# Breaking down the science behind Progenex



## Arnold (Jan 6, 2011)

*Breaking down the science behind Progenex*
_by Anthony Roberts_

In looking at the original study on Progenex (Recovery-study.PDF), we find the following facts:  1.) Progenex-taking subjects experienced *more *soreness  than subjects taking a placebo, 2.)  _subjects taking nothing had  fully recovered peak strength *before* the Progenex group_,  and 3.)_Progenex had *no measurable effect* on muscle  damage_. 



  The original Progenex formula contained a protein supplied by Murry  Goulburn Nutritionals (MG Nutritionals), identical to the one currently  found in their ???Ascend??? product, sold in Australia. For the purposes of  this article, and simplicity???s sake, I???ll refer to this protein as  Progenex, even though technically it would be more proper to call it  ???Whey Protein Isolate Hydrolysate??? or ???NatraBoost XR??? or even WPIHD (as  the study calls it). You get the point, though???this is the protein found  in the original Progenex recovery product.


 At first glance, just by reading the abstract, this looks like  a great protein with impressive scientific support. The study worked  like this: There were three groups of men, all of whom performed a  session of weight training, and consumed either  Progenex,  a whey  protein isolate, or flavored water (placebo). The men who took the  Progenex not only recovered their peak isometric torque (strength)  within six hours, but they also got stronger too. In other words, they  worked out, and within 6 hours, they had gotten stronger, resulting in  these claims in the ad-copy for the product:
???while you are training, your muscle cells gradually lose  their ability to generate a forcible contraction.Pushed to the limit,  your muscles will not be able to forcibly contract at all. PROGENEX  Recovery completely resets the process that causes force loss, so that  you can perform again with maximum strength and force.​ Unfortunately, although this product is marketed towards athletes,  the researchers chose to use sedentary (inactive) males. This increases  the chance that a performance enhancing effect will be found. However,  extrapolating data from an inactive population to athletes is  problematic. There are tons of nutritional supplements that work for  untrained individuals, but do nothing for more advanced trainers (J  Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Jul;23(7):641-50.). The support for this  product in athletes is severely lacking, and it???s lacking because the  company made a conscious decision to not do this research.


 Next, we find that the study began with 43 people. And this is how  the results looked at the two hour post-exercise mark, with the largest  bar on the left representing the strength of the people who consumed  nothing post workout, the second bar representing Progenex, the third  being Whey Isolate, and the final one being placebo (flavored water):







Out of those 43 people, 15 had recovered 100% of their strength  (failed to register a reduction in Peak Isometric Torque) immediately  post-workout, without consuming anything (no Progenex, no placebo, no  whey isolate). Those people, who immediately outperformed the rest of  the guys in the study, were dropped from the final data analysis.  Progenex, once those people were excluded, outperformed everything else   (placebo and whey isolate).


 Thus, over 1/3rd of the people in the study were dropped from the  final results, and we???re left with only 6 people who actually took  Progenex (while the other two groups had nearly double that number  each). Hence, the data found in this study does not rise to a sufficient  level to reach statistical significance.


 Here???s the graph MG Nutritionals gives us:







People will (*perhaps) argue that I am picking and choosing what  portions of the data I am using. My reply to the contrary is that I am  using 100% of the data, and MG Nutritionals is picking and choosing the  data they use for their results and claims.


 And what kind of workout was used in the study? Test  subjects performed 100 maximal effort eccentric right-leg-only  extensions (they did 100 negative reps with one leg on the leg extension  maching). In other words, they performed a workout that nobody would  ever perform, and which has very little bearing on how anybody actually  trains. Admittedly, they used this protocol because other scientists  have used this protocol ??? but this is not an argument for effectiveness  or relevance, it is the argument of popularity (argumentum ad  populum) disguised with a lab coat.


 Therefore, the exercise protocol used in this study is completely  invalid, and does not support the idea that this product will help an  athlete recover (or increase) peak strength after a training session.


 And what kinds of subjective results did they get? The people who  consumed Progenex ended up feeling more sore than either the placebo  group or the whey protein isolate group (here???s the graph we???re given,  with the highest line and level of soreness representing the Progenex  group):







This is probably the most hilarious part of the study, because people  who took Progenex were almost twice as sore after two hours than people  drinking flavored water. People like to claim that they ???feel  recovered??? right after using this product, but the study tells us that  their subjective level of soreness should actually be much higher than  had they not taken it.
 Next, the study tells us about objective measures of muscle damage  (CK and TNFa), as measured by blood testing. There was no evidence that  Progenex had any effect on these parameters, at all. Quoting from the  study: 



A number of indirect markers of muscle damage and inflammation were assessed in the present study, including muscle soreness, serum CK, and plasma TNF, concentrations, but there was no evidence of any effect of the hydrolysate on these markers.
​ Therefore, in terms of both subjective soreness as well as objective  muscle damage, Progenex has been found inferior to placebo.
 Next, if we look over their reference (listed on page 4, cited on  page 1, second paragraph) to support the claim ???protein hydrolysates can  accelerate the repair of damaged tissue,??? we find that the study  they???re referencing has nothign to do with athletes or exercise???it???s  actually a study about healing ulcers.


 Finally, at the end, we  find MG Nutritionals paid for this study to  be conducted. We also find that one of the authors (MK Rowney) was in  the direct employment of that company, and another (Jonathan D. Buckley)  has written (and been paid for) numerous studies and papers funded by  MGN.
  The study at hand can be regarded thusly: the population examined was  invalid for athletic purposes, the exercise protocol was unrealistic to  the point of irrelevance,  and the exclusion criteria made statistical  significance impossible . Furthermore, consumption of this protein  resulted in more soreness as compared to placebo, and no improvement in  objective markers of muscle damage. This company has no foundation to  claim that their product will do anything (above regular whey protein)  for an athlete or anything to ameliorate training-induced damage and/or  soreness.
http://www.anthonyroberts.info/2011/breaking-down-the-science-behind-progenex/#
source


----------



## emma2train (Jan 7, 2011)

*The Science Behind Progenex*

I'd like to start off by saying that I'm not quite sure what the relevance of this article is. It seems like a lot of effort to compose an article about a formulation that has clearly been changed and likely improved as you referenced several times 'the original formula'.
How is this helpful to anyone? 
I don't think that Dr. Scott Connelly would find it helpful, after all, isn't that the study that he has been talking about for years as the validation of his 'super-protein' and his life's work? It looks like you're calling it crap.


----------

