So why are you a fan of drinking large amounts of sucrose?
I know that I and others provide a tremendous current of misinformation, as you put it, but just wondering why you seem to find large quantities of sucrose nutritionally to be preferred?
You are aware that with typical chocolate milk that a great deal of sucrose is added?
Forgive me, but your being a sports nutritionist does not persuade me you are correct on that point.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So why are you a fan of drinking large amounts of sucrose?
I know that I and others provide a tremendous current of misinformation, as you put it, but just wondering why you seem to find large quantities of sucrose nutritionally to be preferred?
You are aware that with typical chocolate milk that a great deal of sucrose is added?
Forgive me, but your being a sports nutritionist does not persuade me you are correct on that point.[/quote]
You’re being very assumptive, I wasn’t referring to you re: the torrents of misinfo in this industry, I was speaking in general terms. Did I hit an insecure spot?
Another assumption of yours is that I am in favor of “large amounts of sucrose”. It’s impossible to qualify this accusation, since I made no mention of dosage.
And yes, I’m aware that sucrose is an ingredient of chocolate milk. How does this make it any less of a nutritional compromise than the carb source in SURGE Recovery?
Go ahead with your counterpoints, I’m gonna enjoy this.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you two know each other?
So, we ended up trying the vanilla Low-Carb Metabolic Drive and chicken and rice. Seemed to work well.
[quote]Alan Aragon wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
So why are you a fan of drinking large amounts of sucrose?
I know that I and others provide a tremendous current of misinformation, as you put it, but just wondering why you seem to find large quantities of sucrose nutritionally to be preferred?
You are aware that with typical chocolate milk that a great deal of sucrose is added?
Forgive me, but your being a sports nutritionist does not persuade me you are correct on that point.
You’re being very assumptive, I wasn’t referring to you re: the torrents of misinfo in this industry, I was speaking in general terms. Did I hit an insecure spot?
Another assumption of yours is that I am in favor of “large amounts of sucrose”. It’s impossible to qualify this accusation, since I made no mention of dosage.
And yes, I’m aware that sucrose is an ingredient of chocolate milk. How does this make it any less of a nutritional compromise than the carb source in SURGE Recovery?
Go ahead with your counterpoints, I’m gonna enjoy this.
[/quote]
Well, you sound like an argumentative type. No matter.
As the context was discussing chocolate milk, it would seem rather clear that the amount of sucrose being discussed is as is present in an amount of typical chocolate milk such that this young athlete might be consuming at the times in question. You consider this sucrose consumption nutritionally preferable; or if not then I have no idea what you were thinking with this post. I asked why, but all I see is this claim that it’s not quantifiable how much sucrose was being talked about.
That is just being an argumentative person rather than having a substantive discussion, it seems to me.
As for your claim I am insecure, it appears you are reaching for the ad hominem attack, as there is no other apparent reason for you to post such a thing.
Anyhow, your advice is bad and when I asked you why you gave it when it had this problem, you had nothing but the above, which does nothing to support your recommending drinking sucrose in the amounts in question to this young athlete.
As to whether I know this person, MsM, I don’t.
Oh, and as to the fellow’s not knowing the difference or relevance of it between sucrose and glucose, I don’t think I need to explain as about everyone else reading this thread does understand the difference and the respects in which the difference is important.
[quote]MsM wrote:
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you two know each other?
So, we ended up trying the vanilla Low-Carb Metabolic Drive and chicken and rice. Seemed to work well.[/quote]
Hopefully he’s picking up enough dietary calcium elsewhere since you nixed the milk.
Why “hope” that using Low-Carb Metabolic Drive with chicken and rice instead of milk won’t result in a calcium deficiency?
Low-Carb Metabolic Drive contains 40% the RDA of calcium per typical 2 scoop serving. Using it instead of milk at the time of day in question is hardly going to cause calcium deficiency. I don’t know why you are posting that.
The above post therefore makes no sense.
It is not clear to me why you keep posting advice and warnings/concerns and so forth on things without having the necessary knowledge on it. Especially advice for someone’s kid. C’mon, man. Not a situation to be winging it.
Also you should note that there is a difference between stopping using chocolate milk and “nixing” milk from the diet. MsM did not say she did the latter and no one advised her to.
Since you seem unclear on the difference between milk and chocolate milk, here is the relevant nutritional info for you:
Whole milk, 1 quart:
Calories: 586
Sugars (no sucrose or fructose): 51 g
Protein: 32 g
Chocolate whole milk, 1 quart:
Calories: 832
Sugars: 95 g, of which 44 g is added sucrose
Protein: 32 g
1% milk, 1 quart:
Calories: 410
Sugars (no sucrose or fructose): 51 g
Protein: 33 g
Chocolate 1% milk, 1 quart:
Calories: 630
Sugars: 99 g, of which 48 g is added sucrose
Protein: 32 g
Simply because someone says they are now not using chocolate milk (and for that matter, saying so only in the context of a given use, saying nothing regarding overall use) is not the same as saying they are not going to use milk. That much added sugar is in fact a significant and not-to-be-preferred difference.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Why “hope” that using Low-Carb Metabolic Drive with chicken and rice instead of milk won’t result in a calcium deficiency?
Low-Carb Metabolic Drive contains 40% the RDA of calcium per typical 2 scoop serving. Using it instead of milk at the time of day in question is hardly going to cause calcium deficiency. I don’t know why you are posting that.
The above post therefore makes no sense.
It is not clear to me why you keep posting advice and warnings/concerns and so forth on things without having the necessary knowledge on it. Especially advice for someone’s kid. C’mon, man. Not a situation to be winging it.
Also you should note that there is a difference between stopping using chocolate milk and “nixing” milk from the diet. MsM did not say she did the latter and no one advised her to.
Since you seem unclear on the difference between milk and chocolate milk, here is the relevant nutritional info for you:
Whole milk, 1 quart:
Calories: 586
Sugars (no sucrose or fructose): 51 g
Protein: 32 g
Chocolate whole milk, 1 quart:
Calories: 832
Sugars: 95 g, of which 44 g is added sucrose
Protein: 32 g
1% milk, 1 quart:
Calories: 410
Sugars (no sucrose or fructose): 51 g
Protein: 33 g
Chocolate 1% milk, 1 quart:
Calories: 630
Sugars: 99 g, of which 48 g is added sucrose
Protein: 32 g
Simply because someone says they are now not using chocolate milk (and for that matter, saying so only in the context of a given use, saying nothing regarding overall use) is not the same as saying they are not going to use milk. That much added sugar is in fact a significant and not-to-be-preferred difference.[/quote]
You seem to be missing the title of the thread & the content of the OP’s concern. It’s about chocolate milk vs SURGE Recovery. You had a problem with an equal amount of carbohydrate from choc milk versus the dextrose in SURGE Recovery. I asked why, and you keep twisting the argument away from that to avoid my question. Can you answer the question?
I’m no expert…but I do know from basic science that Sucrose and Glucose are different. Glucose is a monosaccharide while Sucrose is a disaccharide
On top of that, most chocolate milk nowadays isn’t even sweetened with pure sugar (sucrose), it’s sweetened with High-Fructose Corn Syrup which if I remember correctly is a slower-digesting carbohydrate than pure glucose. This would not be optimal for PWO time period.
“It has been suggested that sucrose-containing drinks may be linked to the development of obesity and insulin resistance.”
Sucrose can contribute to development of the metabolic syndrome.
In an experiment with rats that were fed a diet one-third of which was sucrose, the sucrose first elevated blood levels of triglycerides, which induced visceral fat and ultimately resulted in insulin resistance.
http://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/content/full/229/6/486
As RJ showed, the answer to that question did not need explanation from me. There’s also more to it than the above, e.g. that either complex carbs (starches) or glucose yield only glucose to the bloodstream, while this is not the case with sucrose; that fructose resulting from hydrolysis of sucrose has differing properties than glucose including contribution, in excess amounts, to metabolic syndrome and including being unusable, as fructose, to muscle cells and therefore hardly ideal for post-workout nutrition; but RJ’s points were completely sufficient already and the above need not be discussed further here. They have been beat into the ground many times before and are well known in nutritional science.
Surely as a sports nutritionist that information should be available to you as well. The only thing I am gathering from your posts is that you are the sort that finds it entertaining to argue and will as happily argue points on the basis of nothing as on the basis of something, or perhaps even the opposite of what you think, as a debater might have to do on a debate team. I’m just not interested in that and am not going to participate in it.
With regard to the actual concerns of importance in this thread, I’ve addressed them. You have provided only poor advice and statements such as the above wondering about whether calcium deficiency would result from MsM’s decision to use Metabolic Drive rather than milk at the time of training or games. Jeez.
On top of all that you’re ignoring, no doubt because you don’t know, the fact that it’s not only the type of carbs but the amount. A quart of milk has about the same carbs as a typical 2 serving scoop of Surge, while providing about the same amount of protein. A quart of chocolate milk has about twice that and a completely ridiculous amount. Even if the types of sugar were equivalent, which they are not and if you are a qualified nutritionist of any type whatsoever you should have known that, the quantity of sugars alone is enough to make the difference clear.
I’m not going to be replying to you further in this thread, for the above reasons. It’s adding nothing – either my responses to you, or your resulting attempted argumentative ploys. Neither does anything for anyone, except I guess your entertainment?
[quote]Rhino Jockey wrote:
I’m no expert…but I do know from basic science that Sucrose and Glucose are different. Glucose is a monosaccharide while Sucrose is a disaccharide
On top of that, most chocolate milk nowadays isn’t even sweetened with pure sugar (sucrose), it’s sweetened with High-Fructose Corn Syrup which if I remember correctly is a slower-digesting carbohydrate than pure glucose. This would not be optimal for PWO time period.
“It has been suggested that sucrose-containing drinks may be linked to the development of obesity and insulin resistance.”
Sucrose can contribute to development of the metabolic syndrome.
In an experiment with rats that were fed a diet one-third of which was sucrose, the sucrose first elevated blood levels of triglycerides, which induced visceral fat and ultimately resulted in insulin resistance.
http://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/content/full/229/6/486
[/quote]
Even with massive overfeeding (135 g above and beyond maintenance requirements), there’s no significant difference in de novo lipogenesis (conversion to fat):
“The type of carbohydrate overfeeding (sucrose or glucose) had no significant effect on de novo lipogenesis in either subject group.”
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
As RJ showed, the answer to that question did not need explanation from me. There’s also more to it than the above, e.g. that either complex carbs (starches) or glucose yield only glucose to the bloodstream, while this is not the case with sucrose; that fructose resulting from hydrolysis of sucrose has differing properties than glucose including contribution, in excess amounts, to metabolic syndrome and including being unusable, as fructose, to muscle cells and therefore hardly ideal for post-workout nutrition; but RJ’s points were completely sufficient already and the above need not be discussed further here. They have been beat into the ground many times before and are well known in nutritional science.
Surely as a sports nutritionist that information should be available to you as well. The only thing I am gathering from your posts is that you are the sort that finds it entertaining to argue and will as happily argue points on the basis of nothing as on the basis of something, or perhaps even the opposite of what you think, as a debater might have to do on a debate team. I’m just not interested in that and am not going to participate in it.
With regard to the actual concerns of importance in this thread, I’ve addressed them. You have provided only poor advice and statements such as the above wondering about whether calcium deficiency would result from MsM’s decision to use Metabolic Drive rather than milk at the time of training or games. Jeez.
I’m not going to be replying to you further in this thread, for the above reasons. It’s adding nothing – either my responses to you, or your resulting attempted argumentative ploys. Neither does anything for anyone, except I guess your entertainment?[/quote]
You’ve managed to avoid my question over the course of several lengthy posts, so what makes you giving up on this discussion any different?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
As RJ showed, the answer to that question did not need explanation from me. There’s also more to it than the above, e.g. that either complex carbs (starches) or glucose yield only glucose to the bloodstream, while this is not the case with sucrose; that fructose resulting from hydrolysis of sucrose has differing properties than glucose including contribution, in excess amounts, to metabolic syndrome and including being unusable, as fructose, to muscle cells and therefore hardly ideal for post-workout nutrition[/quote]
As for sucrose versus glucose for glycogen resynthesis, you’re incorrect that glucose is clearly superior. Trials where the postexercise measurement period was over 2 hrs show no significant difference in glycogen resynthesis rate:
"At the end of exercise, subjects ingested 1 g/kg body mass (BM) glucose, sucrose, or placebo (control). Resynthesis of glycogen over a 4-h period after treatment ingestion was measured on the first three occasions, and subsequent exercise capacity was measured on occasions four through six. No glycogen was resynthesized during the control trial. Liver glycogen resynthesis was evident after glucose (13 +/- 8 g) and sucrose (25 +/- 5 g) ingestion, both of which were different from control (P < 0.01). No significant differences in muscle glycogen resynthesis were found among trials."
Here’s another example:
“The effect of repeated ingestions of fructose, sucrose, and various amounts of glucose on muscle glycogen synthesis during the first 6 h after exhaustive bicycle exercise was studied. […] When 0.35 (low glucose: N = 5), 0.70 (medium glucose: N = 5), or 1.40 (high glucose: N = 5) g.kg-1 body weight of glucose were given orally at 0, 2, and 4 h after exercise, the rates of glycogen synthesis were (mean +/- SE) 2.1 +/- 0.5, 5.8 +/- 1.0, and 5.7 +/- 0.9 mmol.kg-1.h-1, respectively. When 0.70 g.kg-1 body weight of sucrose (medium sucrose: N = 5), or fructose (medium fructose: N = 7) was ingested accordingly, the rates were 6.2 +/- 0.5 and 3.2 +/- 0.7 mmol.kg-1.h-1.”
We can also get into the fact that truly nitpicking over ideal postworkout (and midworkout) carbs would involve the support of liver glycogen as well as muscle glycogen, which sucrose does better than glucose. On a related note, it’s already established that during exercise, sucrose is more gastrically tolerable than glucose alone.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
As RJ showed, the answer to that question did not need explanation from me. There’s also more to it than the above, e.g. that either complex carbs (starches) or glucose yield only glucose to the bloodstream, while this is not the case with sucrose; that fructose resulting from hydrolysis of sucrose has differing properties than glucose including contribution, in excess amounts, to metabolic syndrome and including being unusable, as fructose, to muscle cells and therefore hardly ideal for post-workout nutrition[/quote]
As for sucrose versus glucose for glycogen resynthesis, you’re incorrect that glucose is clearly superior. Trials where the postexercise measurement period was over 2 hrs show no significant difference in glycogen resynthesis rate:
"At the end of exercise, subjects ingested 1 g/kg body mass (BM) glucose, sucrose, or placebo (control). Resynthesis of glycogen over a 4-h period after treatment ingestion was measured on the first three occasions, and subsequent exercise capacity was measured on occasions four through six. No glycogen was resynthesized during the control trial. Liver glycogen resynthesis was evident after glucose (13 +/- 8 g) and sucrose (25 +/- 5 g) ingestion, both of which were different from control (P < 0.01). No significant differences in muscle glycogen resynthesis were found among trials."
Here’s another example:
“The effect of repeated ingestions of fructose, sucrose, and various amounts of glucose on muscle glycogen synthesis during the first 6 h after exhaustive bicycle exercise was studied. […] When 0.35 (low glucose: N = 5), 0.70 (medium glucose: N = 5), or 1.40 (high glucose: N = 5) g.kg-1 body weight of glucose were given orally at 0, 2, and 4 h after exercise, the rates of glycogen synthesis were (mean +/- SE) 2.1 +/- 0.5, 5.8 +/- 1.0, and 5.7 +/- 0.9 mmol.kg-1.h-1, respectively. When 0.70 g.kg-1 body weight of sucrose (medium sucrose: N = 5), or fructose (medium fructose: N = 7) was ingested accordingly, the rates were 6.2 +/- 0.5 and 3.2 +/- 0.7 mmol.kg-1.h-1.”
[url]Effect of different post-exercise sugar diets on the rate of muscle glycogen synthesis - PubMed
We can also get into the fact that truly nitpicking over ideal postworkout (and midworkout) carbs would involve the support of liver glycogen as well as muscle glycogen, which sucrose does better than glucose. On a related note, it’s already established that during exercise, sucrose is more gastrically tolerable than glucose alone.
There is certainly much information here for me to digest for the day.
Just wanted to put a few things out there in regards to his diet. Milk has not been removed from his diet at all and I wouldn’t dream of doing that. He is in perfect health and at 5’2", 115 pounds, he has a clearly better developed body than his peers and is markedly stronger.
Maybe I could have been more specific in my original post about some of my concerns but I thought it may have been overkill. (About a thousand times)I’ve mentioned on the site that my father has no pituitary gland so I am all too familiar with issues of hydration and things such as electrolyte and potassium and sodium imbalances.
Matthew (my son) does not “play” like other children his age. He has a drive unlike I have ever seen with training. There have been days that he’s been so sore he could hardly walk up the stairs and he’s out the door with his stick because he “has to get better”. Quite the opposite of kids that play video games all day.
Obviously, I want him to be as healthy as humanly possible,hence my question. The Metabolic Drive I thought was a good solution considering the calcium content. He likes the taste, it’s convenient and he doesn’t feel left out while his other friends are drinking their energy drinks and gatorade/powerade. I also feel confident that he’s getting enough calcium in his diet.
I can see I’ll have much research to do on the topic still. Even though this thread has gotten a little heated, I am thankful for the information presented and your time and I do read everything posted. This information will take me a while to go through however. I’m obviously not a scientist or nutritionist so it takes a while to look up the terminologies if I’m not familiar.
Sounds good, MsM.
Just so you are not confused by what is being cut-and-pasted at you above, there is a world of difference between taking 1 gram per kg (let’s say your son may weigh 50 kg, I don’t know, so that would be 50 grams if so) in three separate doses, therefore somewhere around 16-17 grams of sugar per dose, is worlds different than someone around say 50 kg getting about 100 grams of sugar all in one shot, as is in an amount of chocolate milk (1 quart) giving the same protein as the MD provides in one typical serving.
If the kid is for example 50 kg, that’s 2 grams sugar per kg in one shot! (Or almost 1 gram per lb of bodyweight.)
There is in my opinion no real discussion above in what appears to be argument on this point. No nutritionist of any merit would seriously claim a 12 year old or anyone is best served by such amounts of sugar in one shot. The attempted display of science above neglects completely the fact that the amounts in question are totally different. Unfortunately there are people in this world that like to argue perversely, deliberately taking sides even opposite to what they believe and seeing if they can “win” even with the handicap of claiming a ridiculous thing and that is exactly the sort of thing going on above.
You’ve made an excellent choice, I just hope there’s no confusion resulting from the above nonsense.
[quote]Alan Aragon wrote:
PS - I’m a father of two boys, and sports nutrition is my full-time profession. I have no vested interest in any commercial entity. Basically, you can trust what I say as reliable and based in ample scientific evidence.
[/quote]
Really? REALLY?
No confusion, just a temporary overload. The Metabolic Drive went over well and even though I am very much a proponent of whole foods, in this circumstance, it seems very fitting and appropriate. The downside is that now I have to share:)
Matt liked it so much that we’ve decided to make Strawberry Metabolic Drive frozen yogurt tomorrow night.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Sounds good, MsM.
Just so you are not confused by what is being cut-and-pasted at you above, there is a world of difference between taking 1 gram per kg (let’s say your son may weigh 50 kg, I don’t know, so that would be 50 grams if so) in three separate doses, therefore somewhere around 16 grams of sugar per dose, is worlds different than getting about 100 grams of sugar all in one shot, as an amount of chocolate milk (1 quart) giving the same protein as the MD provides in one shot.[/quote]
In the first place, you’re massaging the numbers to suit your sensationalistic argument. Nowhere in here have I recommended 100g carbs via chocolate milk. MsM was looking for a recovery drink to tide her son over from the end of practice to the next time he gets a solid meal. Your 1-quart figure came from matching protein amounts between chocolate milk and low-carb Metabolic Drive in order to generate a high carb number. And, you repeatedly claim that this is what I’m recommending - you are quite a piece of work, bro.
Secondly, reviewing what you claimed (that glucose is superior to sucrose for postworkout nutrition), I provided proof that it isn’t. There are more aspects that we can discuss in this vein as well, but you’re obviously afraid to engage in direct discussion and presentation of research. You’re stuck in the mentality that sucrose is ineffective compared to an equal amount of glucose, and I provided proof that you’re incorrect. I also provided proof that equal amounts of sucrose and glucose overfeeding showed no difference in DNL (fat conversion, for those reading). All you’ve demonstrated in this discussion is a whole lot of posturing and avoidance of direct questions.
[quote]redgladiator wrote:
Alan Aragon wrote:
PS - I’m a father of two boys, and sports nutrition is my full-time profession. I have no vested interest in any commercial entity. Basically, you can trust what I say as reliable and based in ample scientific evidence.
Really? REALLY?[/quote]
Be excited. Be VERY excited.