[quote]Burst wrote:
Yeah of course the article sounds convincing, it’s a very subjective article.
He obviously “tried” to make it objective, but the fact is that anyone can play the statistics game all day long. There were some downright funny things mentioned.
“But since there are those who can?t or won?t do what?s required to tolerate lactose, I?m calling this a tie.”
So besides not being able to tolerate lactose, milk wins? That’s sort of a big deal there Aragon. Surge is the equivalent of unabsorbed chocolate milk?
Even though it would just be playing into this loser’s hand, I’d still like to hear Bill’s/T-Muscle’s response to this.[/quote]
[quote]UAphenix wrote:
I read the report and if you look at the number it seems pretty convincing. Is there anything that is missing or not accounted for? [/quote]
Milk is one of the highest ranking allergens in the world.
[quote]hotdog.350 wrote:
Yes the numbers may say its convincing, but what about the thousands of other studies saying that post workout carbohydrate, hydro whey, bcaa etc consumption results in superior hypertrophy? Are we just going to dismiss them in a heartbeat? of course not.[/quote]
the term superior would imply that there are studies comparing a variety of effects, or thousands as you said. Could you provide some?
[quote]hotdog.350 wrote:
Yes the numbers may say its convincing, but what about the thousands of other studies saying that post workout carbohydrate, hydro whey, bcaa etc consumption results in superior hypertrophy? Are we just going to dismiss them in a heartbeat? of course not.[/quote]
Yeah I’d like a link to a scientific study. I tend to agree that it’s probably a tie between the two drinks. One would neither see an improvement in body comp nor a regression, as long as one takes into account the # of calories in each
[quote]cycomiko wrote:
hotdog.350 wrote:
Yes the numbers may say its convincing, but what about the thousands of other studies saying that post workout carbohydrate, hydro whey, bcaa etc consumption results in superior hypertrophy? Are we just going to dismiss them in a heartbeat? of course not.
the term superior would imply that there are studies comparing a variety of effects, or thousands as you said. Could you provide some?[/quote]
This is where I might like some clarification, perhaps from someone like Bill, since I am not very knowledgeable in this area.
[quote]McG78 wrote:
The University of Michigan strength and conditioning coach has his athletes drink chocolate milk after workouts.
It should be noted, NCAA rules prohibit giving athletes protein shakes containing more than 20 grams of protein per serving and Michigan sucked at football this year under this guy.[/quote]
you blame the strength and conditioning coach and his use of chocolate milk over traditional pwo drinks as the source of UM’s poor performance?
chocolate milk does not break a football team.
you obvious don’t know much about football or nutrition.
in the end its really all about preference so debating it is pointless.
if your eating properly the other 95% of the day, your choice of pwo drink is not breaking/making/hindering your gains at all. unless you’re doing something dumb like all carbs or lard or something pwo.
there will never be a definitive study comparing pwo drinks becuase theres a billion variables to control. Maybe a triplets ect. study would work since a lot more variables are controlled in that situation.
and theres plenty of people to point to that simply eat a whole food meal pwo, pro/am/natural/geared.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
McG78 wrote:
The University of Michigan strength and conditioning coach has his athletes drink chocolate milk after workouts.
It should be noted, NCAA rules prohibit giving athletes protein shakes containing more than 20 grams of protein per serving and Michigan sucked at football this year under this guy.
you blame the strength and conditioning coach and his use of chocolate milk over traditional pwo drinks as the source of UM’s poor performance?
chocolate milk does not break a football team.
you obvious don’t know much about football or nutrition.
[quote]kylec72 wrote:
Still waiting to hear a response or rebuttal on the article that’s more credible than hearsay (aside from the potential allergen issue with milk)…[/quote]
What it comes down to for most people is that the milk we get in the store is devoid of any nutrients and is extremely overly processed. If you could get natural unpastuerized, unhomogenized milk, the milk would probably be better for you. But because the milk we get has been heated to extreme temparatures effectively killing all of the good vitamins, minerals, etc., we are left with a drink that has good protein and quickly absorbable carbs but nothing else. If you add chocolate, you get the boost of the carbs.
So what is the difference you might ask (besides price). The amount of protein in an 8 oz glass of milk is about 8g. The amount of protein in Surge is 33g per serving. That means you are going to have to drink 32 ounces of milk to match that amount of protein. Also, Surge has maltodextrin in it that is the fastest absorbing carb.
Thus, for convenience (not having to drink a quarter of a gallon of milk) and the benefit of getting the best carbs, people drink protein drinks.