Sport Chocolate Milk

Sport Fitness
J

jewfro18

0
I know I've started a thread before on Chocolate Milk being good for you, but I just came across an article that claims the same thing also. However, I had one question about the article...



Towards the end of the article it says: "Researchers have determined that the ideal protein load for building muscle is 10 to 20 grams, half before and half after your workout"

Does that mean once you go over that amount you're starting to do yourself less good? I feel like most protein shakes have way more than 10-20 grams of protein, and it's usually all taken after (or before) your workout.

Thanks for any input..
 
I know I've started a thread before on Chocolate Milk being good for you, but I just came across an article that claims the same thing also. However, I had one question about the article...



Towards the end of the article it says: "Researchers have determined that the ideal protein load for building muscle is 10 to 20 grams, half before and half after your workout"

Does that mean once you go over that amount you're starting to do yourself less good? I feel like most protein shakes have way more than 10-20 grams of protein, and it's usually all taken after (or before) your workout.

Thanks for any input..

p.s. I put this thread in the supplements section also, but more people seem to come here..sorry
 
There is a paper which found 20g post exercise stimulated MPS maximally, I'd like to wait for more studies before I jump on that, though. Research needs to go through the falsification process before you can really accept it.

Heard nothing in the research of half before and half after, though.
 
Isn't chocolate milk filled with High GI, processed sugars? Don't get me wrong, Chocolate milks is bloody delicious, but when are simple carbs good for you.... even when paired will low fat milk?

I don't claim to know a lot about choco-milk, I'm thinking out loud. Have you seen that video with Jamie Oliver where he shows how much sugar is consumed just from chocolate milk? I think it's on ted.com
 
I'd imagine they work on the results from a group of people and probably found that the optimum results were given by those who consumed the said amount of protein, it may have been that more people got results from consuming 10-20g then any other amount on average or that the results from a whole group where people ate a range of protein before a workout and those that ate 10-20grams showed better results.

Either way I'd say its hard to be conclusive- how were the tests carried out and how do they know that those eating that amount of protein didn't normally eat more or less or the same otherwise, surely the difference would affect the workout, and how do they know that individual circumstances didn't interfere- say not having had enough sleep the week before, being overly stressed by some bad news or just having an off day, how do they know this didn't also interfere...?

There are just too many questions for me to trust that study.

But if its any help, and if the results were more able to be trusted, I'd say it would just mean "for optimum results" meaning if you ate more then 20 or less then 10 you'd not be harming yourself but you'd not be eating the right amount for optimum results.

Just go on what works for you, some may prefer less others prefer more, some are bigger then others, others v.tiny, its what works for you, not mr average.
 
It's saying that the 'optimal' point would be that number, meaning to get the most out of the least. Obviously more is better, but it's diminishing returns.

Also, please don't double post we read ALL threads.
 
My bad, I just couldnt figure out how to delete the first one, and it seemed like more people visit this section, especially considering I got a response here first

thanks for the input though..
 
jessejamesricha said:
Isn't chocolate milk filled with High GI, processed sugars? Don't get me wrong, Chocolate milks is bloody delicious, but when are simple carbs good for you.... even when paired will low fat milk?

I don't claim to know a lot about choco-milk, I'm thinking out loud. Have you seen that video with Jamie Oliver where he shows how much sugar is consumed just from chocolate milk? I think it's on ted.com
Click to expand...

I think the OP is just talking about post work out, where simple sugars aren't as bad since the muscles and liver are craving it to start resynthesizing glycogen.
 
jessejamesricha said:
Isn't chocolate milk filled with High GI, processed sugars? Don't get me wrong, Chocolate milks is bloody delicious, but when are simple carbs good for you.... even when paired will low fat milk?

I don't claim to know a lot about choco-milk, I'm thinking out loud. Have you seen that video with Jamie Oliver where he shows how much sugar is consumed just from chocolate milk? I think it's on ted.com
Click to expand...

The relatively high amount of protein actually helps counter the possible craving caused by the influx of simple sugars. You could look at it like a snack combo of fruits and nuts (excepting for the fact that the non-natural chocolate syrup isn't high on nutrients like fruit is).

Also, while Jamie Oliver is correct in terms of pre-packaged chocolate milk, there is typically a very high sugar content, but if you add the syrup yourself, you can limit the caloric/sugar intake while still benefiting from the chocolate milk.
 
The study mentioned compared hormonal effect and muscle repair/growth of a control group, a 20 gram PWO group, and a 40 gram PWO group. There was no difference between 20 and 40 grams of in tact protein PWO and the study seemed well put together. I'll post a link when I get home, but it does lend some fuel to what dieticians have been telling meatheads for years- .8 grams of protein per pound of lean body weight is sufficient for growth and people who rely on ridiculous 40/40/20 macro splits are not benefiting themselves over something more reasonable. Remember- the ACSM advises only 15% of calories come from protein for people engaged in strenuous weight training.
 
Yeah, I've read that study. Doesn't really give us anything on how much protein we need. Just that for people who trained lower body only with moderate volume don't need more than 20g of protein to maximally stimulate protein synthesis. This doesn't say anything about how much we need outside of training to stimulate MPS maximally, it doesn't say how much we need if we did a higher volume or more body parts.

Not to mention long term data going against the whole "the body can only use x amount of protein in a meal". Intermittent fasting and protein pulse feeding where almost all of the protein is delivered in one meal not showing more muscle loss than a control group. If they got all their protein in one meal (way more than 20g) then according to this study, the rest would go to waste? Then how did they have the same muscle retention as those on a normal diet? In older people, it's actually better muscle retention.

We need a LOT more research on the dose response of MPS to different quantities of dietary protein before we can draw any conclusions. So before that happens, I'm sticking to the nitrogen balance studies supplemented with tracers to recommend protein intakes.
 
My argument wasn't about how much we can use, but how much we actually need. Totally different concept there. And the long term data from most dieticians, nutritionists, ACE and the ACSM is under a gram per pound of body weight, or around 15% of total calories. For those interested, this is the article from Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;89(1):161-8. Epub 2008 Dec 3. "Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men." You can read the abstract at the link below, but to summarize, their conclusion was:

"CONCLUSIONS: Ingestion of 20 g intact protein is sufficient to maximally stimulate MPS (response of muscle) and APS (albumin protein synthesis) after resistance exercise."



At least one other source indicates that actual protein consumption is somewhat meaningless, and that "Athletes who want to try supplementation should consume about 0.1 gram of essential amino acids per kilogram of body weight."
(Wolfe, R.R. 2000. Protein supplements and exercise. Am. J. Clin.
Nutr. 72: 551S-557S.)
 
At least one other source indicates that actual protein consumption is somewhat meaningless said:
This is interesting. Question for you though. I figured I might as well try this, it can't hurt right? (except maybe my bank account). But, I figured I would have to take around 7,000 mg/day of each essential amino acid based on my body weight. Is there a supplement that his this much of each EAA? I couldn't find one. And also, would it make sense to take it after my workout(I'm assuming so)?

Thanks for any input
Click to expand...
 
IWalkAlone said:
My argument wasn't about how much we can use, but how much we actually need. Totally different concept there. And the long term data from most dieticians, nutritionists, ACE and the ACSM is under a gram per pound of body weight, or around 15% of total calories. For those interested, this is the article from Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;89(1):161-8. Epub 2008 Dec 3. "Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men." You can read the abstract at the link below, but to summarize, their conclusion was:

"CONCLUSIONS: Ingestion of 20 g intact protein is sufficient to maximally stimulate MPS (response of muscle) and APS (albumin protein synthesis) after resistance exercise."



At least one other source indicates that actual protein consumption is somewhat meaningless, and that "Athletes who want to try supplementation should consume about 0.1 gram of essential amino acids per kilogram of body weight."
(Wolfe, R.R. 2000. Protein supplements and exercise. Am. J. Clin.
Nutr. 72: 551S-557S.)
Click to expand...

Where in Wolfe's paper is that quote from? I can't find it. (searching didn't pick it up)

You think protein consumption is meaningless? care to specify a bit more?
 
No no let me clarify. I don't think it meaningless at all. I DO think too much emphasis is put on it by general meatheads who believe that in order to grow they need 2-3 grams of protein per pound of body weight, or that you can't gain muscle unless you are on a ridiculous 40/40/20 split. I was only pointing out the article to emphasize that protein consumption is not the end-all, be-all that some people make it out to be. I hear from people daily who say to me, "I'm getting like 300 grams of protein every day. Why aren't I growing?" When I tell them the importance of carbs and total calories, they look at me like I'm nuts.
 
Yeah, couldn't agree more. 3g per lbs of BW is pretty insane.. I'd be eating over 600grams of protein!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top