[quote]Conciliator wrote:
Bill, you should post some research papers to put this Alan guy in his place. I’m sure you have evidence that sucrose is inferior to glucose for PWO nutrition. Pretty much everyone knows that. Right now it might look to some people like Alan has the edge because he backed up what he said with science, but don’t give him that privilege.
I’m sure there are good studies that contradict him, right? Post them! The “planet Moronicus” might come off to some people like you’re avoiding the question, but I know you know your stuff. You should back up your position with the counter evidence.[/quote]
I have dealt with the subject before at length.
I am stating fact when I say that it is well known in nutritional science that high sucrose and/or fructose intake has adverse effects not seen from glucose.
If this “full-time sports nutritionist” does not know that, my guess it’s already pretty obvious to the vast majority of those reading this what is going on.
If anyone wonders for themselves, not already being aware of this, it’s not hard to self-research.
However already almost everyone knows that vast quantities of sucrose are a bad idea, almost everyone knows that this fellow’s typo flames are lame, almost everyone knows that his posted concern about calcium deficiency from having Metabolic Drive instead of milk post-workout is completely foolish, almost everyone can see that it is just as I say, that the fellow is simply being one of those that argues anything because he likes to argue, sort of like a dog that loves feeling its brain rattle from barking endlessly.
Not everyone deserves a quality reply. In cases like this I don’t see a value in replying ANYTHING to the person engaged in such nonsense – nothing I say can make a difference to them. The only reason to say anything is with regard to everyone else reading. But everyone else reading already knows that extreme amounts of sucrose at a time are a bad idea.
Everyone else knows that adding 50 g or whatever of sugar to a quart of milk is junking it up.
Everyone else knows that a 12 year old hungry after a game or training, if offered only milk which was the only named food in the post I was responding to, may well be going to want to drink something on the order of a quart if available.
Everyone else can see that the objections “Well I wasn’t talking about anything like that much chocolate milk” (paraphrase) were foolish. The kid is not going to be drinking a half-pint or what-have-you in that situation of milk being the only thing offered while hungry and probably thirsty too.
Everyone else can see that the argumentative objections to suggesting that, as milk will continue to be served at other times, that if the boy likes chocolate milk then adding unsweetened cocoa powder is a better way of getting the flavcr, that this is supposedly too much trouble, while at the same time claiming that making a shake of Metabolic Drive is not too much trouble, is just being a foolish “I will say anything if it’s the opposite he’s saying” person.
Pretty much everyone can likely see, particularly once it’s pointed out as I did, that citing a study going up to per dose amount of only 1/3 gram of sugar per kg of bodyweight as supposedly relevant evidence of what happens at doses such as the on-the-order-of 2 grams per kg of bodyweight that would be the case with the chocolate milk, is bogus and if the fellow is as educated as he says, he’d have to have known it was bogus as he did it but did not care: just wanted to make the noise.
I truly do think pretty much everyone reading this, if they have read all of this fellow’s posts, can see EXACTLY what is going on and therefore there is no need whatsoever to go over again, in detail, material that I already have and the fundamentals of which – that vast amounts of sucrose are not best – probably not a single reader here, other than this person, doubts in the first place.
It’s like asking me to provide proof the Earth isn’t flat, in response to a person who is not even sincere but is just being a typo-flaming, falsehood-spouting (in having it that tons of sucrose is desirable), bad advice-giving, “whatever you say I’m going to loudly argue the opposite” jackass. No need.
As for the planet Moronicus comment, the quoted behavior where he went into what I think was his second typo-flame was indeed the behavior of a moron and a person behaving in exactly the manner I stated. It was a quick and IMO accurate summary.
Or take how he objected to flavoring milk with cocoa. Before, MD was not the way to go compared to milk, but once I suggested flavoring milk with cocoa on those occasions when milk is used, now of course that had to be loudly disagreed with: now MD is a much better way to go since he thought that was showing me to be wrong (it wasn’t, however.) My guess is everyone sees that for what it is.
If the fellow were here for honest discussion, on learning the details on chocolate milk I provided, he would have replied with something like, “I didn’t know chocolate milk had that much sugar added to it - with so much added sugar, no, there are better ways to go.” But that would not satisfy his need to bray, so instead he calls it “carbophobic” to object to all that sugar.
What do you call a moron, but a moron? When the jackassery just keeps on going, what do you call it but being a jackass? Sometimes ya just gotta say it the way it is.