for its potential heart-health benefits, including lowering LDL ("bad") cholesterol and raising HDL ("good") cholesterol. Isoflavones in soy may also offer protective effects against certain cancers and bone loss in women, particularly post-menopause.
Whey Protein's Additional Perks
Whey protein may help lower blood pressure, improve insulin sensitivity, and support immune function due to bioactive compounds like lactoferrin and immunoglobulins. It may also reduce inflammation in individuals with metabolic syndrome or type 2 diabetes.
Digestibility, Allergies, and Sensitivities
Whey protein, being dairy-based, contains lactose unless processed into an isolate, which can cause digestive issues for those with lactose intolerance. Soy protein allergies are also possible, especially in children, and soy sensitivity can cause gut discomfort in some adults due to FODMAPs.
Read also: Muscle Building Shakes
Recommendations
If you have food sensitivities, introduce each protein in small amounts to assess your body's response. Consult with a healthcare provider or registered dietitian if you are unsure.
Lifestyle Considerations
- Vegan/Vegetarian: Soy protein is the obvious choice.
- Muscle Growth: Whey protein may provide a slight advantage, especially post-workout.
- Weight Loss: Both can help when used strategically within a calorie-controlled diet.
- Digestive Issues/Allergies: Experiment to see which protein your body tolerates best, or choose whey isolate for lactose sensitivity.
Combining Soy and Whey Protein
Combining different protein sources can be beneficial, as each offers unique amino acid profiles and absorption rates. Whey protein can be used post-workout for quick recovery, while soy protein can be incorporated into meals for sustained fullness.
Concluding Thoughts: Making the Right Choice
There is no single "best" protein. Your choice depends on your health goals, dietary needs, and personal preferences.
- Choose Whey Protein if: You want fast muscle recovery, improved strength, or you're a heavy lifter looking to build muscle quickly.
- Choose Soy Protein if: You're plant-based, concerned about heart health, or want a complete protein with added health perks like isoflavones.
Remember to prioritize whole food meals and consider other lifestyle factors like sleep, exercise, hydration, and stress management to optimize protein utilization.
The effect of supplemental carbohydrate (CHO), whey protein (WP), and soy protein (SP) on body mass
A double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted to determine the effect of consumption of supplemental whey protein (WP), soy protein (SP), and an isoenergetic amount of carbohydrate (CHO) on body weight and composition in free-living overweight and obese but otherwise healthy participants.
Ninety overweight and obese participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups for 23 wk: 1) WP; 2) SP (each providing ~56 g/d of protein and 1670 kJ/d); or 3) an isoenergetic amount of CHO. Supplements were consumed as a beverage twice daily. Participants were provided no dietary advice and continued to consume their free-choice diets. Participantsâ body weight and composition data were obtained monthly. Dietary intake was determined by 24-h dietary recalls collected every 10 d.
After 23 wk, body weight and composition did not differ between the groups consuming the SP and WP or between SP and CHO; however, body weight and fat mass of the group consuming the WP were lower by 1.8 kg (P < 0.006) and 2.3 kg (P < 0.005), respectively, than the group consuming CHO. Lean body mass did not differ among any of the groups. Waist circumference was smaller in the participants consuming WP than in the other groups (P < 0.05). Fasting ghrelin was lower in participants consuming WP compared with SP or CHO.
Through yet-unknown mechanisms, different sources of dietary protein may differentially facilitate weight loss and affect body composition. Dietary approaches for controlling unhealthy weight gain are becoming increasingly important and using dietary manipulations to control hunger is one potential means to control energy intake.
Dietary Manipulations and Protein Intake
Many investigations of dietary manipulations to modulate body weight, especially those with higher protein diets, include energy restriction during or subsequent to the dietary modulation. Results from these interventions suggest that body weight loss is greater while consuming higher protein diets and satiety may be a key factor. In short-term studies with subjective assessment of hunger and satiety, dietary protein has been shown to be more satiating than isoenergetic intake of fat and carbohydrate. Although results from these short-term studies can provide insight into energy intake regulation, it is unclear what effect any short-term response in food intake will have on long-term energy intake and body weight regulation, especially in a noncatabolic state.
Not all longer term dietary interventions of restricted energy intake concomitant with increased protein intake have demonstrated that these diets improve body weight or composition. In most interventions, the source of dietary protein is typically not described or is from mixed sources. Protein source may be important to consider in understanding the success or failure of these interventions. For example, in a study of overweight and obese men fed isoenergetic diets, animal protein (pork) increased energy expenditure compared with a vegetable (soy) protein. Wistar rats (10 wk old) fed a high-protein diet with whey protein concentrate had a 4% reduction in weight gain and reduced visceral and subcutaneous fat deposition compared with rats fed a red meat-based protein.
These results suggest that there might be differential effects among protein sources on energy intake or body weight regulation. However, the rat data are from young, growing animals whose physiological state might be much different from an adult human. The primary objective of the present study was to determine the effects of added supplemental protein to the habitual diet of free-living overweight and obese adults, without energy restriction, on body weight and composition. A secondary objective was to determine whether there are differential effects between protein sources on body weight and composition in a longer term intervention. Whey and soy are both readily available proteins and both have been implicated in regulating food intake.
Study Design and Methods
A double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted to determine the effects of supplemental WP and SP and an isoenergetic amount of CHO on body weight and composition in free-living overweight and obese but otherwise healthy individuals for 23 wk. In addition, plasma glucose, insulin, ghrelin, IGF, and serum thyroid hormones were determined to evaluate metabolic and hormonal changes.
Ninety participants were recruited and randomly assigned (stratified by sex, BMI, and age) to 1 of 3 groups: WP, SP, or an isoenergetic amount of CHO (maltodextrin). The sample size was selected to determine a 3% change in body weight (P < 0.05) with 90% power among each treatment comparison. Inclusion into the study was for nonsmokers having a BMI (in kg/m2) >28 and <38, fasting glucose <7 mmol/L, blood pressure <160/100 mm Hg, and total cholesterol <6.2 mmol/L. Exclusion criteria included: history or presence of kidney, gastrointestinal, liver, or thyroid disease, gout, certain cancers, or type 2 diabetes; recent weight loss; recently following a high-protein diet or using antiobesity medications or supplements; and consuming a WP or SP supplement.
Medical history, routine blood chemistry indexes, complete blood count, urine analysis, and a physical examination were used to evaluate each participantâs eligibility for inclusion in the study. The protocol and consent form were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Medstar Research Institute.
Each treatment supplement was specifically formulated and manufactured for this study (Innovative Food Processors) and was provided in 3 flavors in serving sizes of 52 g/packet. The source of WP was WP concentrate-80, the source of SP was an isoflavone-free SP isolate (Prolisse, Cargill), and the source of CHO was maltodextrin (Maltrin M180, Grain Processing). The WP concentrate-80 was from a cheese-derived source and was not hydrolyzed. An isoflavone-free SP isolate was selected to minimize the impact of nonprotein compounds and focus on the biological effects of the macronutrient component.
Supplement Consumption and Dietary Intake
Participants were instructed to consume 1 pack immediately prior to, during, or immediately after breakfast and dinner. The total amount of energy from the treatments was 1670 kJ/d. Participants were provided with information on the energy content of the products but with minimal instruction from a registered dietician on how to make dietary alterations to incorporate these products. Participants completed a questionnaire each day to record the time the treatment was consumed and general health questions.
Compliance was determined by counting the number of packets distributed and recounting those not consumed and by measuring para amino benzoic acid (PABA) in urine samples collected at random, unannounced times monthly to determine whether PABA was present in the urine. The PABA was added to each treatment packet at a concentration of 0.24 mg/kJ.
Usual dietary intake was assessed every 10 d using the USDAâs Automated Multiple-Pass Method. Subjective satiety and hunger were assessed daily for 23 wk, before consumption of the treatment and evening meal by means of 4 visual analogue scale (VAS) questions that described hunger, desire to eat, the amount of food that could be eaten, and stomach fullness. Physical activity was measured semimonthly with an activity monitor (accelerometer) for 7 consecutive days (Actigraph MTI AM 7164â1.2; Manufacturing Technology).
Measurements and Analysis
Prior to the start of the intervention and then monthly, body weight and composition were measured by air-displacement plethysmography (BodPod 2000A, BodPod 2.0 Software, Life Measurement). Measurements were made according to the manufacturerâs guidelines. Participants fasted for at least 12 h before the measurements and refrained from exercise. Thoracic lung volume was automatically estimated.
Prior to the start of the intervention and then monthly, waist circumference was measured above the right ilium on the midaxillary line. Hip circumference was measured at the level of the maximum extension of the buttocks. Five times during the study (before the intervention and after 12, 16, 20, and 23 wk of the intervention), blood was collected after a 12-h fast. Plasma and serum samples were collected after centrifugation and frozen at â80°C.
Plasma insulin concentrations were measured by ELISA (LINCOplex; LINCO Research). Plasma glucose concentrations were measured enzymatically (Smith-Kline Beecham Laboratories). Plasma concentrations of total ghrelin were measured by RIA (LINCO Research). Plasma IGF-I and IGF binding protein (IGFBP)-3 concentrations were measured by ELISA (R&D Systems). Plasma IGFBP-1 concentration was measured by ELISA (LINCOplex; LINCO Research). Serum free thyroxine (T4) concentrations and triiodothyronine (T3) uptake were analyzed with an enzyme-multiplied immunoassay (Siemens; Centaur). Urine samples were collected monthly.
Prior to ANOVA, each variable was evaluated for normality and homogeneity of variance within groups. A log transformation was performed for glucose and insulin so that these data would not violate the homogeneity of variance assumption needed to perform the ANOVA. Repeated-measures analyses (MIXED procedure in SAS; SAS Institute) were used to evaluate changes over time. The model included treatment, sex, time, 2-way interactions, and the 3-way interaction as fixed effects. Pretreatment values were included as covariates. Results were interpreted first through the 3-way interaction. If this interaction was significant (P < 0.05), within time, treatment effects were evaluated. If this interaction was not significant, the 2-way interactions were investigated. Within-time and within-sex treatment effects were investigated. If no interactions were significant, the main effect of treatment was evaluated. If the treatment effect was significant for any of the interactions or main effect evaluations, the outcome for WP was compared with the CHO and SP values by using the slice option to compare the least-squares means.
Key Findings
Seventy-three participants completed the intervention. The mean number of supplement packets consumed over the intervention was 2 per day, which was the prescribed amount. However, PABA analysis of urine samples revealed 2 participants with undetectable PABA concentrations in 4 of 5 random samples. At breakfast time, most packets were consumed immediately before or during the meal (44 and 41%, respectively) and fewer were consumed immediately after the meal (15%). At dinner time, over one-half of the packets (52%) were consumed immediately prior to the meal.
Dietary data are reported from 1060 dietary recalls for 73 participants who completed the study. Mean energy intake (including supplements) was 9060 ± 560, 9140 ± 510, and 9490 ± 460 kJ/d for the CHO, WP, and SP groups, respectively, and did not differ among treatment groups. Mean protein intake was 76 ± 3, 131 ± 6, and 135 ± 3 g/d for the CHO, WP, and SP treatment groups, respectively. Mean percent of energy intake from protein was 14 ± 1, 24 ± 2, and 24 ± 2% for the CHO, WP, and SP treatment groups, respectively. Mean percent of energy intake from CHO was 58 ± 2, 49 ± 2, and 48 ± 1% for the CHO, WP, and SP treatment groups, respectively. The percentages of energy intake from fat were 28 ± 2, 27 ± 2, and 28 ± 1% for the CHO, WP, and SP treatment groups, respectively.
Protein intakes were 1.4 g/kg of body weight for the protein treatments and 0.8 g/kg of body weight for the CHO treatment groups. Energy and macronutrient intakes were higher for men than for women (P < 0.0001), with no detectable effect of treatment on changes in energy, protein, carbohydrate, or fat intake during the course of the intervention. VAS questions were used to evaluate the subjective satiety responses of the participants before the evening meal for 23 wk. The dietary treatments did not affect hunger (P = 0.11), desire to eat (P = 0.11), prospective consumption (P = 0.38), or stomach fullness (P = 0.62). Physical activity did not differ between treatment groups during the intervention period. There were no differences between treatment groups at baseline. A significant interaction existed between treatment and time; i.e. at the last measurement time, the treatment means were different.
Impact on Body Weight and Composition
At the end of the intervention (after 23 wk), body weight of the group consuming WP was 1.8 kg (2%) lower than that of the group consuming the CHO treatment (P < 0.006). Body weight did not differ between the groups consuming SP and WP (0.9-kg difference) or between the groups consuming SP and CHO (0.9-kg difference). At the end of the intervention, body fat mass was 2.3 kg lower in the group consuming the WP than in the group consuming the CHO treatment (P < 0.005). Body fat mass of the group consuming SP was not different from that of the group consuming the WP (1.1-kg difference), nor was it significantly different from the group consuming the CHO treatment (1.2-kg difference).
There was no effect of treatment on waist circumference before the last measurement. At the last measurement time, waist circumference was 2.4 cm lower in the group supplemented with WP than in the other 2 groups. The effect of treatment was not different for men and women.
Metabolic and Hormonal Changes
Fasting blood glucose concentrations were unaffected by treatment; however, circulating insulin concentrations were lower for participants consuming the whey and SP treatments than for participants consuming the CHO treatments. There was no effect of treatment over time and the effect of treatment was similar for both genders. Participants consuming WP had lower ghrelin concentrations compared with participants consuming the SP (P = 0.04) and CHO (P = 0.007) treatments. Participants consuming the SP compared with CHO treatment showed no treatment effects on ghrelin (P = 0.31).
Circulating IGF-I concentrations were higher in the group consuming the SP supplement than in the groups supplemented with WP or CHO, whereas IGFBP-3 concentrations were lower in the group supplemented with WP than in the other 2 groups. The IGFBP-1 concentration was not affected by treatment. T3 uptake was lower in the group supplemented with WP compared with the group supplemented with SP; the group supplemented with CHO did not differ from either protein group.