An Objective Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surge Recovery
Today’s article is a guest piece by Alan Aragon. Alan is one of the few in this field that I really respect; while he and I occasionally disagree on some bit of minutiae, it’s never anything more than a minor disagreement. This piece was originally run in Alan’s Monthly Research Review which I did my own review of last year. You can read my review in Alan Aragon Research Review – Product Review.
Much of what Alan talks about in this piece is actually discussed in the article I did on Milk: The New Sports Drink? – A Review but, Alan, in an obsessive way that I can only admire, gets into much more detail.
Enjoy.
Lyle
An Objective Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surge Recovery.
By Alan Aragon
INTRODUCTION TO CENSORSHIP
Recently, a member of the t-nation.com forums posted a question about whether or not it’s safe for her 12 year-old son to have a postexercise product called Surge instead of chocolate milk. Bill Roberts, a product formulator for Biotest (the supplement company behind t-nation.com), said essentially that the carb source in chocolate milk (sucrose) was inferior to the carb source in Surge (dextrose). I then challenged him to justify his position. My position was that using sucrose isn’t any more of a nutritional compromise than using dextrose. His answer was that “everyone knows” dextrose is superior to sucrose for postworkout glycogen resynthesis, and that sucrose is inherently unhealthier than dextrose. I countered his position by presenting scientific research refuting his claims. He then got all bent out of shape and started hurling ad hominems at me, obviously frustrated that he was losing a public battle.
“Everyone knows”
In one of Bill’s posts, he literally said “everyone knows” more than a dozen times – while failing to provide a single trace of scientific research supporting his claims. If indeed everyone knew, and was in agreement with him, he would have had at least a handful of cronies sticking up for him, if for nothing else but to pad his fall to the mat. But alas, he received support from no one except one moderator, who I’ll quote as saying, “I refuse to back up my claims, so sue me”.
To Bill’s credit, the soccer mom who asked the original question wouldn’t listen to anyone but him, so kudos to Bill on his politician-like rhetorical skills. In the mean time, several members expressed their disappointment in Bill’s neglect for citing research evidence to back his stance. I also know for a fact that a good handful of posts from innocent observers (supporting my side of the debate) were censored from posting in the thread. This was presumably because their posts made Bill look even more uninformed.
It’s not surprising that people’s posts were blocked from appearing in the thread because eventually, my own posts never made it into the thread. At that point, I knew that continuing the debate was just not going to happen. Nevertheless, all of the key posts made it through; all of the posts that clearly showed Bill’s inability (and unwillingness) to engage in scientific debate were right there, plain as day. Ultimately, Bill ended up looking as prideful as he was ignorant. In order to save face, either Bill or administrators of t-nation.com had the thread deleted.
Ironically, I recently wrote an article for t-nation.com (A Musclehead’s Guide to Alcohol). If I may say so myself, it was a hit, judging by the reader feedback and frequent links back to the article. Given that, it was downright humorous to be censored by the forum administrators shortly after contributing to their library of wisdom. In the following sections, I’ll compare the components of Surge with chocolate milk for postexercise recovery. For the sake of simplicity and context-specificity, I’ll judge the application of the two products to the target market of Surge, which consists of general fitness and bodybuilding fans.
MEET THE COMPETITORS
In the brown corner, we have chocolate milk. The ingredients of chocolate milk vary slightly across brands, but in general, the ingredients are: milk, sugar (or high fructose corn syrup), cocoa processed with alkali, natural and artificial flavors, salt, carrageenan, vitamin A palmitate, vitamin D3. Like regular milk, chocolate milk is available in varying levels of milk fat. For the purposes of this comparison, I’ll use the one most consumers are most likely to choose, the low-fat variety.
In the red corner, we have Surge Recovery (which I’ll continue to abbreviate as Surge). The ingredient list is as follows: d-glucose (dextrose), whey-protein hydrolysate, maltodextrin, natural and artificial flavors, sucralose. Other ingredients include L-leucine and DL-phenylalanine.
Research behind the products
What’s exciting about this comparison is that both of these products have been highly heralded and hyped in their respective arenas. Surge in its exact formulation doesn’t have any peer-reviewed research behind it. However, Berardi et al reported that a solution of similar construction to Surge (33% whey hydrolysate, 33% glucose and 33% maltodextrin) was slightly superior for glycogen resynthesis at 6 hrs postexercise compared to a 100% maltodextrin solution[1]. Effects on muscle protein flux were not measured.
Chocolate milk has thus far had an impressive run in the research examining its applications to various sporting goals [2,3]. It has performed equally well for rehydration and glycogen resynthesis compared to carb-based sports drinks, and it has outperformed them (and soy-based drinks) for protecting and synthesizing muscle protein. A standout study in this area was a comparison of chocolate milk, Gatorade, and Endurox R4 (a sports drink with a 4:1 carb to protein ratio) [4]. Chocolate milk was equally effective as Gatorade for total work output and prolonging time to exhaustion. Interestingly, both of the latter products outperformed Endurox R4 in both tests. The researchers speculated that the use of maltodextrin rather than sucrose (yes, you read that correctly) as the dominant carbohydrate source was the Achilles heel of Endurox R4. More on the virtues of sucrose instead of straight glucose for exercise applications will be covered.
QUANTITATIVE MACRONUTRIENT COMPARISON
| Product | Serving | Kcal | Protein | Carbohydrate | Fat |
| Surge | 3 scoops | 340 | 25 grams | 46 grams | 2.5 grams |
| Chocolate Milk | 17.3 oz | 340 | 17.3 grams | 56.3 grams | 6.5 grams |
When isocalorically matched, Surge and lowfat chocolate milk have the expected similarities and differences. The suggested serving of Surge has 7.7 g more protein than chocolate milk, while chocolate milk has 10.3 g more carbohydrate. While the lesser protein content of chocolate milk might on the surface seem like a point scored for Surge, this is actually a non-issue.
Recent research by Tang et al found that as little as 10g whey plus 21 g fructose taken after resistance exercise was able to stimulate a rise in muscle protein synthesis [5]. Considering that an isocaloric serving of lowfat chocolate milk has 17.3 g protein plus 56.3 g carbohydrate, a hike in muscle protein synthesis (as well as inhibition of protein breakdown) would be easily achieved. Chocolate milk has 4g more fat than Surge. Again, this might be viewed as a detriment for those conserving fat calories, but it’s still a low absolute amount of fat. This also may have a potential benefit which I’ll discuss in a minute. Bottom line: there’s no clear winner in this department; there’s too many contingencies to make a blanket judgement.
QUALITATIVE MACRONUTRIENT COMPARISON
Protein
Surge uses whey protein hydrolysate (WPH). In theory, WPH is favorable because it’s already broken down into peptide fragments. This spurred the assumption that it would have faster absorption and uptake by muscle, which in turn would result in greater net anabolism. However, a recent study by Farnfield et al observed the exact opposite when WPH was compared with whey protein isolate (WPI), which consists of intact whole protein [6]. WPH not only was absorbed more slowly, but its levels in the blood also declined more rapidly, resulting in a much weaker response curve. Leucine and the rest of the BCAAs were significantly better absorbed from WPI than WPH. The researchers concluded that total amino acid availability of WPI was superior to WPH.
Of note, Surge is fortified with leucine, a branched chain amino acid (BCAA) that plays a critical role in muscle protein synthesis. An isocaloric serving of chocolate milk has 1.7g leucine. This may or may not have any impact, especially within the context of a high protein intake typical of the athletic population. It’s important to keep in mind that most high-quality animal-based protein is 18-26% BCAA [7]. Adding a few grams of supplemental BCAA to a pre-existent high intake within the diet is not likely to yield any magic. Surge is also fortified with phenylalanine, presumably for the purpose of enhancing the insulin response. Again, this is an unnecessary tactic since insulin’s primary action is the inhibition of muscle protein breakdown. This antiproteolytic effect of nutrient-mediated insulin response is maximal at elevations just slightly above fasting levels [8].
Chocolate milk’s protein is no different than that of regular milk. Milk protein is roughly 20% whey and 80% casein. Thus far in the scientific literature, comparisons of casein-dominant proteins with whey for sports applications are evenly split. Some studies show casein as superior (in spite of a higher leucine content in the whey treatments) [9,10], while others point to whey as the victor [11,12]. The only certainty is that it can’t be assumed that faster is better when it comes to promoting net anabolism. An acute study on post-ingestion amino acid kinetics by LaCroix suggests that milk protein is best left as-is rather than isolating its protein fractions [13]. Compared to total milk protein, whey’s amino acid delivery was too transient, and underwent rapid deamination during the postprandial period. The authors concluded that milk proteins had the best nutritional quality, which suggested a synergistic effect between its casein and whey. Bottom line: chocolate milk gets the edge; WPH has thus far bit the dust compared to WPI in a head-to-head comparison, and whey has not been consistently superior to total milk protein.
Carbohydrate
Surge has dextrose (synonymous with glucose) as its sole carbohydrate source, while chocolate milk has an even mix of sucrose (in the form of either sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup) and lactose. While it’s common to assume that dextrose is superior to sucrose for postexercise glycogen resynthesis, research doesn’t necessarily agree. A trial by Bowtell et al showed a glucose polymer to synthesize more glycogen by the 2-hr mark postworkout [14]. However, two other trials whose postexercise observation periods were 4 and 6 hours respectively saw no significant difference in glycogen storage between sucrose and glucose [15,16].
Perhaps the most overlooked advantage of a fructose-containing carbohydrate source (sucrose is 50% fructose) is that it supports liver glycogen better than a glucose-only source, as in the case of Surge. A little-known fact is that hepatic glycogenolysis (liver glycogen use) occurs to a significant degree during exercise, and the magnitude of glycogenolysis is intensity-dependent [17]. Illustrating the potential superiority of sucrose over glucose, Casey et al saw no difference in muscle glycogen resynthesis 4 hrs postexercise [15]. However, there was more liver glycogen resynthesis in the sucrose group, and this correlated with a slightly greater exercise capacity.
One of the potential concerns of consuming a large amount of sucrose instead of glucose is how the 50% fructose content in sucrose might be metabolized from a lipogenic standpoint. Answering this question directly, McDevitt saw no difference in de novo lipogenesis (conversion to fat) between the massive overfeeding of either glucose or sucrose at 135g above maintenance needs [18]. Another potential concern is the use of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in chocolate milk. The common fear of HFCS being some sort of special agent that undermines health is simply not grounded in science. HFCS is virtually identical to sucrose both in chemical structure and metabolic effect [19]. Independent researcher John White eloquently clarified HFCS misconceptions in a recent review, which I’ll quote [20].
“Although examples of pure fructose causing metabolic upset at high concentrations abound, especially when fed as the sole carbohydrate source, there is no evidence that the common fructose-glucose sweeteners do the same. Thus, studies using extreme carbohydrate diets may be useful for probing biochemical pathways, but they have no relevance to the human diet or to current consumption. I conclude that the HFCS-obesity hypothesis is supported neither in the United States nor worldwide.”
It bears mentioning that lactose intolerance can prohibit regular milk use for certain susceptible individuals. However, this can be remedied by using Lactaid brand milk, or by using lactase pills or drops. Bottom line: For those who can digest lactose or are willing to take the extra step to make it digestible, chocolate milk wins. But since there are those who can’t or won’t do what’s required to tolerate lactose, I’m calling this a tie.
Fat
Coincidentally, Surge and chocolate milk have identical proportions of saturated fat. Lowfat chocolate milk has more fat than Surge, which would cause some folks to call a foul for postworkout purposes. However, a trial by Elliot et al found that postexercise ingestion of whole milk was superior for increasing net protein balance than fat-free milk [21]. The most striking aspect about this trial was that the calorie-matched dose of fat free milk contained 14.5g protein, versus 8.0 g in the whole milk. Apparently, postworkout fat intake (particularly milk fat) is nothing to fear, and may even be beneficial from the standpoint of synthesizing muscle protein. Bottom line: it’s a tie, since there is very little evidence favoring one fat profile/amount versus the other. On one hand, you can be saving fat calories by going with Surge. On the other hand, postworkout milk fat might potentially enhance protein synthesis. Things come out even.
MICRONUTRIENT COMPARISON (per 340 kcal serving)*
| Surge Recovery | Chocolate Milk | |
| Calcium | 180 mg | 624 mg |
| Cholesterol | 75 mg | 16 mg |
| Leucine | 4000 mg | 1714 mg |
| Magnesium | 20 mg | 70 mg |
| Phenylalanine | 2000 mg | 844 mg |
| Phosphorous | 120 mg | 558 mg |
| Potassium | 400 mg | 920 mg |
| Sodium | 200 mg | 329 mg |
*This comparison is limited to the micronutrients on the Surge label. And yes, I realize that not all of the above are technically micronutrients.
A quick glance at the above chart shows that chocolate milk is markedly more nutrient-dense, with the exception of a higher content of leucine and phenylalanine in Surge, whose significance (or lack of) I discussed earlier. As an interesting triviality, both have a low cholesterol content, but Surge has 4.6 times more. Chocolate milk has more sodium, but it also has a significantly higher potassium-to-sodium ratio. Bottom line: chocolate milk wins this one decisively.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Price
Chocolate milk by the half gallon (64oz, or about 2000 ml) is approximately $3.00 USD. Sticking with our 340 kcal figure, this yields 3.7 servings, which boils down to $0.81 per serving. A tub of Surge costs $36.00 and yields 16 servings (3 scoops, 340 kcals per serving). This boils down to $2.25 per serving. That’s 277% more expensive than chocolate milk. Even on a protein-matched basis, Surge is still roughly double the price. Bottom line: chocolate milk is many times easier on your wallet.
Convenience & taste
Convenience is the single area where Surge wins. Being a powder, it’s non-perishable, requiring no refrigeration. This makes it more easily portable. Taste will always be, well, a matter of taste. I highly doubt that in a blinded test that Surge would win over chocolate milk. Bottom line: Surge is more convenient, but I’ll go out on a limb and guess that chocolate milk would taste better to most people.
CONCLUSION
I have no vested interest in glorifying chocolate milk, nor do I stand to benefit by vilifying Surge. My goal was to objectively examine the facts. Using research as the judge, chocolate milk was superior or equal to Surge in all categories. The single exception was a win for Surge in the convenience department. So, if the consumer were forced to choose between the two products, the decision would boil down to quality at the expense of convenience, or vice versa. I personally would go for the higher quality, lower price, and strength of the scientific evidence. Chocolate milk it is.
REFERENCES CITED:
- Berardi JM, et al. Postexercise muscle glycogen recovery enhanced with a carbohydrate-protein supplement. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006 Jun;38(6):1106-13.
- Roy BD. Milk: the new sports drink? a review. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2008 Oct 2;5:15.
- McDonald L. (Review of) Milk the new sports drink? a review. Bodyrecomposition.com, 2008.
- Karp JR. Chocolate milk as a post-exercise recovery aid. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006 Feb;16(1):78-91. [
- Tang JE, et al. Minimal whey protein with carbohydrate stimulates muscle protein synthesis following resistance exercise in trained young men. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2007 Dec;32(6):1132-8.
- Farnfield MM, et al. Plasma amino acid response after ingestion of different whey protein fractions. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2008 May 8:1-11.
- Millward DJ, et al. Protein quality assessment: impact of expanding understanding of protein and amino acid needs for optimal health. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 May;87(5):1576S-1581S.
- Rennie MJ, et al. Branched-chain amino acids as fuels and anabolic signals in human muscle. J Nutr. 2006 Jan;136(1 Suppl):264S-8S.
- Demling RH, Desanti L. Effect of a hypocaloric diet, increased protein intake and resistance training on lean mass gains and fat mass loss in overweight police officers. Ann Nutr Metab. 2000;44(1):21-9.
- Kerksick CM, et al. The effects of protein and amino acid supplementation on performance and training adaptations during ten weeks of resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 2006 Aug;20(3):643-53.
- Lands LC, et al. Effect of supplementation with a cystein donor on muscular performance. J Appl Physiol 1999;87:1381-5.
- Cribb PJ, et al. The effect of whey isolate and resistance training on strength, body composition, and plasma glutamine. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006 Oct;16(5):494-509.
- LaCroix M, et al. Compared with casein or total milk protein, digestion of milk soluble proteins is too rapid to sustain the anabolic postprandial amino acid requirement. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Nov;84(5):1070-9.
- Bowtell JL, et al. Effect of different carbohydrate drinks on whole body carbohydrate storage after exhaustive exercise. J Appl Physiol 2000; 88 (5): 1529-36.
- Casey A, et al. Effect of carbohydrate ingestion on glycogen resynthesis in human liver and skeletal muscle, measured by (13)C MRS. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2000 Jan;278(1):E65-75.
- Blom PC, et al. Effect of different post-exercise sugar diets on the rate of muscle glycogen synthesis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1987 Oct;19(5):491-6.
- Suh SH, et al. Regulation of blood glucose homeostasis during prolonged exercise. Mol Cells. 2007 Jun 30;23(3):272-9.
- McDevitt et al. De novo lipogenesis during controlled overfeeding with sucrose or glucose in lean and obese women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Dec;74(6):737-46.
- Melanson KJ, et al. High-fructose corn syrup, energy intake, and appetite regulation. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Dec;88(6):1738S-1744S.
- White JS. Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain’t. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Dec;88(6):1716S-1721S.
- Elliot TA, et al. Milk ingestion stimulates net muscle protein synthesis following resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006 Apr;38(4):667-74.
How about a caffe mocha for post exercise recovery. It is basically chocolate milk with some strong coffee added in. Seems to have all the benefits of chocolate milk with the added antioxidents of coffee, as well as caffeine which reportedly increases insuline sensitivity.
I suspect the problem might be one of amounts in terms of how much chocolate milk is being used to make it.
Lyle
In the carbohydrate part of the report he talks about sucrose in detail but only briefly mentions the lactose component of milk.
Does that change anything?
How is the lactose absorbed? How does it affect glycogen replenishment?
Also in the context of this
“On the other hand, postworkout milk fat might potentially enhance protein synthesis.”
Would normal choc milk be preferred to low fat or skim chocolate milk?
Chris,
Despite its lactose content, milk has thus far performed equally well compared to major commercial sports drinks for glycogen resynthesis & rehydration.
Regarding milkfat levels & protein synthesis, little is known since we only have the results of single acute study to go on. I would guess that if you’re getting sufficient dietary fat elsewhere, it won’t make much long-term difference what fat level you consume. The main point is that the higher milkfat in the postworkout period certainly didn’t lower the anabolic response, contrary to what some might have assumed. One caveat to consuming the full-fat variety is that those who down an ass-ton of milk stand to overshoot their dietary fat and/or calorie target for the day if they’re not careful. So in that sense, whole milk carries some caution for dieters trying to aggressively economize kcal intake.
Alan,
What about concerns about the quality of milk? i.e. some go bonkers over milk that is not raw and from a grass-fed cow, while others scoff at that and say those types of folks are making a mountain out of a so-called molehill.
There seems to be a segment who feel commercially purchased dairy is garbage and others who think that is poppycock.
In any event, thank you to you and Lyle for supplying the infor and the forum for such an insightful piece.
Great job! Very informative. I’m just curious, what post workout drink to you consider to be the most effective?
Alan/ Lyle,
What would you say to folks already using Surge Recovery (or a product like Xtreme Formulations “Relentless) and at a stage of excellent physique development in terms f combining muscularity, leanness, and overall aesthetics?
Besides being lighter on the wallet, there would be only 3 potential outcomes in making the switch to chocolate milk:
1) physique regression
2) physique progression
or
3) no change in physique
I highly doubt that such a switch would result in # 2, so you’d be left with #3, at best, or #1, at worst. Given this and the fact that “you can’t argue with real-world” results, would you still advise someone making fantastic progress and for whom price is a non-issue to make the switch or maintain the status quo?
[...] At any rate, for those of you interested, this is worth the read: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/an-objective-comparison-of-chocolate-milk-and-surge-re... [...]
I’ve always been suspicious of Biotest stuff. IMO it’s over hyped and over priced.
I don’t see why you guys are bashing T-Nation so hard when there are LOTS of far worse companies – see MuscleTech for example and tell me what you think of them! I can only imagine that Lyle’s road have crossed with T-Nation some time and there have been a conflict, because I see a dig particularly at T-Nation. More often than not it’s important to look not just at the information but also at the person that presents the information and that person’s background.
Other than that I really like to see both sides and really appreciate when the claims are backed with research. But I have some questions…
Alan wrote:
“Recent research by Tang et al found that as little as 10g whey plus 21 g fructose taken after resistance exercise was able to stimulate a rise in muscle protein synthesis [5]. Considering that an isocaloric serving of lowfat chocolate milk has 17.3 g protein plus 56.3 g carbohydrate, a hike in muscle protein synthesis (as well as inhibition of protein breakdown) would be easily achieved.”
We really are comparing apples and oranges here, because milk is mostly casein and we are aiming for acute rise in protein synthesis that whey can accomplish way better compared to casein’s more of a muscle sparing properties.
And what about the magnitude of the rise in muscle protein synthesis? I speculate that with more whey we could get more synthesis going on. Of course this has it’s own limitations, because amino acids get oxidized when their concentration rise above certain point.
Alan wrote:
“Of note, Surge is fortified with leucine, a branched chain amino acid (BCAA) that plays a critical role in muscle protein synthesis. An isocaloric serving of chocolate milk has 1.7g leucine. This may or may not have any impact, especially within the context of a high protein intake typical of the athletic population. It’s important to keep in mind that most high-quality animal-based protein is 18-26% BCAA [7]. Adding a few grams of supplemental BCAA to a pre-existent high intake within the diet is not likely to yield any magic.”
This really sounds bulletproof on paper, but not until we understand how leucine ignites protein synthesis. It isn’t leucine per se that is causing the ignition in protein synthesis, but a RISE in blood leucine concentration! It is true that we are getting plenty of leucine from our diets, but what we are aiming for with supplementing with leucine is a spike in leucine blood concentration to start protein synthesis!
Alan wrote:
“Surge is also fortified with phenylalanine, presumably for the purpose of enhancing the insulin response. Again, this is an unnecessary tactic since insulin’s primary action is the inhibition of muscle protein breakdown. This antiproteolytic effect of nutrient-mediated insulin response is maximal at elevations just slightly above fasting levels.”
Another insulin’s property is it’s ability to help various compounds (such as: glucose, amino acids and creatine) get to deprived muscles after a workout. Couple that with the fact that people also ingest creatine after the workout and you will see that having that rise in insulin after the workout is very beneficial! It’s also a known fact that bodybuilders inject insulin after a workout to get this same effect, so it’s nothing to sneeze at.
Mats: #3, no change. Read my little review on milk as a post-workout drink, plain old milk caused gains in LBM and fat loss when given after training. There is also emerging data (all cited in my Protein Book) that fast protein after training is NOT optimal.
Johny23: How is ONE article bashing T-nation? Or does a site that constantly sells overhyped and underproven products and censors debate that doesn’t support it’s bottom line not give you some cause for concern. Let me put it differently: let’s say that instead of letting your comment appear on my site, I didn’t approve it because I didn’t like what it said. You’d probably think that sucked because I censored you.
So why doesn’t it bother you when T-nation does the same thing?
The facts are this
1. Slow or slow/fast proteins appear to be superior to fast proteins post-workout. This is part of why milk was superior to soy (a fast protein) as discussed in my research review on milk as a post-workout drink.
2. There is no proven benefit to hydrolysates in terms of digestion speed (whey hydrolysate digests at the SAME speed as straight whey); hydrolysates are simply more expensive and taste worse.
the table is not appropriate in kcal content
If we are talking about overhyped and underproven (couple that with insane prices) we are talking about non other than MuscleTech!
Sadly I didn’t get the answers to my questions, but let me make my points more specific/clear and respond to your points so we could understand each other better.
1. The slow or slow/fast protein after the workout were superior in some studies that looked at the results after longer period of time (like >4 hours). It’s also a known fact that whey stimulates muscle protein synthesis to a greater extent than casein does, BUT it’s effect is short lived. Therefore when you look at scientific studies that compare the effect of those two types of protein after a longer period of time casein wins. BUT in the short term whey beats casein. It’s also where the “slow” and “fast” labels got from, because in reality the amino acids from both types of these proteins appear in the blood around the same time, but whey protein causes greater spike in blood amino acids concentrations, but they also drop quicker than casein. (I thought you know this so I didn’t really bother to post it, but now I did it just to make my points clear). What people should do in reality is get some whey after the workout and after an hour after that get a solid meal. That’s how it should be done in real world to get maximum efficacy of different types of protein! People really hook up to certain scientific studies where scientists show one thing to be better than other and don’t really integrate whole information!
2. I didn’t mention whey hydrolysate. When I was talking that someone should get whey protein after a workout I wasn’t specifying any one type. Isolate may be as good as hydrolysate (just as you pointed out).
My questions about leucine and insulin weren’t answered, but I hope to hear your opinion (or opinions if Alan joins this small discussion) about them.
Johny23, do you understand what “intellectual dishonesty” means?
I’ll give you a few minutes to go look that up. Then you can continue your line of apologism because I’m under no delusion that a defensive fan boy will have any clue as to what “intellectual dishonesty” means.
Let me spell it out for the slow: T-mag controls the flow of information on their site, to include their “open” [sic] discussion forums, under the pretense of “civility”. Which is a nice way of saying you can’t disagree with their stated policies or they’ll just remove the information.
Perhaps you can see where the “dishonesty” angle comes into play.
TJ — it’s easy for some people to make claims that raw milk from grassfed cows is better for you than the big commercial brands, but backing this claim with objective data is another story altogether. I typically remain skeptical about these things until I see solid proof. Personally, I’d steer clear of raw milk to lower the likelihood of ingesting pathogens.
Mats — Lyle pretty much covered this. As for the “can’t argue with real world results” stance, everyone has their own “real world” observations, which are unavoidably subjective. In my observations, postworkout milk has worked great for a wide range of athletes. However, I’d rather stick to the objective science unless we’re all in this just to share subjective testimonials & observations. Which, by the way, is not a totally useless conversation, but it’s much more subject to bias than what’s been demonstrated in controlled interventions.
Johnny23 — How are you affiliated with T-mag? I’m just curious, because you seem to be particularly defensive. And, you have quite the beef with Muscletech, but let me ask you this – how rigorously are discussions censored on the Muscletech forums? And, let me ask you what Lyle & Matt have asked that you haven’t yet answered. Do you think that it’s intellectually honest to censor public debate in an open forum for discussing the science nutrition and supplementation?
On to the other stuff, you’re missing some fundamental elements here, particularly the impact of preworkout substrates. Let’s begin with the fact that nutrient-mediated insulin elevation required to max out net anabolism is relatively minor. Insulin’s ability to prevent muscle protein breakdown (even in the midst of ample amino acid availability via continuous infusion) is maximal at about 2-3 times the normal basal insulin levels. This is even less than what’s seen during normal feeding. A properly placed pre-exercise meal will keep insulin more than sufficiently elevated even after your training bout is over. To put things into perspective, a regular solid meal can elevate insulin anywhere from 4-8 times fasting levels depending on size, and keep it elevated for a few hours. As little as 6 g of essential amino acids plus 35 g sucrose taken immediately pre-exercise can keep insulin elevated to roughly 4 times fasting levels an hour AFTER 40-50 minutes of resistance training. What do you think blood levels of insulin, glucose, & amino acids would look like with a typical preworkout meal or shake containing at least as much carbs & double the protein? Again, all of your concerns for an insulin spike via fast-acting postworkout substrates after the typical resistance training bout are invalid unless proper preworkout nutrition is missing.
Alan/Lyle – great read. Is there any research to effectively compare whole milk vs chocolate milk in regards to pwo protein synthesis? The magic ratio of 4:1 carb:protein always seems to be tossed around (cho milk) but is a lower ratio (reg milk) just as effective when dealing with the slow/fast protein combination with milk?
FYI (this is fot totti & anyone else wondring), I got my Surge Recovery label info from this link:
http://biotestedge.com.au/html/suppfacts/surgerecovery_facts.html
on this page:
http://biotestedge.com.au/products/surgerecovery.html
Note that there’s slight but insignificant variation in the reporting of the Surge stats on at least 2 different sites I’ve checked.
I remember PMing Alan 2-3 years ago about chocolate milk as a workout drink so I’ve been on the choco bandwagon for quite a while, thx Alan!
But I do have a question.
Chocolate milk contains cacao, which is a strong anti-oxidant. Anti-oxidant seem to hinder training adaptations (atleast endurance training, don’t know to which extend if affects hypertrophy). For me this is important, because my metabolism is very very high, and my appetite very very low. I use chocolate milk at very high amounts 2-3 liter a day of which 1L during training because it’s easy and cheap to bulk on. My chocolate milk has 1% cacao, do you think that amount of cacao during training would have negative effects on hypertrophy?
Jorn: Very HIGH-dose anti-oxidants hinder training adaptations. I doubt the amounts found in whole foods can even come close to the doses that they’ve tested in research (where they mega dose). Consider the Kenyan runners for example, they eat a staggering amount of whole food carbohdyrates, I’m sure that their anti-oxidant intake is high. They seem to be doing ok.
And someone asked about milk powder (the comment was approved but didn’t show up yet): assuming the lactose (which is the primary problem with dairy products for some) isn’t a problem, milk powder is a VERY cost effective way of jacking up caloric/protein intake. Lifters used it for years.
I must say that I feel that dextrose is superior to sucrose. The fructose part makes, especially in high doses, for an insulindeafening effect.
Look for instance on a number of studies demonstrating this effect [1][2][3][4][6]. Also fructose has as a side effect that it increases food intake[5][6].
Glucose does not give these side effects. I’m sorry, but mr Roberts is right on this one, though, perhaps, for the wrong reasons.
[1] 19007450
[2] 19064538
[3] 11739021 [URL=http://joe.endocrinology-journals.org/cgi/reprint/171/3/551] Full abstract.[/URL]
[4] 19000661
[5] 18971329
[6] 12399260 [URL=http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/5/911]Full abstract.[/URL]
By the way, I forgot to mention it: the numbers behind the sourcelisting are the PMIDS.
Hi Alan,
Thank you for the great article. Can I assume that chocolate milk would also make a good pre-workout drink?
Thanks,
Marc
This may be a dumb question, but I’ve never seen this clarified – In order to get the benefits of chocolate milk as a post workout drink, does it have to be purchased as chocolate milk, or can it be regular milk mixed with chocolate powder or syrup?
Marc: Milk pre-workout would be a big mistake, the slow nature of casein would tend to cause stomach upset. Stick with fast proteins pre/during workout, save the slow ones for post-workout.
Atta: You might want to read the piece I put up on high-fructose corn syrup two updates ago. What fructose does by itself in high-doses is completely different than what occurs when it is combined with glucose. As well, fructose refills liver glycogen which is crucial for optimal anabolism. Some fructose post-workout is a good thing.
Atta,
Regarding your mention of fructose’s “insulin-deadening” effect, you need to carefully read my lengthy response to Johny23 above. It explains clearly why your concern is invalid. Unless, of course, you’re an endurance athlete with multiple glycogen-depleting events in a single day. In which case, you may want to maximize the insulin response of your postworkout meal if you’ve met the following conditions: a) depleted glycogen completely and b) need to compete again with those same glycogen-depleted muscles within just a few hours.
As for fructose increasing appetite, in the first place, youre making the mistake of citing research comparing isolated fructose with isolated glucose, the comparison made in my article is sucrose vs glucose. Gotta read stuff more carefully. Furthermore, the literature demonstrating the greater potential for isolated fructose to stimulate appetite compared to glucose was done via intracerebroventricular injection of fructose in rats. So, to sum up: 1) Re-read my previous post regarding the fallacy of the need to spike insulin, 2) We’re not comparing isolated doses of fructose & glucose, 3) Go read Lyle’s review of the John White article on HFCS, 4) Bill Roberst is still incorrect, and you’ve posted up nothing to refute the points I asserted in my article, nor have you posted up anything supporting his empty assertions.
But “everyone knows”, right?
Hah.
Alan,
Indeed I cite research showing a comparison between isolated glucose and fructose. But that’s not the point. The point is that by comparing them separately, we can see which effects are cause by glucose, and which by fructose.
Since sucrose is made up of one part glucose and one part fructose, and that it is split up in glucose and fructose, we can safely say that the fructose will exert the effects asserted in the studies. And those effects are not wanted. If you want to be lean, you’ve got to be insulinsensitive. The opposite of what you’re doing when taking in large amounts of sucrose and thus fructose.
You are the one not reading carefully. This is what you say: “1) Re-read my previous post regarding the fallacy of the need to spike insulin”. Nowhere I claim the opposite. Instead, based on research it might very well be the opposite of wise to spike insulin right after your training session because of the lowered carb tolerance and perhaps even lower anabolic effects.
And I will read Lyle’s article on HFCS. I’ll get back to you as soon as I have, or as soon as you’ve replied to this reaction.
I read the piece on HFCS. It was a nice read indeed. However, I do not feel that you must see HFCS apart from the isolated fructose effects. HFCS doesn’t do anything in that form, it is split up in glucose and fructose, and only then it is processed. So though the effects would indeed be less pronounced compared to pure fructose, they wouldn’t be absent since HFCS is not pure fructose. That is what I’m trying to tell.
Atta
Read the piece on HFCS again as it clearly addresses the misconception that you seem to have. The studies showing a problem with fructose are using massive doses of fructose by itself. This has NO relevance to either sucrose or HFCS as fructose consumed with glucose is processed differently in the body than pure fructose.
Lyle
Atta,
Your fear of fructose within the context of sucrose (or HFCS) is simply unsupported, and particularly so in the postexercise period in the athletic population. You’re missing the whole by fixating on the parts. In doing so, you’re ignoring the evidence. Keep in mind that I cited studies that compared the overfeeding of 135 grams of sucrose vs glucose (50% above & maintenance kcals) for 4 days straight. Both lean & obese humans were used, not infused rats. No significant difference in de novo lipogenesis was seen. And also keep in mind that these subjects were not trained per se, nor was the dosing timed near training. So, if there’s no significant difference between a massive overfeeding of glu & suc under those conditions, your concerns about it occurring in an athletic regime with a normal (not overdone) CHO dose would be even LESS justified. Another thing you seem to be unaware of is the fact that sucrose supports both muscle & liver glycogen – this is actually a good thing for athletic pursuits.
Alan,
Great article! I’ve always wondered if/when someone would compare the two. I have a lot of respect for t-nation.com, but the marketing gets you to start thinking that you’re wasting your time with a workout unless you use Surge, BCAAs, etc. Granted it’s a free site and they make money off of their products, but it’s great to read objective reports like this. Thanks for writing it!
First of all, i’d like to stress that i’m a big admirer of both Lyle and Alan. I Admire some members of t-nation staff too(not Bill though)- but not the policies they have on their forums. It’s BS not to approve educated, and well thought replies no matter what the claim is.
However, i’m kind of suspicious how can you guys miss this, and i do really consider you experts – far above my level – so i question my conclusion. So, i’m just stressing this to explain the tone – it’s not an aggressive tone, but a rather educated “willing to discuss and learn” tone.
Now that we got that cleared up – i wonder – how is it possible that you can compare research done in fasted subjects with any real world situation. That’s what i don’t get. In a fasted subject, AA levels are low, insulin is low, and almost anything will be anabolic.
When training in a fed state(at least 2 protein meals in the gut already, let’s say meat)
How is it not beneficial to consume AA’s, weather in free form, or via whey shake(absorbed pretty fast) to counteract the negative effect training has on AA levels? how is it more beneficial to not have a shake containing some fast-absorbed protein during/immediately before your workout, along with some carbs – but nothing? Same goes for post workout. In research, subjects get their “dose” and they keep them for 4 or more hours in the lab, to test them. They don’t get the next meal(obviously, it would temper with results) BUT is it good to apply this concept in real world?
Bottom line is – your AA flux through the day should be maintained, and positive as long as possible – THAT’S the only way one is going to gain (serious amount of) muscle. Weather you consume whey/AAs around your workout, or milk protein -it doesn’t really matter compared to that. However, if NOTHING else is eaten – YES milk or casein/whey kick whey’s ass.
But are you saying that AA spike that whey causes(if other aspects are respected, meaning general food intake) – isn’t needed during and after training? I highly doubt it, and would like to see a research done in fed bodybuilders, that have a hard training session, 2hrs after their solid-food controlled meal, where one group would be consuming milk pre/post workout, and the other group mixture of whey, leucine, some ammount of EAA in free form, and fast acting carbs(and separate protein group – so one group uses sucrose, and the other dextrose) all matched for protein content and calories. In such research – would you expect milk to show BETTER results? I speculate it would show inferior results, because AA levels will be the same in both groups at the beginning(elevated) and decline would be obvious after the session – but a whey AA spike after would be more beneficial – wouldn’t it(if a meal regular meal comes soon enough).
Hope i’m not too confusing(english is not my native language, i’m an Eastern European, but i tried to be clear and precise)
Thanks for the article – gives something to scratch your head about.
I’d note that pretty much all of your questions are addressed in The Protein Book, including the fed vs. fasted thing. It is a huge confound in most of the research.
As to your question: why isn’t it good to maintain blood AA at a constant rate all the time, here’s why.
There is emerging data that skeletal muscle becomes insensitive to blood amino acid levels in terms of the promotion of protein synthesis. In one study, aminos were infused at a high level (note that infusion and ingestion aren’t the same thing and I’m not saying that they are).
Protein synthesis went up and then dropped back to baseline at around hour 2 and did so despite a continued high level of blood AA’s. The researchers proposed that maintaining high levels of blood amino acids made the muscle insensitive to further stimulation.
This means that the bodybuilder approach of trying to maintain constant levels of amino acids in the bloodstream may be detrimental to growth. Rather, letting blood amino acids drop so that they can be spiked again may be superior in terms of being able to restimulate protein synthesis.
In this regards, one recent paper (not yet published in full) showed greater LBM gains for a group eating 3 meals vs. 6 meals per day. Training like bodybuilders with controlled calories.
Lyle
Lyle,
How is fructose ingested at the same time with glucose processed differently then?
Alan,
This is what you said: “Keep in mind that I cited studies that compared the overfeeding of 135 grams of sucrose vs glucose (50% above & maintenance kcals) for 4 days straight. Both lean & obese humans were used, not infused rats. No significant difference in de novo lipogenesis was seen.”
No difference between the groups glucose vs sucrose, but there was a significant difference between them and the control:
” De novo lipogenesis was 2- to 3-fold higher after overfeeding by 50% than after the control treatment in all subjects.”
But, that’s probably not what you meant. However, though the difference is insignificant, there is a difference. And it would be strange if it were significant in only four days, but the fact that it’s already apparent should get you concerned. Look at page five from the source you cited (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/74/6/737.pdf), and take a look at the graph. You will notice that of the eight persons, five are showing a bigger de novo lipogenesis, and only three show a slightly lower de novo lipogenesis.
Indeed, training would reduce the negative influences, but the fact that there are negative effects showing after only four (!) days (and yes it is overdosed greatly, but for quite some Americans not even that greatly), still make me avoid fructose.
I must say I like this discussion by the way. It’s really challenging. Plus I’m learning quite a bit.
Atta
As stated in the HFCS review, quoting from the paper itself:
“Sucrose, HFCS, invert sugar, honey an many fruits and juices deliver the same sugars in the same ratios to the same tissues within the same time frame to the same metabolic pathways. Thus…it makes essentially no metabolic difference which one is used.”
I’m just not sure what is unclear about this. What is clear is that studies using massive doses of fructose by itself are completely irrelevant to discussion of sucrose although that’s what most of the anti-fructose hysteria is being based on.
For example, large amounts of fructose cause stomach upset when consumed by itself. This does not occur when it is consumed with glucose. Glucose + fructose is simply different than fructose by itself.
As well, the actual fructose content of chocolate milk isn’t that high in the first place. It’s only a moderate proportion of the total carbohydrate intake. That’s along with all of Alan’s comments that you seem intent on ignoring.
Lyle
Atta
Perhaps this will help, quoted directly from the White study I reviewed. The last sentence in the first paragraph is really the key one. I bolded it for easy reading. Look at the fructose studies you cited. I bet all of them used massive doses of free fructose either ingested or infused. Because they always do. But the conclusions are irrelevant to what’s being discussed here. The doses are physiologically irrelevant.
Now contrast that to the moderate amount someone would get from chocolate milk, fruit, sucrose or any other disaccharide. Which, as Alan has explained repeatedly to you, and I have pointed out as well, is actually a GOOD thing for an athlete in that refiling liver glycogen is a key to maintaining an optimal anabolic state.
Lyle
***
Much has been made of the metabolic differences between
fructose and glucose in the human body: fructose is rapidly taken
up by the liver and bypasses a key regulatory step in glycolysis.
There are, however, several points of intersection where the
metabolism of fructose and glucose interchange. This metabolic
flexibility works to man’s evolutionary advantage by allowing a
variety of food and energy sources to be processed efficiently. It
is only when any single nutrient is consumed to excess and
overwhelms the body’s metabolic capacity that untoward con-
sequences occur.
Fructose malabsorption appears only to be a problem when too
little accompanying glucose is present. This was quickly recog-
nized in early sports drinks formulated solely with fructose to
enhance performance by exploiting fructose’s low glycemic in-
dex. Riby et al (28) subsequently showed that the addition of even
small amounts of free or polymeric glucose can ameliorate fruc-
tose malabsorption and accompanying gastric distress.
Another recent paper Atta
***
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Dec;88(6):1738S-1744S.Click here to read Links
High-fructose corn syrup, energy intake, and appetite regulation.
Melanson KJ, Angelopoulos TJ, Nguyen V, Zukley L, Lowndes J, Rippe JM.
Rippe Lifestyle Institute, Shrewsbury, MA 01545, USA.
High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has been implicated in excess weight gain through mechanisms seen in some acute feeding studies and by virtue of its abundance in the food supply during years of increasing obesity. Compared with pure glucose, fructose is thought to be associated with insufficient secretion of insulin and leptin and suppression of ghrelin. However, when HFCS is compared with sucrose, the more commonly consumed sweetener, such differences are not apparent, and appetite and energy intake do not differ in the short-term. Longer-term studies on connections between HFCS, potential mechanisms, and body weight have not been conducted. The main objective of this review was to examine collective data on associations between consumption of HFCS and energy balance, with particular focus on energy intake and its regulation.
@ LYLE
So, when spiking AA levels is better, than how in hell is it better to consume casein vs. whey?
doesn’t make sense.
Dear Lyle,
Your last paper (especially the bolded area) only tells us that there is no difference between HFCS en sucrose the way there is as when comparing fructose to glucose. Also, note the word “short term”. We are not discussing short term. At least I am not.
And you say (like Alan) that fructose is good for you, because it replenishes your liverglycogen. I say it is bad for you because it leads (long term wise) to a lower insulin sensitivity. That and the fact that the jury is still out on the matter of carbs post workout (whether it’s good or not for anabolism), plus that it has been proven that your carb tolerance right after your training is worth squat.
We are focussing on different points here. You feel the anabolism would be best by consuming sucrose based on some evidence. I however, feel that it is not wise (long term speaking) to use a food with a high fructose content. Especially not when your carb tolerance is already very low and your insulin spikes sky high.
You argue that chocolate milk is relatively low in fructose. I argue that it isn’t. About 5 grams of the sugar contents of chocolate milk is lactose. Which leaves us with approximately 7 grams of HFCS or sucrose. For the sake of argument I’ll take sucrose. Sucrose is 50% fructose, so we have 3,5 grams of fructose per 100ml.
As a post workout shake, you’d drink a litre of this stuff. That boils down to 35 grams of fructose. I think that that is a lot, considering your already low carb tolerance. And then we haven’t even discussed the matter of whether it would be best for growth to immediately supply your body with carbohydrates.
And I forgot to mention, 3XL a very well respected member among most of the internetboards once calculated the glycogen expended during a resistance exercise bout would be about 25 to 30 grams. So it would be a complete overkill to ingest such an amount of sugars after this type of training.
For an endurance athlete it is of course be an entirely different story. But that’s not the group I’m interested in.
Atta,
I’ll break it down like this:
– Were the doses in the overfeeds purposely extremely high in order to force the appearance of potential differences in the metabolism of glucose and fructose? Yes.
– Were the doses far-fetched under any semblance of normal conditions (135g; 50% over maintenance)? Yes.
– Were the differences in de novo lipogenesis significant despite subjecting an untrained population to the above conditions? No.
– Were the actual differences in de novo lipogenesis clinically relevant? No. Once again, in the sports/fitness-oriented population, these differences would likely disappear completely.
– Is liver cell swelling (via hepatic glycogenesis) an important anabolic signaling mechanism? Yes.
– Does hepatic glycogenolysis occur during training? Yes. For example, Casey et al (reference #15) saw a 55-60% reduction in both liver & muscle glycogen stores as a result ot 83 minutes of training @ 70% VO2 max. Let me quote Casey et al:
“”Furthermore, a modest but significant relationship was evident between liver glycogen content at the end of the recovery period and subsequent exercise time-to-exhaustion (r = 0.53, P < 0.05). [...] The present results indicate that, after a small CHO load in humans, subsequent endurance capacity may be dependent to some degree on a liver-mediated increase in muscle glucose delivery.”
– As I mentioned previously, hepatic glycogenolysis increases alongside training intensity, so this principle is not strictly limited to prolonged endurance training.
– Given these points, can fructose serve as a beneficial component in the mix of CHO used for supplying the demands of training? Yes.
Pergam
Not exactly what I said. I was simply pointing out that maintaining constant levels of aminos throughout the day (responding to someone who asked why isn’t it a good thing) might not be idea but that letting levels fall so that they can rise again may be superior.
As well, from the fasted state, both casein and whey raise blood amino acids levels, whey just does it to a higher level (e.g. it’s faster); this is discussed in detail in the protein series I finished up last week.
As well, milk protein is a combination of whey (fast) and casein (slow) although people seem to get the wrong idea that it’s only casein (milk is about 20% whey and 80% casein).
So you get a spike from the whey along with a sustained level from the casein. As I wrote in an early comment (and in the protein series, and in my Protein Book) research supports that slow or a mix of fast/slow is superior to fast post-workout. A purely fast protein is simply not ideal.
Lyle
Pergam,
Granted we’re discussing resistance training bouts and not prolonged endurance events, there’s no plausible nor logical mechanism for an increase in net muscle protein synthesis by adding free-form AA given sufficient total daily protein intake and properly designed pre & postexercise meals. In most bodybuilding/fitness trainees, total protein intake is ample-to-excessive, so adding isolated AA to this intake is literally a waste. And don’t forget that there’s a limit to how much AA can be taken up by muscle per unit of time. Anything beyond this will merely increase AA oxidation and/or deamination without any increase in net muscle protein synthesis.
And as Lyle mentioned, if whey-only was superior to a casein-whey blend, we would see this demonstrated consistently in the literature in head-to-head comparisons. That simply has not been the case.
Atta,
I just caught this – you’re being inconsistent and fabricating an argument that doesn’t exist. You begin by saying,
“As a post workout shake, you’d drink a litre of this stuff.”
Can you point me to where Lyle or myself specified a liter of chocolate milk after a resistance training bout? And then you go on to say,
“For an endurance athlete it is of course be an entirely different story. But that’s not the group I’m interested in.”
Why would you even mention a very sizable 1 liter dose of chocolate milk if we’re NOT talking about prolonged endurance events?
Nevertheless, how is 35g fructose within a liter of choc milk of any concern in the postworkout period, when 67.5g fructose within 135g sucrose (not even ingested after rigorous training) showed jackworth of difference compared to zero fructose within 135g glucose in an untrained/obese population under overfed conditions?
The broken record continues…
Lyle- OK, i got you
… And now we’re getting to my point… i’m aware of a whey component of a milk protein, and that it gets that “spike” going on…
So you DO have slow protein ingested before and after workout in a realistic situation(we do agree that one should train in a fed state
). For sake of discussion, let’s say one eats meat.
But it only raises AAs to a certain level, and over a long period of time, and doesn’t really provide a “spike”(like whey does). However, you make sure you additionally raise AA levels via “fast” protein around workout period, and to make sure you make that “spike” and SLOW protein is already eaten before and after training anyways, so there won’t be “returning to baseline or below” like it happens in a fasted state.(which is a reason a combination of proteins that are digested and absorbed slower show better results in a fasted individual – so there’s no need to add additional slow proteins, when they are already eaten…)
In an isolated case, where people eat nothing before and after, well – sure a combination of fast/slow will work better. But in a fed state – that shouldn’t be the case.
you wrote
“So you get a spike from the whey along with a sustained level from the casein. ”
Sure, but my point is – if you eat regular meal before and after workout(at least 2 hrs before, and 1hr after TOPS) you’ll have no worries about that “sustained” release, + you’ll get te spike. So it’s like you’re using slow/fast combo, except you’re using slow component from meat before and after(susatined release), and whey/BCAA/EAA during and immediately after. Like i said, i’d really like to see a study designed in a way i posted before. That would answer a LOT of questions
Some amount of “cross” in digestion always happens, it’s not so black and white, and 1 + 1 often isn’t 2, we all know that.
Also, what would happen if you used only whey all day. If “spike” is what we should be after, and if we “should wait until AA levels drop” shouldn’t we be better off with most possible spikes, i.e. consume whey and EAA every 1.5 hours, that way you’ll be far more anabolic…
Thanks for your time.
Alan or Lyle,
If the most-recent pre-workout meal was 2 hours prior to the session and consisted of protein, fat, and vegetables, would insulin levels still be high enough to negate the need for a “fast” protein + high GI carbs drink immediately PW?
I often see folks recommending a Surge-like drink immediately PW followed up 60-90 minutes later by a solid food meal. Price comparison aside, would such a protocol have the net effect of consuming a fast + slow protein and carb mix as seen with chocolate milk? As stated above, fast only may actually be sub-optimal PW, but I was wondering if a liquid followed by solid meal would ultimately behvae more in line with a fast-slow mixture.
I was also curious what you think of those suggesting BCAA doses of upwards of 0.2g’lb of LBM pre and during the workout. (a) When daily protein intake is already high, is there any “real” additional benefit conferred by BCAA pulsing? (b) Given the effects of leucine on insulin levels and muscle protein synthesis, would a solid food meal 60-90 minutes after training be all that was needed if such high-dose BCAA’s were consumed pre- and intra-workout?
Just curious, because Charles Poliquin is highly regarded and always touts high-dose BCAA’s. Obviously his recommending something does not impart magical properties on the supplement in question. But then again, I’m not ready to write off his supplement recommendations purely as those of a snake-oil salesman or because there is not a stack of research supporting everything he suggests.
– Were the doses in the overfeeds purposely extremely high in order to force the appearance of potential differences in the metabolism of glucose and fructose? Yes.
– Were the doses far-fetched under any semblance of normal conditions (135g; 50% over maintenance)? Yes.
– Were the differences in de novo lipogenesis significant despite subjecting an untrained population to the above conditions? No.
– Were the actual differences in de novo lipogenesis clinically relevant? No. Once again, in the sports/fitness-oriented population, these differences would likely disappear completely.
– Is liver cell swelling (via hepatic glycogenesis) an important anabolic signaling mechanism? Yes.
– Does hepatic glycogenolysis occur during training? Yes. For example, Casey et al (reference #15) saw a 55-60% reduction in both liver & muscle glycogen stores as a result ot 83 minutes of training @ 70% VO2 max. Let me quote Casey et al:
“”Furthermore, … glucose delivery.”
[color=red]Like I said, that’s endurance training. That is not what I’m talking about.[/color]
– As I mentioned previously, hepatic glycogenolysis increases alongside training intensity, so this principle is not strictly limited to prolonged endurance training.
– Given these points, can fructose serve as a beneficial component in the mix of CHO used for supplying the demands of training? Yes.
[color=red]But I give in. I like science and just got owned by science, so I shouldn’t hang on to what I believe, just because I believe it. Thanks for the article and the discussion.[/color]
Pergam,
The potential benefit of AA supplementation between meals was seen in a trial by Paddon-Jones et al where protein lintake in the control group averaged 64g/day, while the additional AA supp in the experimental group put them at 109g (plus an additional 90g CHO). While the results were interesting, the treatment imbalance combined with the substandard protein intakes leaves the outcomes wide open to question.
Which brings me back to my original point that if TOTAL DAILY PROTEIN from high-quality sources is sufficient, no cute little AA supplementation strategies around or within a normal-length resistance training bout will do anything beyond stimulating your inner bro.
Joe,
You’d only need to concern yourself with fast-acting carbs postworkout if you were involved with multiple glycogen-depleting endurance bouts in a single day. Also, there’s no good reason to go carb-free preworkout only to try to play catch-up with quickie carbs postworkout. Also, as long as you’re not snubbing yourself on total protein intake for the day, MPS will hum along just fine. Re-read my responses to Pegram & it should be pretty clear.
And remember, most high-quality animal-based protein is 18-26% BCAA as it stands. More is better only to a finite degree, after which point the returns diminish. Regarding the supposed benefit of mega-dosing of BCAA at 0.2g/lb LBM (on top of a pre-existent high protein intake), this simply has not been demonstrated in placebo-controlled conditions. I frankly don’t care if an intelligent/imaginative guy like Poliquin recommends it (as well as fish oil megadosing). He sells those supps, so there’s an unavoidable potential for bias there. Just keep in mind that folks in the bodybuilding & fitness industry are particularly prone to the more-is-better bias.
I feel like my questions haven’t been answered in the way they should be – but there’s no point in me expecting it, really
.
But thanks Alan and Lyle for your time, i appreciate it – really.
“Which brings me back to my original point that if TOTAL DAILY PROTEIN from high-quality sources is sufficient, no cute little AA supplementation strategies around or within a normal-length resistance training bout will do anything beyond stimulating your inner bro.”
Alan, is this a fact, or an opinion? You speculate, like i could speculate exactly otherwise.
Out of curiosity, what is the most common protocol for around-workout you “prescribe” to your clients?
[...] was not the least of them. The discussion really grew some legs, but it seems to be resolving: An Objective Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surge Recovery | BodyRecomposition – The Home of Lyle … Right now I’m in the heat of putting together the Jan AARR, and after I’m done with that I’ll be [...]
Thanks for the info, Alan. Much obliged.
Lyle or Alan,
While N=1 is never a large enough sample size to have much bearing on what others could or should do, can you really just discard practical experience and empirical evidence when it comes to trying things out for yourself and assessing the results?
For example, some of my first exposure to more advanced material on training (and related recommendations on nutrition) came from reading the work of Christian Thibaudeau. Some of his nutrition advice under various circumstances has included the use of high dose BCAA’s, high dose fish oil usage with dose varying on level of leanness, fast-acting protein and high GI carbs PW if lean or a whey, glutamine, and glycine mixture PW if above a certain level of bodyfat percentage. He has also stated that while chocolate milk may be adequate PW, it is far from an optimal PW choice.
BY heeding his advice on training and nutirtion, I have gained a significant level of muscle and achieved a high level of leanness, as well. So my question is this……….Do you always feel a need to have a study backing something up to start or to continue doing something? i.e. I have found a formula that works quite well specifically for me, and it includes high dose BCAA’s and fish oil as well as the aforementioned fast protein and high GI carbs PW drink that is supposed to be inferior to chocolate milk or a similar fast-slow mixture.
So if research claims that what I am doing is supposed to be inferior or less effective to other options, how can I justify scrapping it when my results and performance are at the exact level I desire?
I greatly respect the work that you gentleman do, so please do not take this post as me trying to point a finger, start an argument, or claim that I have even a shred of the nutrition knowledge that you guys have. Nor am I saying that my approach is what everyone should do. I am merely curious as to how to proceed when results confirm the effectiveness of my approach and are right at the level I want them to be.
To all who mentioned so,
I’m glad you liked this article. It was fun writing for me.
Pergam,
How *should* your questions be answered? Me don’t get it, brah. I gave you facts, do you want to hear my hopes and dreams instead?
As for my common protocol of nutrition around training, I can’t say there is one. It varies from a large segment of my clientele getting zero mention of nutrient timing, to competitive athletes getting more specific recommendations, with variations across the different sports. The important thing to realize that nutrient timing (for most fitness goals that aren’t competitive sport-specific) is a distantly secondary concern compared to hitting your macronutrient targets for the day.
Do you have Lyle’s Protein Book? I’m gonna guess, judging from the questions, that you don’t. There’s a 30-page chapter on nutrient timing there. I’ve also written a detailed nutrient timing series in my research review. The underlying principles are similar because we look at the same research, and room for interpretive variance is minimal because the available data is relatively clear-cut. If you REALLY are interested in learning the fine details, do yourself a huge favor and seriously look into the aforementioned resources. Are there still unanswered questions? Of course. However, there’s enough data to indicate what strategies are likely to be a waste of time/money/effort, and what strategies are sound.
If you’re asking what I recommend for for non-endurance athletes with typical resistance training workouts lasting roughly an hour, my nutshell advice is this… Pretraining, have either a full-sized solid mixed meal within roughly 1.5-2 hrs before training (the larger the meal, the further it should be from training to avoid gastric upset, the smaller the meal, the closer you can scoot it toward the trainng bout). Alternatively, you can have a small mixed meal or shake within an hour before training (again, same principles apply regarding meal or shake size versus proximity to the training bout).
Postexercise, have a full-sized mixed meal or shake within 30 minutes after training. If for some reason, you ride up on the 60 minute mark without consuming anything, there’s no need to panic as if your muscles will start falling off of your bones. If you had a shake or meal that was consumed close enough to training, there’s no urgency to slam anything down immediately because your blood substrate levels will be elevated, and won’t reach baseline levels long after the training bout is done.
The take-home message is that micromanaging the nitpicky aspects of nutrient timing are overhyped and unnecessary for normal-length resistance training, particularly within the context of abundant nutrient absorption overlap – which indeed is the case in typical feeding regimes. Furthermore, during-training nutrition is rarely a concern for folks whose training bouts are properly pre-fueled and don’t come close to 2 hours wherein exercise performance (emphasis on endurance capacity) is the prime objective.
Giorgio,
If it ain’t broke, no need to fix it.
With that said, expectation bias based on whoever’s principles you believe, will play a large role in the success of your chosen protocol – regardless of whether or not it’s scientifically backed. Since self-experimentation is rarely properly blinded & placebo controlled, its outcomes are often limited to those indoctrinated with similar beliefs.
Alan,
If you’re still around, I have one final quick question for you. When you say that expectation bias will play a large role in the success of a chosen protocol, how can this be so in terms of something like nutrition where you either achieve your given result or miss the mark?
Are you saying that the experimenter will merely interpret his results as a full success given any personal bias he has or that said bias can actually have a physical impact on the results that cannot fully be explained?
Admittedly I am no expert in this stuff, so I thank you for bearing with me and for humoring me a bit by providing answers to stuff that is likely far beneath your level.
Alan or Lyle,
How does the peri-workout nutrition game change ( if at all) when maximizing fat loss is the goal. In this case, the main objectives would be to stave off catabolism and ramp mobilization and oxidation of fatty acids to the highest level possible. Would this alter the nature of a meal consumed pre-workout? i.e. as few carbs as possible and mostly protein + “healthy” fat? Would this be an area where BCAA’s pre/during and a fast protein with high GI carbs or a glucogenic AA mixture PW might actually be of use? Or would the relative impact on maximal fat loss ultimately be no different?
Lastly, how significant a difference is there between drinking a fast-slow blend of protein like milk PW and consuming a fast protein like whey right after the session and a solid protein 1-1.5 hours later? Would the net effect be at all similar?
Giorgio;
I’m not Lyle or Alan, but I’ll take a stab at a couple of your points. You seem to be questioning the evidence-based methodology in general here, so I’ll address that with two of your examples.
The fact that a given protocol or piece of advice works, does not mean that the ‘clinically proven’ method would not work as well or better, possibly with less side effects, less cost, or less stress/OCD.
In the case of ‘fast’ pwo drinks like surge, the question is not ‘will it work’, but ‘would a less radical, cheaper protocol work just as well or better’. Another question would be, if a simpler, less OCD protocol can work just as well (if not better), at lower cost, why waste time, money, and stress micromanaging pre/during/periworkout nutrition? If the answer is ‘it makes me feel better’, then that is fine, but you need to be honest with yourself about it. As long as you can be objective enough to say ‘there’s no good evidence that shows this works better, but I feel it works better and my authority of choice says it should’, you’re fine.
But I would highly suggest that if your authority of choice says ‘surge will work better’, that you try both for yourself, keeping everything else relatively constant. Do a couple weeks with surge PWO, and a couple weeks with choco milk, and see what happens. I you want to be really anal, you could use a roughly isocaloric, isonitrogenous amount of chocolate milk + whey instead. What I’m getting at is this:
P: Coach thibs says surge is better
P: Surge works for me
C: Therefore surge is better
is a much less reasonable argument than this:
P: Coach thibs says surget will work better
P: Surge works for me
P: choco milk does not work as well for me
C: Therefore surge is better
Another question to ask yourself if more of something gets me more of the effect I want from it, does it also get me more of its undesirable side effects? Take your ‘high dose fish oil’ for example (not sure what that means, but I’m assuming >10g/day). While you may be able to get more of the positive benefits of fish oil with doses higher than the reccommended 6g per day, you also start to get more of the undesirable effects, like immune system suppression. If that doesn’t bother you, fine, but the 6g suggestion is not pulled out of thin air, it is a dosage that is clincally proven to be get you most of the benefits without significant undesireable side effects. The ‘more must be better’ meme in the fitness world is a very powerful one.
Finally I think you’re reading too much into this article in general – it is about one question – surge vs. chocolate milk, and the false impression some have that T-nation is somehow a forum that encourages open discussion – that is only the case for areas in which they have no product (and even then, only to a point). In areas where t-nation DOES have something to sell you however, the approach is – we make product X, find plausible arguments for why product X at the dosage we suggest is optimal/needed, and once those arguments have been laid out, treat them as unassailable fact. If anyone questions them or suggests that they may not be a) not optimal b) overdosed without good reason c) needlessly OCD d) needlessly expensive, they censor the discussion, on the grounds that the answers to all those questions have been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt by good research. Which as people like Lyle and Alan frequently point out, is just not the case.
[...] on braised artichokes, don’t rely on supplements, chocolate milk more than sufficient PWO drink (if you still buy into nutrient timing), man versus chicken, some straight talk on HCFS (my note: [...]
It’s clear that many folks are suspicious of T-Nation for the apparent intellectual dishonesty/censorship going on over there. However what do you think of guys like Dr. Tim Ziegenfuss and Dr. Jeff Stout, two researchers who have worked in conjunction with Biotest on various projects? The aforementioned men are also involved with the ISSN, so I’d be interested in your thoughts on that organization and its related journal, as well.
And while I am no shill for Biotest products, I would be curious as to your thoughts on whether their Metabolic Drive product with a whey/casein bend would actually be superior to Surge PW, given the fact that it contains fast and slow proteins over strictly fast proteins.
I’ve seen then say many times over that Metabolic Drive is not for post workout, but after reading this research review, it would seem like that would be a rather good choice given the protein blend when compared with the strictly “fast” Surge.
[...] bookmarks tagged objective An Objective Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surg… saved by 5 others ROLLINONBY bookmarked on 01/18/09 | [...]
[...] a group eating 3 meals vs. 6 meals per day. Training like bodybuilders with controlled calories. An Objective Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surge Recovery | BodyRecomposition – The Home of Lyle … There’s also a lot of talk in regards to fructose, amino acids, etc… [...]
Bill,
I have nothing bad to say about Ziegenfuss & Stout. They’re just working-class nerds like the rest of us
.
On a serious note though, names behind products don’t matter to me, the data does. Regarding the ISSN, I think that they’re the top organization of their kind, and as a matter of fact, they don’t have much competition at all in terms of their niche. I like the ISSN journal, liked their position papers on creatine & protein, but thought their position paper on nutrient timing lacked a lot of elements. In sum, I think the ISSN has done a good job thus far, but I also recogize that they’re not immune to commercial bias, like any other organization in this vein.
a question about the studies comparing fast protein vs slow vs fast/slow.
in isolation it makes sense that a fast/slow or slow protein would be ideal, but considering most people eat a PPWO meal an hour or so after a PWO shake, wouldn’t whey then be ideal for its speed or any protein at that point work regardless of speed becuase another meal is not far off?
or in that context would it be ideal to delay a PPWO meal even longer to get a better lasting effect from slow or fast/slow protein?
seems this study makes sense on paper but is hard to utilize in real life.
I don’t think it would make much difference one way or the other, regardless of fast-only vs fast + slow, versus fast then slow. That’s why in most cases I opt for the simpler/cheaper/tastier option. For my personal preference and tolerance, I just eat a sizable solid food meal (or shake) postworkout rather then doing the quickie shake + solid meal-soon-after scenario. Again, as long as the macro numbers for the day are hit, there won’t be any differential effect of a larger postW meal versus a shake + meal. It boils down to individual preference and gastric tolerance. Some people need to split theior postworkout intake up on that basis alone. But, this doesn’t mean that it has any special effects.
There’s a thread on t-nation discussing this topic (it may stay up, may not), but my posts are being blocked from the thread:
http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_forum/diet_performance_nutrition_supplements/chocolate_milk_vs_surge
Those posting in the above thread with any points of debate, bring it over here. Posts here won’t show up immediately because spam is moderated. However, discussion certainly isn’t censored.
yea i see what you mean.
ive recently gravitated away from “high tech” pwo drinks, after realizing hydros and stuff never have worked any better than old concentrate back when i first started lifting. can add that to another oversold concept i believed in.
at this point the only pwo foods im doing is waxy maize+bcaas+leucine or whey conc. + oat startch depending on what im doing. its amazingly cheaper, got a good source, its easily cut my supplement budged in half. and at this point casein is pointless since im eating every 3-4 hours and prebed cottage cheese its better in so many ways.
Drink milk for fitness! Eat your fruits and veggies. maxi muscle proabolic gatorjuice super ripped blast off power max enduro flex flea flickin cheese fritters nitro rocket amino buff , what does it all do?
[...] milk is proven to be one of the best things to have post workout. Yeah…link to article An Objective Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surge Recovery | BodyRecomposition – The Home of Lyle … I have a friend who works for a high profile sports team, and he told me many of the guys use [...]
Thank you for the very interesting article!
I’m divided between the acceptance of high-tech nutrition (supplements, timing, etc) and the old “eat healthy and don’t do stupid things” approach to nutrition, so I enjoy reading arguments on both sides of the fence. Given the wide variety of nutritional and training habits that promote a strong, healthy physique, I think as long ass you eat healthy stuff in healthy proportions, you’ll do fine, and that yes, differences between “optimal” and “good enough” are usually blown out of proportion.
Please continue to do such interesting analysis!
Best regards.
[...] promoted as an expert”. Yeah, no. It doesn’t work like that. I’d point you at the recent discussion with Alan Aragon to see “free discussion” in effect. If you make a logical, well-reasoned case, your [...]
[...] buy some protein powder and mix in your own carbs, I think. Check this out Surge vs Chocolate Milk. An Objective Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surge Recovery | BodyRecomposition – The Home of Lyle … Here’s a link to the author’s web-site: AlanAragon.com – Fitness Based on Science & Experience [...]
Lyle,
If a strength/power athlete decided to use chocolate milk PWO, would you prefer to see them add in some MPI (or whatever) to to stay in line w/your higher PWO protein recommendations?
I guess the same question would apply to adding in additional carbs if the 50 or so grams in a single serving of choc. milk wasn’t enough.
Or alternatively I guess you could just use a larger serving of chocolate milk to compensate, but then fat content might become too high?
Thanks.
As I discuss in The Protein Book the potential disadvantage of chocolate milk post-workout is that it takes a lot to achieve a lot of protein/calories. An athlete trying to get 40 grams of protein is looking at 5 8oz servings (8 grams protein/serving). That’s a LOT of milk.
The fat content is only an issue if you’re not drinking fat-free milk; interestingly, one study comparing fat free to whole milk found that the whole milk (higher fat content) stimulated protein synthesis better; nobody knows why.
In any case, using milk as a base to add other protein/carbs is perhaps the best compromise. 2 cups of chocolate milk will provide 16 grams protein, 24 grams carbs and variable fat (depending on what you pick); that add more protein/carbs to hit the numbers you want.
Lyle
Yeah, I’m aware of the study showing fat to be benefecial as Alan alluded to it in the article. Which is why I figured somebody would choose a chocolate milk variety containing some fat if given the choice.
My hypothetical was questioning whether you might hit a point of too much fat if using mulitple servings of chocolate milk. For instance the study used 8g of fat, but maybe getting up around 15-20g might be too much? Nevertheless, its probably not even worth going into because as you mention, downing 5 servings of chocolate milk isn’t very practical.
If going fat-free isn’t an issue, Skim Plus by Farmland Dairies makes a chocolate milk which seems like it might be a better choice with a higher carb and protein content. Per serving: 180kcal, 32g cho, 11g pro.
So to sum this up…
“Milk, does a body good”
Alan,
Although I respect your achievements and your background, I don’t think you are being completely fair on the subject.
It must be said that I don’t use surge and never plan on using it.
You are completely right, what the people at t-nation did with regards to your post was ridiculous. It goes to show that readers should be skeptical when reading an article from their site when it may actually just be a advertisement. It brings up some serious questions to their integrity.
My only thought is that you may be letting your frustrations towards t-nation shape your reports on the bio-chemstry and physiological effects of insulin, fructose, and the proteins you mentioned. No disrespect, but I found your reports to be exaggerated for choc. milk and diminishing of the better possible post workout nutrition practices.
As strange as it sounds, you are in a position of authority. A lot of people really listen to what you say and take as fact without doing any actual research (i.e. reading the journals).
I really hope you aren’t letting your own frustrations manipulate you into spreading what you know to be false info.
I suggest readers/lifters who are interested in the discussion of carb, protein, and insulin nutrition to checkout “Nutrient Timing” by John Ivy Ph.D and Robert Portman Ph.D.
I found it to be an excellent read.
I am just a med student with no affiliations to either author.
Here is a link to the entire book if you don’t want to spend the loot.
http://books.google.com/books?id=04GJNEwE6zMC&dq=nutrient+timing&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=nj0Hnd7n6p&sig=P7HihQKlXSPjpPmpEbj7U56S0aA&hl=en&ei=TZXCSuDqLtCnlAfW2aXIBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false
For anyone who really wants the info and make up their own mind, check it out.
Alan,
In the above article you claim that whey isolate is superior to hydrolysate, however take a look at the study below recovery following resistance training was better with hydrolysate than whey isolate
‘Supplementation with a whey protein hydrolysate enhances recovery
of muscle force-generating capacity following eccentric exercise’ Buckley et al (2008)
Also what is your opinion on this study where those supplementing with 1.5g/kg whey hydrolysate gained 5kg of muscle mass compared to those supplementing with 1.5g/kg caesin who gained only 0.8kg muscle and had much less strength gain.
Cribb et al 2006, The Effect of Whey Isolate and Resistance
Training on Strength, Body Composition,
and Plasma Glutamine
Tom,
I’ve let Alan know about your comment since this is his baby.
Quick question, do you believe that trainees gained 12 lbs muscle in 10 weeks? Ever seen it happen? If not, do you think the results of the 2006 Cribb study are valid?
As well, other studies find exactly opposite results.
Lyle
Joe — Do me a favor, go to the references in Ivy & Portman’s book (p. 195), and post a single reference that refutes what I discussed in the article, or in the following discussion. I recommend that you re-read my article more carefully, and read all of my posts in the discussion here. You’ll find that my stance on these issues is not mere opinion, but supported by research. Portman & Ivy’s recommendations are based on research done on fasted trainees put through glycogen depletion protocols. Why people have such strong earmuffs about this is beyond me.
Tom — Unfortunately, that trial you cited is victim to the majority of the hydrolysate vs intact whey studies: they measure acute (immediate) effects, rather than long-term effects. Further, using peak isometric torque as a performance endpoint leaves actual field results open to speculation. Thus far, a case can’t be made for forking out the extra $$ for hydrolysate over intact protein based on the scant conflicting evidence currently available. The latest trial on this subject, to my knowledge, is by Tang et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19589961) showing WPH outperforming casein & soy isolate. While this can be viewed as another feather in the cap of the WPH campaign, once again, it’s an acute-effect study that doesn’t directly compare what we’re discussing – intact isolates vs their peptide fragments.
If you’re trying to make the general case that faster is better using acute trials, you’ll have to factor in the results of La Croix et al, Boirie et al, and Dangin et al, and DeGlaire et al — all showing the inferiority of the “faster” and/or hydrolysate comparators.
Finally, citing the Cribb study tells me that you need to read my article a little closer, because I address it and reference it (ref #12). To quote myself:
“Thus far in the scientific literature, comparisons of casein-dominant proteins with whey for sports applications are evenly split. Some studies show casein as superior (in spite of a higher leucine content in the whey treatments) [9,10], while others point to whey as the victor [11,12]. The only certainty is that it can’t be assumed that faster is better when it comes to promoting net anabolism.”
PS – I forgot to include Farnfield et al to the list of acute-effect trials showing that hydrolysates are not suprior to intact isolates: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18608553
Alan,
Thanks for your reply, i agree assessing isometric or isokinetic torque is not a very applicable way of assessing functional performance, however if whey hydro does offer a fast recovery of muscle function ie hours, then supplementing with it after exercise maybe useful to athletes who perform more than one training session in a day ie rowers / triathletes (commonly train 3x daily). Of course more findings are needed to support this.
Do you know of any study which has directly compared the effects of milk / chocolate milk Vs whey isolate / hydro on recovery from exercise?
Thanks in advance
Tom — Take into consideration the possible commercial influences on the outcomes. You shouldn’t dismiss them completely on these grounds, but you shouldn’t ignore the potential for bias. The Bukley paper you cited was funded by the makers of the products compared (Natraboost vs Natrapro, by MG Nutritionals), with the the hydrolysate having the higher profit margin than the isolate. A similar setup was the case with the Cribb study, which was funded by AST, and tested their own whey hydrolysate product (VP2).
And, no I’m not aware of research directly comparing the effects of of milk/chocolate milk vs whey isolate/hydro on recovery from exercis.
While I’m generally more towards the “Whey Isolate + Dextrose + Maltodextrin” end of the spectrum on this issue, this was a very good article and I’m somewhat alarmed at the dogmatism (and accompanying inability to cite) on the part of some of its detractors in the comments section.
However, the article (from ABCBodybuilding.com, for better or for worse) that my position is based on strongly recommends that to optimize the effects of the post-workout shake, one ingest roughly half of it very quickly following exercise and taper the remainder out for the following 45-60 minutes to allow for a steady nutrient release. It seems as though this (if the hypothesis that it works is correct), if combined with another meal shortly afterward (perhaps one containing a casein source such as milk), would negate the advantages of milk over said shake for the early post-workout period.
I should probably clarify some stuff about my experience on the issue, since addressing these would also be helpful:
1) I’ve generally heard that fructose (and thereby sucrose) post-workout would be inferior compared to a dextrose+maltodextrin mix because fructose competes with glucose for GI uptake and doesn’t produce as great an insulin spike, thereby reducing its (theoretical) effectiveness in promoting muscle protein uptake. The Glucose+Maltodextrin combination is used because it (if I remember correctly) changes the concentration gradient to further promote glucose uptake by the GI tract and/or muscle cells.
2) The same sources have argued that casein would be inferior to whey isolate (which to my knowledge is regarded as the gold standard of whey) in the short term because casein takes significantly longer to absorb, implying that the short-term advantages of whey, if properly exploited, would overtake it.
I was wondering about your thoughts on this and whether or not you know of any research that has been done on the tapering protocol.
—
I’d also like to say that the entire post-workout period seems to be criminally neglected by the people conducting the studies, and that this annoys me (perhaps somewhat unjustly, given that micromanaging past a certain point is probably fruitless).
I just bought a 500ml carton of “premade” milk at a local convenience store. Cost was $1.89 (CDN) no tax as it’s a grocery item. $0.89 (us) per serving – cold – fresh – pre-mixed and available in every corner store.
Sure … I guess that compared to buying 96oz of chocolate syrup and mixing my own I’m losing out on $0.08 per serving … but hey! that’s the cost of convenience right?
In my opinion, recovery drink mixes still lag behind when compared to the simple paper carton milk-box.
A fantastic summary though – thanks for this.
Something that also may be of interest to you (and possibly alluded to in some of the comments) is the recent studies that have found that Dairy Calcium specifically has a chemical property which makes it chemically bind to fats in your gut to form an “indigestible soap-like substance” which is then excreted rather than absorbed.
Meaning milk helps prevent the absorption of fat (contributing to the gains in lean body mass).
Three cheers for chockie-moo-moo! Hip hip!
“Chocolate milk by the half gallon (64oz, or about 2000 ml) is approximately $3.00 USD. Sticking with our 340 kcal figure, this yields 3.7 servings, which boils down to $0.81 per serving. A tub of Surge costs $36.00 and yields 16 servings (3 scoops, 340 kcals per serving). This boils down to $2.25 per serving. That’s 277% more expensive than chocolate milk.”
Your math is off. It’s 177% more expensive than chocolate milk.
Posted by Joe:
“Here is a link to the entire book if you don’t want to spend the loot.”
What a tease. It’s not the entire book. Google books rarely gives away the entire book for free. Just when the book is about to get into the important stuff (incorporating nutrient timing into your training), the book preview ends. The preview is the first 80 pages, but the entire book is 224 pages.
Alan,
Some questions. I’m not a bodybuilder. Just a broken down old jock and coach trying to give his son good advice for his football strength workouts.
1) It would appear that you feel whey does not provide any advantage over milk in equivalent quantities of protein. Is that correct? I have a son whose buddy on the HS football team has convinced him he needs to buy the whey powder because it is supposed to be of better quality. He’s always complaining about the taste and I keep telling to drink skim milk (we’ve always used skim milk in the house and he drinks a lot).
2) About ten years ago I read a book by Bob Arnot in which he discussed some of Dr Ivy’s research from the early 90s at Texas. Arnot advised consuming 1 g of protein per 5lbs of body weight and 1 g of simple sugar carbs per 2 lbs of body weight within 30 mins of finishing the workout. Looking around my kitchen, skim milk and gatorade (separately) looked like an easy way to get it done. So at 240 lbs, I’d bring along a quart and a half of skim milk and a 20oz bottle of gatorade when I went to lift. The numbers worked out pretty close.
I’ve lifted off and on to stay in shape ever since I retired, but never in an effort to get real big (I’m 6-4 and played WR in football and OF in baseball). I decided to try to get in 4 good workouts of 45 min each week (in a split routine) while sipping the skim milk and gatorade during and after each workout. Immediately, I noticed that I was a lot less sore. I was about 45 yrs old. Within two months, I was benching more than I ever had. I was seeing noticeable gains in my arms and chest. My wife asked me to stop, however, because she didn’t like a look she thought was too bulky.
This was so easy. Just take a couple sips of skim milk and a sip of gatorade every so often and finish it all off at the end of the workout. And it obviously worked.
So — would you endorse that for my 16 yr old son? Or make changes in the quantities, etc.?
Thanks for your help.
Stan
1. Milk is actually a mix of whey and casein proteins (in a roughly 20/80 ratio of whey/casein). Part of why milk has always been good for growth. Interesting, some work has shown that higher fat milk is more anabolic than skim. Your son is growing and needs calories, get him 2%.
2. The potential issue with milk is that, if you need a LOT of calories, quantities can be daunting. But the ratios are good in terms of protein/carbs and it can certainly work assuming it can be digested (the other potentially major drawback of milk is intolerance).
There’s a research review on the site about Milk as teh New Sports Drink that addresses similar issues to Alan’s review. In short, milk following practice would be an excellent way for your son to rehydrate, get protein and carbs, calcium, etc. Cheaper and as effective as overpriced supplements.
Lactose?
Well, I got news for you, many people cant digest lactose, for many milk isnt an option.
High Fructose Corn Sweatener, that should be avoided all together.
The cholesterol means nothing as all sex hormones are made from cholesterol, including testosterone.
If one wants to drink milk it whould be whole milk anyway, like it was ment to be.
No kidding some can’t digest lactose. Irrelevant to this article.
And HFCS not the devil. It’s no different than sucrose. So that’s wrong.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/straight-talk-about-high-fructose-corn-syrup-what-it-is-and-what-it-aint-research-review.html
That would hold true providing that too much corn can skew the ratio of of Omega 6 to Omega 3 in the diet.
Excess AA in the diet is pro-inflammation.
Any person that thinks this is acceptable in the diet is sadly mistaken.
This in theory can promote insulin resistance.
Simple sugars should be avoided anyway, along with processed carbohydrates.
There is not an arguement against that to warrent its use.
Simple sugars should be avoided, eating whole foods offers much better benefits and nutritional profiles along with lower glycemic loading.
Anyone that feels simple sugars are acceptable for a daily portion of the diet is clueless.
This arguement is not solid in both areas.
Nothing wrong with mowing down a steak, and some sweat potatoe.
If lactose is not tollerant with many people how come this isnt part of the arguement?
Lets say 30% of people cant digest lactose then how can any arguement support those that are in the 30% range?
I’m sorry, I just dont get the math.
If approx 50% of the people are insulin resistant (not post workout) how can anyone push simple sugars PWO?
Both sides are flawed, and HFCS is maddness defending that one, just like simple sugars are madness in any healthy diet.
The Double Danger of High Fructose Corn Syrup.
http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/highfructose.html
Lysl oxidase is a copper-dependent enzyme that participates in the formation of collagen and elastin. Fructose seems to interfere with copper metabolism to such an extent that collagen and elastin cannot form in growing animals.
Snip
In the past, fructose was considered beneficial to diabetics because it is absorbed only 40 percent as quickly as glucose and causes only a modest rise in blood sugar.5 However, research on other hormonal factors suggests that fructose actually promotes disease more readily than glucose. Glucose is metabolized in every cell in the body but all fructose must be metabolized in the liver.6 The livers of test animals fed large amounts of fructose develop fatty deposits and cirrhosis, similar to problems that develop in the livers of alcoholics.
So, it is diffrent than sugar.
Both should be avoided in my opinion.
What if instead of using chocolate milk I buy my own lactose free milk and add a scoop of Nestlé’s Nesquik or a similar powder to turn milk into chocolate milk?
There is nothing magic about the ‘chocolate’ part of milk.
Not so much to comment on the article (besides that the Norwegian College of Athletics – Idrettshøyskolen, has released numerous articles presenting cientific backing for claims that milk indeed is a terriffic nutrient for athletes, both while training and the rest of the time too).
I would like to mention that T-nation looked very promising when I first found it, but soon I found the very american marketing distasteful. By american marketing I mean claims that are outragous and with no founding in reality. In Europe such marketing are seldom used, as it commonly backfires when it is ridiculed by media, consumer organisations and others.
However, the site contain some interesting articles on muscle building that does not pretend that steroids does not exist. Most “serious” sites have a strict “we do not discuss steroids” policy. Do you know of any good ones that don’t?
Great article. Point made, proven, and will be heeded. All I’m left wondering now is that, if cow’s milk is so effective for post-exercise, then would unpasteurized human milk be even more so? Less protein but more carbs, and packed with enzymes and nutrients of high bioavailability. Scoop of whey into some breastmilk anyone?
I have been bodybuilding since I was 16. Now 53 and still going! So much bullshit has been written about food and supplements. Mainly by companies trying to selling the magic powder. Not only have I trained for years , I have also studied nutrition for nearly the same amount of years. What have I learnt? 99% of the people on this planet do not eat right!
Milk you say, better than surge! Well it is! But do I drink milk? No fear, -Visit http://www.notmilk.com – And there are plenty of other sites similar. That would go for any milk product. – cheese, yoghurt etc.
If you want a better diet all round, try and eat as much raw food as you can. My protein comes from raw eggs, nuts seeds and plant form. Yes I do like a roast dinner with meat, because I love it! But meat, I eat perhaps, 2 times a week, if that! I weight nearly 200 pounds at 5′ 11” . I only eat about 50 – 70 grams of protein a day! And it works!! No more 1grm for each 1lb of bodyweight bullshit, gave that up years ago
My growth has not been affected by dumping all the supplements years ago. Mugs we are until you read real science, not Mr Magoo paid by some vit company.
Wish you all well, read science not bodybuilding mags !!!
does it have to be chocolate milk? can it be honey mixed into milk? i’m assuming the only thing you are getting from the chocolate is the sugar.. right?
The fructose thing in your PWM is a new thing for me, but your argument sounds very logical. But you never mentioned quantity? Absolute or as a percentage of total CHO?
What about creatine and chocolate milk? Is it possible to drink water with creatine followed by a chocolate milk? Or will the casein in the milk interfere with the absorption of creatine, so that it will transfer into creatinine?
cheers
This is a great post and i have since switched to chocolate milk post workout because i am so sick of all the bullshit science and over thinking about whey,caesin,BCAA,creatine i just don’t give a shit anymore and i am angry at having wasted so much money on shit supplements because of unscrupulous comapany’s. look back to the early 40′s and 50′s guys like reg park built great bodies without protein powders and all the other crap just hard training and proper food
Once upon a time, “everyone knew” that the earth was flat… Great article!!!
Wow! Chocolate Milk?!? I don’t doubt it, and you have the numbers to back it up. No need for Surge. Tell me, my Uncle has been pushing me to drink Herbalife shakes after lifting and I have hesitated (because of the cost). Do you think its a better solution then chocolate milk?
I think there is something fishy with the chocolate milk study. Pacific Labs (which makes R4) sites 8 different studies comparing R4 to Gatorade post workout – with R4 coming on top (of course). The fact that Gatorade came out better than R4 seems odd. How does the fact that R4 contain maltodextrin make a difference? The main ingredient is Dextrose (followed by Whey). And Gatorade has since some out with there own post workout drink containing whey. I think the science in the chocolate milk study was manipulated to make the milk come out on top.
And now milk companies are capitalizing with a series of “Got Chocolate Milk” commercials featuring pro triathletes: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/story/2012-03-07/adult-chocolate-milk/53405990/1