Er um maybe. Also, I am not being argumentative here, I enjoy a good debate.
The way I see it, CH and WH are either equal in their effects on body comp, or the edge goes to an amped up version of CH (b/c of the additional stim on protein synthesis via leucine and the additional reduction in protein breakdown via enhanced insulin secretion). To be honest, no research has ever compared the two head-to-head, so we are merely speculating here. But from my perspective, the guys I work with (NFL, NHL, MMA) are looking for every possible advantage they can get. That's why this version of CH gets the nod unless as I mentioned earlier they have a food intolerance to it. Now if you take WH and add extra leucine to it, etc...that's a different story. Then its a bona fide crapshoot. Agreed!
BTW, I asked 3 "neutral scientific authorities" their opinion, and it looks like we are all going to "agree to disagree". This is what they said:
Authority #1. answer - Hard to say but probably the amped up version of CH since it has more leucine and also casein hangs around longer in the bloodstream which can be very beneficial during resistance training in the post-exercise recovery period.
Darryn S. Willoughby, Ph.D., FACSM, FISSN, CSCS, CISSN, CNC, CPS
Associate Professor of Exercise/Nutritional Biochemistry and Molecular Physiology
Associate Professor, Baylor Biomedical Science Institute
Department of Health, Human Performance, and Recreation
Director, Exercise and Biochemical Nutrition Laboratory
Director, Exercise Nutrition and Resistance Training Research Unit
Director, Exercise and Healthy Aging Research Unit
Authority #2. answer - WH
Joey Antonio, PhD, CSCS, FASCM, FISSN
CEO of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
Authority #3. answer - they are the same
Douglas S. Kalman PhD, RD, FACN
Director, Business Development
Phase I Unit & Applied Clinical Trials
Miami Research Associates
It looks like we may need TP to fund a clinical...!