Well, if a given reader doesn’t know that massive doses of total sugar such as around 1 gram per lb bodyweight, or massive amounts of sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup, aren’t the best ways to go – if all the vast amounts of information out there already haven’t done it for him – then nothing I say on it will do it either.
So why should I?
It just gets stupidly pointless, IMO, going and demonstrating in some kind of formal proof that 1 + 1 is not equal to 17, or whatever, every single damn time someone makes a claim of that sort of non-merit, and I don’t have any compulsion to do that sort of thing.
Some basic level of knowledge is assumed. If people want to argue on whether the Earth is flat or not, this sort of thing, I really am not going to get into it with them past at most a statement that gives what is correct on that point, but feeling no compulsion to provide sources or proof.
It’s your prerogative to be “disappointed” that I do not, but life is too short and providing proof for what is so readily available out there and already so widely known not only among T-Nation members but even among the general population, is not how I’m going to spend my time.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, if a given reader doesn’t know that massive doses of total sugar such as around 1 gram per lb bodyweight, or massive amounts of sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup, aren’t the best ways to go – if all the vast amounts of information out there already haven’t done it for him – then nothing I say on it will do it either.
So why should I?
It just gets stupidly pointless, IMO, going and demonstrating in some kind of formal proof that 1 + 1 is not equal to 17, or whatever, every single damn time someone makes a claim of that sort of non-merit, and I don’t have any compulsion to do that sort of thing.
Some basic level of knowledge is assumed. If people want to argue on whether the Earth is flat or not, this sort of thing, I really am not going to get into it with them past at most a statement that gives what is correct on that point, but feeling no compulsion to provide sources or proof.
It’s your prerogative to be “disappointed” that I do not, but life is too short and providing proof for what is so readily available out there and already so widely known not only among T-Nation members but even among the general population, is not how I’m going to spend my time.[/quote]
please show me where anyone suggested “massive doses” of sugar. how about you stop constructing massive strawmen for once and address what is really being talked about.
and i still haven’t seen a shred of scientific evidence from you that challenges the notion that sucrose is inherently inferior post workout.
remember that many years ago “everyone knew” that the sun revolved around the earth, and “everyone knew” the world was flat. until science proved them wrong.
If you fail to see the difference then what on Earth could anything I write accomplish for you?
As for your not understanding that fundamentally the question IS of massive amounts of sugar such as I stated, you clearly did not read my posts and have not thought about the realities of the situation.
There is no point in my replying further to this thread. I should have stopped a long time ago
Anyone able to “get it,” has gotten it already. Anyone who has not grasped despite all the above that sweetened chocolate milk is not the best source recommendation for post-workout nutrition is unable to grasp it from anything that could possibly be presented here. So there is no point in writing a single word further.
[quote]Rhino Jockey wrote:
redgladiator wrote:
Glucose is indeed superior to sucrose for postwork nutrition.
It’s pointless at this point, but chocolate milk is NOT sweetened with plain ole sucrose.
They use High Fructose Corn Syrup…Go figure.
[/quote]
Can you furnish any research evidence that HFCS is detrimental for [insert any clinical endpoint you want] compared to an equal amount of sucrose?
Thus far I’ve provided evidence that there’s no significant difference in glycogen resynthesis between glucose and sucrose by the 4 & 6 hour mark postexercise (even in the absence of pre or midworkout carb dosing). I’ve also provided evidence that there’s no significant difference in lipogenesis when comparing the overfeeding of equal amounts of sucrose and glucose. Your contention that HFCS is somehow “bad” compared to an equal amount of sucrose needs some qualifying.
Hmmm, who should be trusted here. A guy that is a “Sports Nutritionist”, or a guy that has more credentials and letters after his name than the alphabet.
Bill- you’re a strong man to waste your valuable time on this thread.
“Currently, there is no convincing evidence to support a link between HFCS consumption and overweight/obesity. Moreover, overweight/obesity is a worldwide health problem even in countries and regions that do not use HFCS. The escalating rate of overweight/obesity coincides with many more credible explanations than increased HFCS consumption.”
Hein GL, Storey ML, White JS, Lineback DR. 2005. Highs and Lows of High Fructose Corn Syrup: A Report from the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy and Its Ceres Workshop. Nutrition Today 40 (6):253-256
“High fructose corn syrup, as used in foods, is similar in composition and sweetness to sucrose. Absorption and metabolism of HFCS is
also similar to that of sucrose.”
Schorin MD. 2005. High Fructose Corn Syrups, Part 1: Composition, Consumption, and Metabolism. Nutrition Today 40(6):248-252
“A recent study by Kathleen J Melanson, et al at Rhode Island University
reviewed the effects of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and sucrose on
circulating levels of glucose, leptin, insulin and ghrelin in a study group
of lean women. All four tested substances have been hypothesized to play a
role in metabolism and obesity. The study found “no differences in the
metabolic effects” of HFCS and sucrose in this short-term study, and called
for further similar studies of obese individuals and males. Their paper was
presented at the April 2006 meeting of Experimental Biology. (“Similar
effects of high fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption on circulating
levels of glucose, leptin, insulin and ghrelin,” Program Abstract #391.2)”
“Given what we know about the metabolism of orally ingested sugars, it is difficult to identify a plausible physiological
explanation for how approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose should have differential effects when chemically bonded (such as in sucrose) or not (such as in HFCS). Thus, the current evidence does not support claims of a specific unique effect of HFCS on health.”
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
jesus tap dancing christ, lol.
Hmmm, who should be trusted here. A guy that is a “Sports Nutritionist”, or a guy that has more credentials and letters after his name than the alphabet.
Bill- you’re a strong man to waste your valuable time on this thread.[/quote]
I don’t know about you, but I tend to trust the person who is able to provide factual, evidence based arguments in their favor; as opposed to dancing around the issue and begging the question.
4 pages and yet Bill still chooses to waste his valuable time dancing around the question, rather than addressing directly with evidence.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
jesus tap dancing christ, lol.
Hmmm, who should be trusted here. A guy that is a “Sports Nutritionist”, or a guy that has more credentials and letters after his name than the alphabet.
Bill- you’re a strong man to waste your valuable time on this thread.[/quote]
Mr Roberts helped me get things sorted out already but thanks anyhow. I do agree that his valuable time was wasted with certain individuals here though. I have already gotten the answers that I needed but if everyone else wants to continue posting here, it’s fine with me.
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
jesus tap dancing christ, lol.
Hmmm, who should be trusted here. A guy that is a “Sports Nutritionist”, or a guy that has more credentials and letters after his name than the alphabet.
Bill- you’re a strong man to waste your valuable time on this thread.
I don’t know about you, but I tend to trust the person who is able to provide factual, evidence based arguments in their favor; as opposed to dancing around the issue and begging the question.
4 pages and yet Bill still chooses to waste his valuable time dancing around the question, rather than addressing directly with evidence.[/quote]
I completely agree.
My hunch is that it is a conflict of interest for Bill Roberts.
Dear everyone:
Bill Roberts works for Biotest and we are in an economic recession. Tie the two together.
[quote]ovalpline wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
jesus tap dancing christ, lol.
Hmmm, who should be trusted here. A guy that is a “Sports Nutritionist”, or a guy that has more credentials and letters after his name than the alphabet.
Bill- you’re a strong man to waste your valuable time on this thread.
I don’t know about you, but I tend to trust the person who is able to provide factual, evidence based arguments in their favor; as opposed to dancing around the issue and begging the question.
4 pages and yet Bill still chooses to waste his valuable time dancing around the question, rather than addressing directly with evidence.
I completely agree.
My hunch is that it is a conflict of interest for Bill Roberts.
Dear everyone:
Bill Roberts works for Biotest and we are in an economic recession. Tie the two together.[/quote]
According to your theory, you would think that he would have told me to buy more Surge. Don’t you think that would be true? I seriously doubt that Biotest’s sales are suffering any.
[quote]MsM wrote:
ovalpline wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
jesus tap dancing christ, lol.
Hmmm, who should be trusted here. A guy that is a “Sports Nutritionist”, or a guy that has more credentials and letters after his name than the alphabet.
Bill- you’re a strong man to waste your valuable time on this thread.
I don’t know about you, but I tend to trust the person who is able to provide factual, evidence based arguments in their favor; as opposed to dancing around the issue and begging the question.
4 pages and yet Bill still chooses to waste his valuable time dancing around the question, rather than addressing directly with evidence.
I completely agree.
My hunch is that it is a conflict of interest for Bill Roberts.
Dear everyone:
Bill Roberts works for Biotest and we are in an economic recession. Tie the two together.
According to your theory, you would think that he would have told me to buy more Surge. Don’t you think that would be true? I seriously doubt that Biotest’s sales are suffering any.[/quote]
Don’t try to make sense of comments from conspiracy theorists.
If you do a bit of homework (it’s pretty easy these days), you’ll find that Aragon has sufficient credentials to be considered highly qualified in the sports nutrition arena. So much for your alphabet theory.
Hey everyone. I’ve been reading through this thread with a fair amount of interest, and I thought I’d summarize the two sides of the argument between Bill Roberts and Alan Aragon since they seem to be asserting different (non-conflicting) things. Hopefully that will calm the argument down.
I think that Aragon’s claim is that glucose is not qualitatively better than sucrose at the specific tasks of replenishing muscle glycogen and staying thin. In other words, if this kid eats 45g of sugar in the form of chocolate milk (1 pint) then the claim is that he will replenish as much glycogen and gain as much fat as if he eats 45g of sugar in the form of Surge (2 scoops).
I think that Roberts’ claim is that the quantity of sucrose in chocolate milk makes it a bad choice as a post workout drink. In particular, he seems to have problem with the absolute quantity “100g”, which is the amount of sugar in an entire quart of chocolate milk.
So I think that this discussion needs Aragon and Roberts to agree on two points in order to continue:
Is the only goal of this kid’s pwo drink to replenish muscle glycogen?
If this kid drinks chocolate milk, are we going discuss the that as if he is ingesting roughly the same amount of carbohydrate as he would drinking something else?
Both of these could go either way. The OP asked about Surge, and the main purpose of Surge is to replenish muscle glycogen, so if that’s the main goal here, we can assume 1 is true. However a lot of people try to get a lot more out of their pwo drinks than just the insulin spike, so it may not be true.
Similarly, while chocolate milk has a lot of sugar in each ounce, there’s no reason why he couldn’t drink 1 pint of chocolate milk. It might (or might not) make sense to give him a pint and say “no more” if that’s an appropriate amount of carbohydrate.
So the point is, I don’t know whether, in discussing this, we should assume that either question 1 or 2 is either true or false, but it seems that the reason Aragon and Roberts haven’t been coming to any conclusions is that Aragon has been assuming that both are true and Roberts has been assuming that they are false.