Whey Protein Shake vs Actual Food

**thex95** · 12-05-2012, 07:17 PM

just curious to see what everyone on here seems to think the advantages of eating an actual food (ie chicken breast) as opposed to consuming a whey shake are?

If you believe you are missing out on certain things such as BCAA’s, zinc ect would it be just as beneficial to supplement with those and take in the shake as it would be to eat an actual food source?

Thanks

**kronik420** · 12-05-2012, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by thex95

just curious to see what everyone on here seems to think the advantages of eating an actual food (ie chicken breast) as opposed to consuming a whey shake are?

If you believe you are missing out on certain things such as BCAA’s, zinc ect would it be just as beneficial to supplement with those and take in the shake as it would be to eat an actual food source?

Thanks

drinking protein shakes and not eating real food CANNOT be good for you...

protein shakes originally came out as meal replacements for people trying to loose weight, i highly doubt you can gain off of just protein shakes...

**thex95** · 12-05-2012, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by kronik420

drinking protein shakes and not eating real food CANNOT be good for you...

protein shakes originally came out as meal replacements for people trying to loose weight, i highly doubt you can gain off of just protein shakes...

I probably should have been more specific and I sound like a noob for my lack of detail. I am not talking about using whey protein for all sources of protein. Currently I am trying for 415 grams of protein daily, to get there I am eating 16 egg whites in the morning, 2 large chicken breasts, and a can of tuna. Even with that I fall short so to meet the goal I use whey protein to hit the 425 g of protein mark.Everyone on here seems to think that whole food is better than shakes in all instances, just wondering if anyone can back it up with actual information not just regurgitating commonly passed information.

**kronik420** · 12-05-2012, 08:30 PM

415g of protein.. that's alot, why so much?

**Armykid93** · 12-05-2012, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by thex95

I probably should have been more specific and I sound like a noob for my lack of detail. I am not talking about using whey protein for all sources of protein. Currently I am trying for 415 grams of protein daily, to get there I am eating 16 egg whites in the morning, 2 large chicken breasts, and a can of tuna. Even with that I fall short so to meet the goal I use whey protein to hit the 425 g of protein mark.Everyone on here seems to think that whole food is better than shakes in all instances, just wondering if anyone can back it up with actual information not just regurgitating commonly passed information.

Post your entire diet. Is the majority of protein coming from real food? If so then filling in gaps with shakes is fine.

**thex95** · 12-05-2012, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by kronik420

415g of protein.. that's alot, why so much?

I will start another thread with my diet and macros, hoping to just keep this one on track with reference to the original question. Thanks bro

**thex95** · 12-05-2012, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by Armykid93

Post your entire diet. Is the majority of protein coming from real food? If so then filling in gaps with shakes is fine.

I have my diet posted in recent threads. Just stick to your opinion on the original question if you dont mind. Thanks

**falco21** · 12-05-2012, 08:59 PM

The entire purpose of a protein shake is to substitute the real food for something quick, easy, and convenient.

If there is any chance in hell that you could down a high protein meal, than put down the shakes. Nothing beats actual food

**likelifting** · 12-05-2012, 09:01 PM

Protein shakes help me lose weight. I'm not sure why but they do. They are my last meal of the night. Ingredients...Water, protein powder, banana, spinach. Last ingred is usually olive oil or peanut butter. I'm completely satisified going to bed and wake up feeling thin. But I have dropped bf in the process.

Hope that wasn't a thread derail.

**thex95** · 12-05-2012, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by falco21

The entire purpose of a protein shake is to substitute the real food for something quick, easy, and convenient.

If there is any chance in hell that you could down a high protein meal, than put down the shakes. Nothing beats actual food

WHY?!?! Lol I know everyone on here wants to just say food is always better than shakes but no one here appears to be able to back this statement up with any actual statistics, numbers, information, data, relevant facts, case studies, ect.

**likelifting** · 12-05-2012, 09:04 PM

Shakes taste better to me than a low this and low that meal. Chicken breast with broccoli only goes so far with me. Or a can of tuna and kidney beans. I'm not saying shakes exclusively, but love them for the last meal of the day.

**falco21** · 12-05-2012, 09:05 PM

Let me elaborate a little for ya:

Your original post has some truth in it. Protein powder does not contain all the essential nutrients found in real food. As for amino acids, yes, whey protein does contain the same amino acids found in some real sources of protein, but does the powder contain the calcium found in say milk or any other form of protein? If you do in fact choose to use just shakes, then your best bet would be to supplement the other nutrients the shake lacks.

Now, I am not stating that protein shakes are shit and should never be used, but real whole food has a great benefit over the shakes. Mix 'em both together. Nothing wrong with that at all. I would just highly recommend not just pounding down shakes as your only source of protein.

**falco21** · 12-05-2012, 09:14 PM

If you're looking for studies, there are quite a number of them written in various medical journals that you could look into. One that I remember and have seen quite often was the testing of over 15 different branded types of protein powder. All of which contain 4 different heavy metals. Some examples listed were:

Eas Myoplex (Arsenic, Cadmium)
Muscle Milk-Chocolate (Cadmium, Lead)
Muscle Milk-Vanilla (Lead)

The article then went on to show that drinking solely protein powders as a means of reaching your protein intake could in fact cause long term health conditions.

**likelifting** · 12-05-2012, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by falco21

If you're looking for studies, there are quite a number of them written in various medical journals that you could look into. One that I remember and have seen quite often was the testing of over 15 different branded types of protein powder. All of which contain 4 different heavy metals. Some examples listed were:

Eas Myoplex (Arsenic, Cadmium)
Muscle Milk-Chocolate (Cadmium, Lead)
Muscle Milk-Vanilla (Lead)

The article then went on to show that drinking solely protein powders as a means of reaching your protein intake could in fact cause long term health conditions.

I've seen/read things similar to this. I agree that shakes solely for your only source of calories in a day, isn't healthy.

**thex95** · 12-05-2012, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by falco21

If you're looking for studies, there are quite a number of them written in various medical journals that you could look into. One that I remember and have seen quite often was the testing of over 15 different branded types of protein powder. All of which contain 4 different heavy metals. Some examples listed were:

Eas Myoplex (Arsenic, Cadmium)
Muscle Milk-Chocolate (Cadmium, Lead)
Muscle Milk-Vanilla (Lead)

The article then went on to show that drinking solely protein powders as a means of reaching your protein intake could in fact cause long term health conditions.

so is the general agreement that drinking protein shakes is simply "bad for you"? are their any specifics of the extent to which these shakes cause long term health conditions, or the correlation between the intake of shakes and long term health conditions?

Does this also mean that taking shakes instead of food has no affect on gains either?

**kronik420** · 12-06-2012, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by thex95

so is the general agreement that drinking protein shakes is simply "bad for you"? are their any specifics of the extent to which these shakes cause long term health conditions, or the correlation between the intake of shakes and long term health conditions?

Does this also mean that taking shakes instead of food has no affect on gains either?

do an experiment, eat nothing except for protein shakes for a week or 2 and see what happens.. see how you feel.. see if you gain/loose weight/muscle...

i couldn't live off of just shakes, i like food

**falco21** · 12-06-2012, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by thex95

so is the general agreement that drinking protein shakes is simply "bad for you"? are their any specifics of the extent to which these shakes cause long term health conditions, or the correlation between the intake of shakes and long term health conditions?

Does this also mean that taking shakes instead of food has no affect on gains either?

Nowhere in there did I state that drinking protein shakes is "bad for you". What I was stating was that if one solely lives off protein shakes, they could in fact cause a negative outcome rather than that of a positive one. Protein shakes, just like any other food known to man, when given in the wrong hands, can be turned into something that could be "dangerous" to our health. Hell, all of us shouldn't be eating any Tuna if we listen to that bullshit. I am just pointing to a study that showed the bad ingredients found in these shakes. Minimal, yes, but still there.

Let me quote myself from that reply: "The article then went on to show that drinking SOLELY protein powders as a means of reaching your protein intake could in fact cause long term health conditions."

Again, the study showed if you drink just shakes alone, it COULD possibly have negative effects on your health.

**thex95** · 12-06-2012, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by kronik420

do an experiment, eat nothing except for protein shakes for a week or 2 and see what happens.. see how you feel.. see if you gain/loose weight/muscle...

i couldn't live off of just shakes, i like food

AGAIN, I am not talking about using soley protein shakes as a protein source so your post is irrelevant

**thex95** · 12-06-2012, 08:38 AM

alright so it seems no one has any actual solid evidence of why it is so much more beneficial to eat food instead of taking in protein shakes. Just a bunch of general assumptions and the passage of previously issued knowledge without any critical thought on the matter.

**falco21** · 12-06-2012, 09:19 AM

I just referenced a study found in medical journals that show how protein shakes can in fact be "bad" for you as opposed to eating real food. Obviously, the conlcusion is that substituting protein powder for real food can't be something beneficial, according to that study. If you are so keen on finding this answer, then research it yourself and read LOL You want everyone else to show you studies, why can't you go read them on your own?

But here, let me help you. Don't forget to click on the Scholarly Articles link

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=medical+journal...in+supplements

**thex95** · 12-06-2012, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by falco21

I just referenced a study found in medical journals that show how protein shakes can in fact be "bad" for you as opposed to eating real food. Obviously, the conlcusion is that substituting protein powder for real food can't be something beneficial, according to that study. If you are so keen on finding this answer, then research it yourself and read LOL You want everyone else to show you studies, why can't you go read them on your own?

But here, let me help you. Don't forget to click on the Scholarly Articles link

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=medical+journal...in+supplements

Ya I have access to a university medical article database as well. I know I am coming off as abrasive however I am just tired of people on here spewing out information that they don't have solid facts to back up with. I would say well over 90% of people on the forum want to say never substitute food for shakes however NO ONE can give a definitive reason as to why. People can just be perpetuating long existing norms that could in fact be completely false.

**falco21** · 12-06-2012, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by thex95

Ya I have access to a university medical article database as well. I know I am coming off as abrasive however I am just tired of people on here spewing out information that they don't have solid facts to back up with. I would say well over 90% of people on the forum want to say never substitute food for shakes however NO ONE can give a definitive reason as to why. People can just be perpetuating long existing norms that could in fact be completely false.

That's the answer for EVERYTHING medical. You are beating a dead horse that NO ONE has a definitive answer for. This is an ongoing debate that will last for centuries. Some will say go for it, while others will say no. Studies will show it is not beneficial for you, while others will say it is. The same goes for anything revolved around studies. From medical to the reasons criminals commit crimes. Studies show there is a link with genes and criime during childhood, while criminologists will show you there is no link with genes and have studies to prove it. So who's right?

There is no definitive answer and there never will be. You do what you feel is right. If you don't want to eat regular whole food, then don't. If you don't want to touch artificial sweetener's, then don't. No one is stopping you nor can give you a proven answer as to why. There will always be a counter to that proof that in fact, proves the polar opposite.

**thex95** · 12-06-2012, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by falco21

That's the answer for EVERYTHING medical. You are beating a dead horse that NO ONE has a definitive answer for. This is an ongoing debate that will last for centuries. Some will say go for it, while others will say no. Studies will show it is not beneficial for you, while others will say it is. The same goes for anything revolved around studies. From medical to the reasons criminals commit crimes. Studies show there is a link with genes and criime during childhood, while criminologists will show you there is no link with genes and have studies to prove it. So who's right?

There is no definitive answer and there never will be. You do what you feel is right. If you don't want to eat regular whole food, then don't. If you don't want to touch artificial sweetener's, then don't. No one is stopping you nor can give you a proven answer as to why. There will always be a counter to that proof that in fact, proves the polar opposite.

Thats interesting as no-one including yourself has provided any substantial evidence with regards to a counter argument as to why it is so much more beneficial to eat food vs drink in a shake. If you just live your life in blissful ignorance then I could see your point. Really if you just take everything your told at face value and never critically analyse the reason as to why a piece of information is being passed on then yes you could just assume that their is a reason to take in food instead of shakes. However this type of thinking has passed on useless knowledge in the past and it will continue to do so in the future. For example how long did people just accept it was extremely beneficial to consume a post workout shake immediately after a workout until it was more or less proven that it did not make much of a difference at all when you consumed a shake.

**falco21** · 12-06-2012, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by thex95

Thats interesting as no-one including yourself has provided any substantial evidence with regards to a counter argument as to why it is so much more beneficial to eat food vs drink in a shake. If you just live your life in blissful ignorance then I could see your point. Really if you just take everything your told at face value and never critically analyse the reason as to why a piece of information is being passed on then yes you could just assume that their is a reason to take in food instead of shakes. However this type of thinking has passed on useless knowledge in the past and it will continue to do so in the future. For example how long did people just accept it was extremely beneficial to consume a post workout shake immediately after a workout until it was more or less proven that it did not make much of a difference at all when you consumed a shake.

I give up LMAO

See ya

**sgt2jay** · 12-06-2012, 10:09 AM

dude is just looking to argue. i bet if you agreed with him he would make a pint on the opposite. good luck with this one

**bigsiv** · 12-06-2012, 10:10 AM

Wow guys chill out I thought this topic would have been fun lol

Now this is only based on what I have learnt over the years and that is we as human beings have evolved through eating other animals therefore our bodies have adapted to using the nutrients,fats, proteins etc for our own growth and efficiency. Evolution has taught us its ya as the top of the food chain for this very reason.

Your 'debates' about proteins are flawed any way protein whether it be from food or shakes when consumed in excess like body builders do is actually bad for the body. It ages the structural cells, increases bad cholesterol and a number of other problems.

If you want a bit of science about this watch the BBC documentary Horizon: eat,fast and

**bigsiv** · 12-06-2012, 10:12 AM

Eat, fast and live longer;

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...tMedilVyjqsJ8A

**thex95** · 12-06-2012, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by sgt2jay

dude is just looking to argue. i bet if you agreed with him he would make a pint on the opposite. good luck with this one

Originally Posted by falco21

I give up LMAO

See ya

hahaha people take everything so dam personally on here. All I was looking for was evidince that food were better than shakes. Multiple posts later, 0 answers on the subject however now I'm a huge asshole apparently who just likes to argue. If you go against the norm in this forum you get shit on its halarious. Well at least group think has not resulted in anything negative in the past,............. oh wait a second.

**human project** · 12-06-2012, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by thex95

just curious to see what everyone on here seems to think the advantages of eating an actual food (ie chicken breast) as opposed to consuming a whey shake are?

If you believe you are missing out on certain things such as BCAA’s, zinc ect would it be just as beneficial to supplement with those and take in the shake as it would be to eat an actual food source?

Thanks

Other then when im sick to my stomach and need to eat and post workout when I can't get to food immediately protein shakes are a waste of time.

**thex95** · 12-06-2012, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by bigsiv

Eat, fast and live longer;

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...tMedilVyjqsJ8A

thank ya

**bigsiv** · 12-06-2012, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by thex95

thank ya

Ya welcome, I don't think your an a******e lol it should have been a good debate. Watch that video has some great info on intermittent fasting as well.

**thex95** · 12-06-2012, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by human project

Other then when im sick to my stomach and need to eat and post workout when I can't get to food immediately protein shakes are a waste of time.

right,.......

so another statement with no evidence or even beliefs of reasons why your statement is valid.

Lets all try this;

statement----> supportive facts

just saying shakes are a waste of time is useless, anyone can make ridiculous statements.

For example;
planes dont need wings to fly
tree's can grow without sunlight
doing 4000 reps of no weight is just as good as 40 reps of weight
the square root of any weight you can lift times the number of reps you can do always equals your 1rm

Are any of these statements true?? NO They are just STATEMENTS without any supportive evidence or facts.

**thex95** · 12-06-2012, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by bigsiv

Ya welcome, I don't think your an a******e lol it should have been a good debate. Watch that video has some great info on intermittent fasting as well.

oh right on good stuff, looking for more info on that as well

**bigsiv** · 12-06-2012, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by thex95

right,.......

so another statement with no evidence or even beliefs of reasons why your statement is valid.

Lets all try this;

statement----> supportive facts

just saying shakes are a waste of time is useless, anyone can make ridiculous statements.

For example;
planes dont need wings to fly
tree's can grow without sunlight
doing 4000 reps of no weight is just as good as 40 reps of weight
the square root of any weight you can lift times the number of reps you can do always equals your 1rm

Are any of these statements true?? NO They are just STATEMENTS without any supportive evidence or facts.

I might have to take that last statement back about you being an ahole lol joking of course

**sgt2jay** · 12-06-2012, 10:26 AM

Maybe this will help. You are asking for pure facts from a forum that is mainly threads based off peoples expieriences and opinions. you will find it hard to get someone to say for a fact this is the best way. if you re read a lot of these post you will see "I like" "I Think" "I have Found" well you get the point.

good luck

**thex95** · 12-06-2012, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by bigsiv

I might have to take that last statement back about you being an ahole lol joking of course

ha their is a fine line between being an asshole and directly making a point

**human project** · 12-06-2012, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by thex95

right,.......

so another statement with no evidence or even beliefs of reasons why your statement is valid.

Lets all try this;

statement----> supportive facts

just saying shakes are a waste of time is useless, anyone can make ridiculous statements.

For example;
planes dont need wings to fly
tree's can grow without sunlight
doing 4000 reps of no weight is just as good as 40 reps of weight
the square root of any weight you can lift times the number of reps you can do always equals your 1rm

Are any of these statements true?? NO They are just STATEMENTS without any supportive evidence or facts.

The only fact I have is that I'm huge and ripped and this is what I do.

**bigsiv** · 12-06-2012, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by thex95

ha their is a fine line between being an asshole and directly making a point

Just be careful ya don't cross that line lol
Let me know what you think of the video I have anther thread about it Protein and intermittent fasting.

**Back In Black** · 12-06-2012, 10:43 AM

If you limit yourself to one protein source you are limiting yourself to whatever nutrients come from that source. A different array of amino's, vitamin, fat type, sugars (carbs) and phytonutrients/phytochemicals are all recommended by almost any health professional.

If you want to know the difference to you personally then, as suggested, do an experiment on yourself and have only shakes for a week or longer. I can almost guarantee you'll be hungrier. Will you notice any real difference in your physique? Probably not and maybe no difference in your health, short term. But long term there will be an element of malnourishment because you will not a full spectrum of nutrients as you would if you varied your protein sources.

Stick to whey only and you'll likely get hungry real quick too.

For the record, protein powders consist of about 20% of my protein intake!

**thex95** · 12-06-2012, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by human project

The only fact I have is that I'm huge and ripped and this is what I do.

I am going to assume you really are huge and ripped for sake of argument. Now lets look at what factors contribute to that; (their is more but this is a basic list)

genetics+overall calorie intake + macros + types of food you eat + NOT taking shakes but food + AAS + training + rest = huge and ripped

now you can see how altering the one variable of not taking shakes but food is only one part of the mix that makes you huge and ripped. The impact of taking in shakes instead of meats could be minuscule keeping all other variables the same if the correlation coefficient is small enough.

Claiming that "this works and I am proof" is literally the most fundamental flaw of any argument. You can NEVER claim that your state is a representation of an entire theory which would effect the entire population.

Not trying to be a dick, dont really care if I am being one but your point is so just invalid it pains me