Why Muscle Milk?

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Professor X wrote:
greatgro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Aside from trans-fats, there are few foods that are actually “unhealthy” in and of themselves. A doughnut is not “unhealthy”, it simply isn’t going to provide much real form of nutrition.

But doughnuts are the trans-fat kings. They have the most trans-fat of all foods. Yes, I think just one doughnut is unhealthy. Absolutely. 1g of trans fat is bad. A whole boatload in a serving is really, really bad.

That would depend on what the doughnut was fried in. I’ve made beignets before and I can guarantee there were no trans fats…because I didn’t use any to make them.

I wish people would investigate to find out physiologically WHY trans fats are bad in the first place before pitching their witch trial for every GRAM in their diet. Its true, trans fat isn’t healthy, but a gram isn’t going to suddenly turn your cell membranes into pudding, or make your HDL sink like the Titanic. I’m not giving up my occasional Hot Fresh Krispie Kreme, but you trans fat crazies can…more for me and Rosie O’Donnell.

[/quote]

…and THAT was the point, not whether doughnuts have trans-fats in them. I guess that flew over a few heads. No one has informed the class on how one doughnut regardless of what it is fried in causes damage to health in an active weight lifter who regularly eats more calories to gain weight and has some basic understanding of nutrition and what “moderation” is.

so many ridiculous tangents. how stupid does it look read back and realize you spent time arguing about donuts on the internet?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…and THAT was the point, not whether doughnuts have trans-fats in them. I guess that flew over a few heads. No one has informed the class on how one doughnut regardless of what it is fried in causes damage to health in an active weight lifter who regularly eats more calories to gain weight and has some basic understanding of nutrition and what “moderation” is. [/quote]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the reason that Trans fats are considered “bad” that they mimick saturated fats, in that they form enough van der waals bonds to congeal inside the arteries. Where as cis fats are less likely to form the van der waals bonds because they aren’t uniform. Bringing me to the point, being that a lot of people are worried about trans fats, so the companies hydrogenate the trans fats, advertise “zero trans fats” and nobody cares that it is now saturated fat which is worse to begin with.

[quote]texasguy wrote:
so many ridiculous tangents. how stupid does it look read back and realize you spent time arguing about donuts on the internet?

[/quote]

The day you understand that “DONUTS” are not the central point of discussions like this is the day you realize how true your own statement actually was.

[quote]tveddy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…and THAT was the point, not whether doughnuts have trans-fats in them. I guess that flew over a few heads. No one has informed the class on how one doughnut regardless of what it is fried in causes damage to health in an active weight lifter who regularly eats more calories to gain weight and has some basic understanding of nutrition and what “moderation” is.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the reason that Trans fats are considered “bad” that they mimick saturated fats, in that they form enough van der waals bonds to congeal inside the arteries. Where as cis fats are less likely to form the van der waals bonds because they aren’t uniform. Bringing me to the point, being that a lot of people are worried about trans fats, so the companies hydrogenate the trans fats, advertise “zero trans fats” and nobody cares that it is now saturated fat which is worse to begin with.[/quote]

Dude, Saturated fat is not bad for you.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
greatgro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Aside from trans-fats, there are few foods that are actually “unhealthy” in and of themselves. A doughnut is not “unhealthy”, it simply isn’t going to provide much real form of nutrition.

But doughnuts are the trans-fat kings. They have the most trans-fat of all foods. Yes, I think just one doughnut is unhealthy. Absolutely. 1g of trans fat is bad. A whole boatload in a serving is really, really bad.

That would depend on what the doughnut was fried in. I’ve made beignets before and I can guarantee there were no trans fats…because I didn’t use any to make them.[/quote]

Ummmm beignets are the shit. I think this weekend I’m going to have a pizza and a half dozen beignets.

Going back to something said earliler, I don’t understand how some can’t grasp the concept:

If you eat 6 meals a day, thats 42 a week. If you eat “clean” on all those meals, and have say 2 which are pizza and fast food, thats only 2 meals out of 42 in a week.

It’s not going to hurt you at all. I think that’s part of the point which some have a hard time understanding…

[quote]rsg wrote:
Going back to something said earliler, I don’t understand how some can’t grasp the concept:

If you eat 6 meals a day, thats 42 a week. If you eat “clean” on all those meals, and have say 2 which are pizza and fast food, thats only 2 meals out of 42 in a week.

It’s not going to hurt you at all. I think that’s part of the point which some have a hard time understanding…[/quote]

The guys who can’t understand are all very small. The irony is they are the ones who need “junk” food most of all. I personally enjoy laughing at them.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
texasguy wrote:
so many ridiculous tangents. how stupid does it look read back and realize you spent time arguing about donuts on the internet?

The day you understand that “DONUTS” are not the central point of discussions like this is the day you realize how true your own statement actually was.[/quote]

LOL.

[quote]greekdawg wrote:
tveddy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…and THAT was the point, not whether doughnuts have trans-fats in them. I guess that flew over a few heads. No one has informed the class on how one doughnut regardless of what it is fried in causes damage to health in an active weight lifter who regularly eats more calories to gain weight and has some basic understanding of nutrition and what “moderation” is.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the reason that Trans fats are considered “bad” that they mimick saturated fats, in that they form enough van der waals bonds to congeal inside the arteries. Where as cis fats are less likely to form the van der waals bonds because they aren’t uniform. Bringing me to the point, being that a lot of people are worried about trans fats, so the companies hydrogenate the trans fats, advertise “zero trans fats” and nobody cares that it is now saturated fat which is worse to begin with.

Dude, Saturated fat is not bad for you. [/quote]

They might not be bad for me, but what about a 50 year old 300 pound man that doesn’t exercise. You can’t tell me that it would be healthy for him to have 30% of his diet be sat fat. When I say that it is bad I am talking about people who don’t use moderation. I think that this whole thread has turned into some people talking about using moderation and others not.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
rsg wrote:
Going back to something said earliler, I don’t understand how some can’t grasp the concept:

If you eat 6 meals a day, thats 42 a week. If you eat “clean” on all those meals, and have say 2 which are pizza and fast food, thats only 2 meals out of 42 in a week.

It’s not going to hurt you at all. I think that’s part of the point which some have a hard time understanding…

The guys who can’t understand are all very small. The irony is they are the ones who need “junk” food most of all. I personally enjoy laughing at them.[/quote]

Yeah, we “need it.” Some have different goals. Some need to be at low levels of body fat and weight. Some can’t afford to bulk due to their lifestyle. Junk food is off limits to certain people. It’s definitely off limits to me and I only weigh 170.

Why? I can’t afford to carry much fat, otherwise I won’t be able to run well. Not only that, but if I am to carry more weight, it will mean eating more food to maintain that weight. What good will any of this weight be for me, after 10 weeks of boot camp? Even after OCS, i’ll lift and gain back some weight, sure; but if I get deployed eventually and see real combat, I’ll be muscle-wasting (among other things that I’ll be wasting) for a living.

[quote]dhuge67 wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
rsg wrote:
Going back to something said earliler, I don’t understand how some can’t grasp the concept:

If you eat 6 meals a day, thats 42 a week. If you eat “clean” on all those meals, and have say 2 which are pizza and fast food, thats only 2 meals out of 42 in a week.

It’s not going to hurt you at all. I think that’s part of the point which some have a hard time understanding…

The guys who can’t understand are all very small. The irony is they are the ones who need “junk” food most of all. I personally enjoy laughing at them.

Yeah, we “need it.” Some have different goals. Some need to be at low levels of body fat and weight. Some can’t afford to bulk due to their lifestyle. Junk food is off limits to certain people. It’s definitely off limits to me and I only weigh 170.

Why? I can’t afford to carry much fat, otherwise I won’t be able to run well. Not only that, but if I am to carry more weight, it will mean eating more food to maintain that weight. What good will any of this weight be for me, after 10 weeks of boot camp? Even after OCS, i’ll lift and gain back some weight, sure; but if I get deployed eventually and see real combat, I’ll be muscle-wasting (among other things that I’ll be wasting) for a living.[/quote]

What? If you are being serious, I am military and the extra mass I had only helped me in the long run while going through training. It gave me enough muscle mass so that the overall loss was less significant.

I was also able to gain it back once my eating was back in order. Having more muscle mass than what you are carrying is not a hinderance in bootcamp.

You have a LOOOONG way to go before you would ever be carrying so much mass that this would be a concern. You aren’t exactly on the verge of being “huge”. The simple fact that you equated the occasional fast food meal with “carrying more body fat” says a lot.

You’re basically a guy who used to be fat who will now (possibly forever) hold back his own progress because you fear getting fat again…not realizing you were fat because you weren’t even training or eating right in majority in the first place.

Many of the guys who get deployed come back larger. That is because they focus on lifting and eating in their free time. There are “bodybuilders” in the military if you weren’t aware of it. Some of them are even in the magazines regularly.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
dhuge67 wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
rsg wrote:
Going back to something said earliler, I don’t understand how some can’t grasp the concept:

If you eat 6 meals a day, thats 42 a week. If you eat “clean” on all those meals, and have say 2 which are pizza and fast food, thats only 2 meals out of 42 in a week.

It’s not going to hurt you at all. I think that’s part of the point which some have a hard time understanding…

The guys who can’t understand are all very small. The irony is they are the ones who need “junk” food most of all. I personally enjoy laughing at them.

Yeah, we “need it.” Some have different goals. Some need to be at low levels of body fat and weight. Some can’t afford to bulk due to their lifestyle. Junk food is off limits to certain people. It’s definitely off limits to me and I only weigh 170.

Why? I can’t afford to carry much fat, otherwise I won’t be able to run well. Not only that, but if I am to carry more weight, it will mean eating more food to maintain that weight. What good will any of this weight be for me, after 10 weeks of boot camp? Even after OCS, i’ll lift and gain back some weight, sure; but if I get deployed eventually and see real combat, I’ll be muscle-wasting (among other things that I’ll be wasting) for a living.

What? If you are being serious, I am military and the extra mass I had only helped me in the long run while going through training. It gave me enough muscle mass so that the overall loss was less significant.

I was also able to gain it back once my eating was back in order. Having more muscle mass than what you are carrying is not a hinderance in bootcamp.

You have a LOOOONG way to go before you would ever be carrying so much mass that this would be a concern. You aren’t exactly on the verge of being “huge”. The simple fact that you equated the occasional fast food meal with “carrying more body fat” says a lot.

You’re basically a guy who used to be fat who will now (possibly forever) hold back his own progress because you fear getting fat again…not realizing you were fat because you weren’t even training or eating right in majority in the first place.

Many of the guys who get deployed come back larger. That is because they focus on lifting and eating in their free time. There are “bodybuilders” in the military if you weren’t aware of it. Some of them are even in the magazines regularly.[/quote]

How many of them are Recon Marines (my goal)?

I have been using Muscle Milk while cutting, but I am over 250 pounds so 17g carbs and 17g fat in one RTD won’t kill me. I did finally get to try the Lean Body RTD and I will be ordering it from here on out. Talk about tasty!

[quote]dhuge67 wrote:

How many of them are Recon Marines (my goal)?
[/quote]

You aren’t even a Recon Marine regardless of what your goal is. I truly hope you reach your goal. I also hope you are being realistic. Most of the marines I knew in officers training weren’t small skinny dudes.

They weren’t my size, but they were thicker guys who look like they lifted weights. They were “solid”, most with mesomorphic body types even though I am sure they weren’t that heavy overall.

[quote]Jason B wrote:
I have been using Muscle Milk while cutting, but I am over 250 pounds so 17g carbs and 17g fat in one RTD won’t kill me. I did finally get to try the Lean Body RTD and I will be ordering it from here on out. Talk about tasty!
[/quote]

Exactly. That Ice Cream flavor is the shit and I have honestly not had one that tasted better than that. I actually enjoy getting those protein shakes in instead of gagging it down.

[quote]dhuge67 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
dhuge67 wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
rsg wrote:
Going back to something said earliler, I don’t understand how some can’t grasp the concept:

If you eat 6 meals a day, thats 42 a week. If you eat “clean” on all those meals, and have say 2 which are pizza and fast food, thats only 2 meals out of 42 in a week.

It’s not going to hurt you at all. I think that’s part of the point which some have a hard time understanding…

The guys who can’t understand are all very small. The irony is they are the ones who need “junk” food most of all. I personally enjoy laughing at them.

Yeah, we “need it.” Some have different goals. Some need to be at low levels of body fat and weight. Some can’t afford to bulk due to their lifestyle. Junk food is off limits to certain people. It’s definitely off limits to me and I only weigh 170.

Why? I can’t afford to carry much fat, otherwise I won’t be able to run well. Not only that, but if I am to carry more weight, it will mean eating more food to maintain that weight. What good will any of this weight be for me, after 10 weeks of boot camp? Even after OCS, i’ll lift and gain back some weight, sure; but if I get deployed eventually and see real combat, I’ll be muscle-wasting (among other things that I’ll be wasting) for a living.

What? If you are being serious, I am military and the extra mass I had only helped me in the long run while going through training. It gave me enough muscle mass so that the overall loss was less significant.

I was also able to gain it back once my eating was back in order. Having more muscle mass than what you are carrying is not a hinderance in bootcamp.

You have a LOOOONG way to go before you would ever be carrying so much mass that this would be a concern. You aren’t exactly on the verge of being “huge”. The simple fact that you equated the occasional fast food meal with “carrying more body fat” says a lot.

You’re basically a guy who used to be fat who will now (possibly forever) hold back his own progress because you fear getting fat again…not realizing you were fat because you weren’t even training or eating right in majority in the first place.

Many of the guys who get deployed come back larger. That is because they focus on lifting and eating in their free time. There are “bodybuilders” in the military if you weren’t aware of it. Some of them are even in the magazines regularly.

How many of them are Recon Marines (my goal)?
[/quote]

Dude, as a former infantry Marine who tried to bulk for 4 years while I was in, I feel I need to offer you some advice.

Yes, being a good long distance runner is important. Swimming is VERY important (if you want to go Recon). But lifting hard and eating like a horse will NOT hurt you. I ate fried chowhall food for 4 years and a buttload of other crap I bought at the store and I still couldn’t gain any size/strength (obviously I made mistakes and ran too fucking much). But it’s not gonna hurt you or your goals.

A “combat load” constists of body armor, at LEAST 7 full magazines, water, a weapons system, helmet, optics, and whatever other crap your CO wants you to take with you. In my case, I had a full breach kit, demolitions, and sometimes even a shotgun. That’s over 100# of shit on your tiny body.

Now, “combat” and patrols these days consist of running through the streets, up and down stairs, kicking in doors, and climbing over walls. I would have LOVED to have had a little extra muscle to help me out. Don’t fear the mass. You should be training hard enough that you won’t put on much fat anyway.

Good luck with your goals, but realize that a lot of officers are some big fucking dudes. My platoon commander played college rugby, was jakt (200+#), and could still run. There was a running joke that our XO’s med kit was stocked with roids.

So, moral of the story: don’t be a pussy, just eat, lift, get bigger, keep running and SWIMMING, and you’ll get aclimated to your newfound size and your enlisted Marines won’t think you’re a pussy.

Ex-DD

[quote]dhuge67 wrote:
How many of them are Recon Marines (my goal)?
[/quote]

So let me get this straight… You’ve been going on and on about how you’re in a “weight class.” What you really meant is you are preparing for OCS. You’re not in any weight class: You were just posing!

You don’t know anything, do you? It’s just all conjecture. I’ve been to OCS. So have many others on this board. Muscle was an asset.

But why waste my time. You already know it all, don’t you? That attitude will get you far in the Officer Corp.

Man, the posing on this site has got to stop!

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
dhuge67 wrote:
How many of them are Recon Marines (my goal)?

So let me get this straight… You’ve been going on and on about how you’re in a “weight class.” What you really meant is you are preparing for OCS. You’re not in any weight class: You were just posing!

You don’t know anything, do you? It’s just all conjecture. I’ve been to OCS. So have many others on this board. Muscle was an asset.

But why waste my time. You already know it all, don’t you? That attitude will get you far in the Officer Corp.

Man, the posing on this site has got to stop![/quote]
I know it all? I never said that I did. I just think it’s beneficial for me (at 5’7.5) to stay under 175 (at single digit bodyfat).

How did you do at OCS?

[quote]dhuge67 wrote:
I know it all? I never said that I did. I just think it’s beneficial for me (at 5’7.5) to stay under 175 (at single digit bodyfat). [/quote]

Even at your size, you will lose so much muscle it’s not even funny. It will take you MONTHS to put it back on.

I never had problems (at almost 220 lbs.) doing runs, chin-ups, rope climbs, ruck marches, or anything else. My best friend (now dead) in OCS was 6’5" and 250+. He could do the CoC #2 ten times and was this-close to being a certified Captain of Crush. He never had any problems doing anything. If anything, it was the little people who had problems.

You will only eat 3 meals a day. You will go prolonged periods of time without eating (btw. dinner and breakfast - often that’ll be 13-14 hours). You will then wake up and do about the most catabolic thing possible - running.

Someone like you should go in with even a few extra pounds of fat. I would go in at 12%. You will burn it off quickly, and also preserve some muscle mass. There will be periods of time when you are not getting enough calories to meet your daily needs. Those calories will come from somewhere - muscle or fat. If you have no fat, it will eat away your muscle.

You are far from big but you have enough muscle that you should care about preserving it. Unless you want to leave OCS at 150 pounds. Your choice. But look at the hard-hitting Marines, Army Special Forces, Rangers, SEALs, etc. These are not small men. Seriously, show me all of these elite 150 lb. soldiers.

Don’t assume you know everything - or even anything. Learn from people who have actually been where you are about to go.

All you are doing is training yourself based on assuming and ignorance.