Curious what you guys are using for a PWO fast carb source? I know all about the good slow stuff (oats, sweet potato, brown rice, etc) but whats good for fast carbs?
Senior Member
Curious what you guys are using for a PWO fast carb source? I know all about the good slow stuff (oats, sweet potato, brown rice, etc) but whats good for fast carbs?
Senior Member
Vitargo S2
VET
Waxy maize. BTW, if that's you in your avi, your back is sick.
Senior Member
yeah, hes a madman!!!!Originally Posted by Sgt. Hartman
Senior Member
Thats it guys. Feeed the ego. nom nom nom lol
AR's Diet Pimp! ~HOF~
Both good stuff. Vitargo can get pricey. Agreed, the back is sick.
Senior Member
Pull ups, bb rows, deads. In that order.
The Transformer ~VET~Recognized Staff Winner - $100
My favorite is Waxi
It clears my system super fast
Within 15-20 mins i feel like i could eat a real food meal again
This is of great benefit if u train in the evening and need to compress ur meals in the evening b4 u sleep
I like oats but they stay with me for too long, bloat me and i have to w8 longer b4 i can eat again
WMS is a good product IMO, it has little taste, a slightly chalky texture, but it goes into shakes very well
As soon as im gaining again it will be back in my diet for sure
Junior Member
banana
Junior Member
i have a couple bananas with my shake straight after gym only to get home and destroy some sweet potatoes or (if im poor that week) brown rice! With another protein source of course..
AR's Diet Pimp! ~HOF~
Bad choice.
Associate Member
I'll have a banana in my shake but its more for the extra calories & potassium. I'll count my oats as the helpful carb source.
GB, any thoughts to the carbs in skim milk? I believe they are simple carb but see it mentioned in spots as being beneficial pwo.
Transformation Challenge Trainer
I'd base PWO carbs more on what your goals are. My opinion varies from others here, bulking is all about the PWO insulin spike which is best done with simple carbs, but you stand a chance of some of them being stored as fat. Dextrose has been shown to raise insulin levels significantly in studies. IMHO depending on your goals dextrose can be a good source of PWO fast carbs.
AR's Diet Pimp! ~HOF~
A banana for the reasons you mentioned is fine IMO. It just doesn't do much as a PWO carb source, but alot of people don't realize that and use banana's, or any fruit for that matter.
The carbs in skim milk are sugar, and if fast acting carbs is what you're after then I think it's a good choice PWO. Personally I like WM or Vitargo better, but at least milk is a natural product, and the additional protein never hurts. i wouldn't use it on a cut though.
I know people will always disagree on this, but even on a bulk, i'm not that interested in spiking insulin. Yes, i want some insulin activity and WM or Vitargo will do the trick. I just never saw the benefit to eating pure sugar, for any reason. To me, it will do more harm then good, regardless of the goal at hand. Just my .02
The Transformer ~VET~Recognized Staff Winner - $100
With regards to milk;
Milk as an Effective Post-Exercise Rehydration Drink
Title
Shirreffs SM et al. Milk as an effective post-exercise rehydration drink. Br J Nutr (2007): Pg 1-8
Abstract
The effectiveness of low-fat milk, alone and with an additional 20 mmol/l NaCl, at restoring fluid balance after exercise-induced hypohydration was compared to a sports drink and water. After losing 1·8 (SD 0·1) % of their body mass during intermittent exercise in a warm environment, eleven subjects consumed a drink volume equivalent to 150 % of their sweat loss. Urine samples were collected before and for 5 h after exercise to assess fluid balance. Urine excretion over the recovery period did not change during the milk trials whereas there was a marked increase in output between 1 and 2 h after drinking water and the sports drink. Cumulative urine output was less after the milk drinks were consumed (611 (SD 207) and 550 (SD 141) ml for milk and milk with added sodium, respectively, compared to 1184 (SD 321) and 1205 (SD 142) ml for the water and sports drink; P,0·001). Subjects remained in net positive fluid balance or euhydrated throughout the recovery period after drinking the milk drinks but returned to net negative fluid balance 1 h after drinking the other drinks. The results of the present study suggest that milk can be an effective post-exercise rehydration drink and can be considered for use after exercise by everyone except those individuals who have lactose intolerance.
My comments
In addition to glycogen replenishment and the promotion of recovery and adaptation to training, the issue of re-hydration after exercise (endurance training more so than resistance training) is also of importance and finding ways to optimally rehydrate the body following dehydration is a critical aspect of sports nutrition.
During endurance exercise, fluid loss usually exceeds fluid intake and athletes end up slightly dehydrated at the end of the bout and even small amounts of dehydration can negatively impact on exercise performance (i.e. at the next training session). While re-hydration when training once per day usually isn’t too big of an issue, many athletes train more frequently than this and finding ways to optimally rehydrate (again, in addition to issues of recovery, etc.) is important.
Previous work had found that the addition of both sodium and potassium to fluids was a key in re-hydration, thus the popularity of drinks such as Gatorade and Powerade both of which also provide carbohydrate for glycogen replenishment.
With the exception of one study which examined the role of a whole food meal on re-hydration, most studies have used various experimental solutions, so this week’s study set out to examine a more commonly found beverage (low fat milk) in terms of its effects on rehydration following exercise.
The study recruited eleven healthy male volunteers who were physically active but described as not being accustomed to exercise in a warm environment.
Following a familiarization trial, subjects performed an exercise trial in a warm/humid room consisting of 10 minute bouts at 2 w/kg workload. Body weight was measured in-between bouts with the exercise stopped when the subjects had lost 1.7% of their starting body weight.
One of four drinks was provided starting at 20 minutes after exercise. The drinks were 2% milk, 2% milk with added sodium, water, or Powerade. The total drink volume given was equal to 150% of the total weight lost in four equal amounts (every 15 minutes for an hour); subjects were monitored for an additional 4 hours. No food or drink was allowed and urine production was measured every hour by having the subjects pee. Subjective measurements of hunger and thirst were made every hour as well (in addition to before and immediately after the exercise bout).
All subjects lost roughly 1.8 kg of weight during the exercise bout and the total amount of fluid given over the hour of recovery drinking was 1.8 l (slightly under half a gallon).
In terms of urine production (a measurement of the amount of ingested fluid retained by the both), both milk trials showed significantly less urine output compared to either water or Powerade with no real difference between the milk and milk plus sodium drinks.
Similar results were seen looking at net fluid balance, due to decreased urine output, the milk groups reattained fluid balance after 4 hours while the water/Powerade groups were still slightly dehydrated.
Finally, subjective rating of thirst went up after the exercise bout but decreased with re-hydration, with no difference between drinks. Feelings of hunger also increased throughout recovery although both milk groups and the Powerade reduced hunger more than water. Subjects also reported that the Powerade was sweeter and slightly more palatable compared to the milk drinks which were reported as being saltier and more bitter. No other differences were seen.
The researchers concluded that milk (with or without extra sodium) was superior to either water or Powerade at rehydration although the slight differences seen at the end of the study are unlikely to significantly impact on exercise performance in temperate climates.
They suggest that at least part of this is due to the quantities of both sodium and potassium in milk; as mentioned both electrolytes are important in helping the body retain the fluid consumed following exercise. They also note that the digestion rate of milk is going to be slower than either water or Powerade due to the presence of protein and fat in addition to the carbohydrate; this might have affected the body’s utilization of the milk for re-hydration compared to the other drinks. In keeping with this, subjects in the milk group reported greater fullness, probably due to the length of time it took for the milk to be fully absorbed.
So this study adds to previous data showing that milk can be useful for recovery (in terms of protein synthesis) following either resistance training or endurance training, as I’ve discussed in previous newsletters.
At the same time, the amount of fluid consumed (nearly a half gallon of milk) is significant and some people might not find milk terribly appealing following an exhaustive exercise bout. It would be interesting to see if a protein/carbohydrate drink containing either dextrose/maltodextrin and whey or milk protein isolate (with similar amounts of electrolytes to what is found in milk) promoted the same level of re-hydration following exercise. I suspect that it would and this might provide an easier way to promote both training adaptations and re-hydration following exercise. This would probably be easier than trying to drink 16-32 oz of milk following exercise.
An additional issue, of course, is that of lactose intolerance but the availability of lactose reduced or removed milk (cf. Lactaid/DairyEase) should make this less of an issue.
Share and Enjoy:
Where am I: Blog > Research Review > Nutrition > Milk as an Effective Post-Exercise Rehydration Drink
Tagged:
Comments
5 Responses to “Milk as an Effective Post-Exercise Rehydration Drink”
gordon on February 21st, 2010 10:13 pm
just would like to know how the sugar in the milk affects your growth hormone levels after your workout? this is important to me because at 47 i cant afford to have less GH.
lylemcd on February 22nd, 2010 6:54 pm
The GH response to training is irrelevant as discussed in a review elsewhere on the site. Even if it weren’t, carbs and protein post-training tends to increase GH levels. But, again, it’s irrelevant to basically everything.
Victor on March 21st, 2010 10:37 am
Dear Lyle,
So it seems that lactose will restore the muscle glycogen and not the liver glycogen? Am I right if I say that galactose will be used for muscle glycogen storation?
Victor
lylemcd on March 21st, 2010 5:00 pm
Lactose is half glucose and half galactose. Galactose is treated, to a great degree like fructose meaning that it tends to be metabolized in the liver. The glucose will refill liver glycogen. But the combination of glucose with some fructose is probably more ideal anyhow from the standpoint of anabolism. So it’s still a good combination.
The Transformer ~VET~Recognized Staff Winner - $100
Also;
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 ************** 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 **************), 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 ************** had the thread deleted.
Ironically, I recently wrote an article for ************** (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.
Vitamin Enhanced Sociopathic Post Whore
Apple juice.
Whether Im bulking or cutting.
AR's Diet Pimp! ~HOF~
I remember this from a while back Base, great info!
LoL Dukkit and his apple juice!
The Transformer ~VET~Recognized Staff Winner - $100
Yeh, was gonna bump the post but just though id post it
Will do a search l8r and bump them maybe
Defo a good read, and the results are not expected
Associate Member
Thanks GB & Baseline.
Wow a half gallon of milk PWO, really? I was referring to an 8oz cup included with my shake. A half gallon would be somewhere around 700 calories (100 carbs) itself. Too much even for bulking.
The Transformer ~VET~Recognized Staff Winner - $100
Its been a long time since i read it but i think that was for study purposes, just to build a study
Vitamin Enhanced Sociopathic Post Whore
Haha. Its so good. Yum
Senior Member
Coco Pops are the bee's knees pwo...
I'm in comp prep and still use em
AR's Diet Pimp! ~HOF~
Is that you in your avy? If so, i'm getting on Coco Pops immediately!!!Coco Pops are the bee's knees pwo...
I'm in comp prep and still use em
Member
fruits -apples, oranges, grapefruit is what my trainer tells me for PWO carbs and i can predict wht ppl r gonna critique about tht so ill explain why now :P
Most ppl think fructose restores liver glycogen before restoring muscle gylcogen, its a bodybuilding myth. nobody has ever actually porven it, fructose restores glycogen just as well as any other sugar source.
it doesnt give a high enough insulin spike is another reason ppl prefer dextrose or maltodextrin, the problem with insulin spikes are the higher the more nutrients ur muscle get but also the more fat and callories u retain, so u want a balance. dextrose and maltodextrin are to high on the gi scale and will just lead to u retaining more fat, fructose and sucralose which are 70-80 gi range give u an insulin spike high enough to speed up absortion rates but dont put ur body in fat storing mode!
and coco pops? :P i guess tht makes logical sense, rice for slow carbs, sugar for fast carbs, milk for tht little bit of extra everything. gonna have to try it for curiousity!
AR's Diet Pimp! ~HOF~
Bold statement man, I reckon you're gonna catch alotta sh!t for this one! This is physiological science that goes way beyond bodybuilding bro... but i'm gonna sit this one out and let the others have it out with you, lol! GL
"AR's Personal Trainer"
lyle mcdonald
"This is certainly true of dietary fructose, found primarily in fruits (hence the name) which must first be converted to glucose (in the liver) prior to release. That is, contrary to some claims being made, free fructose is almost never found in the bloodstream in large quantities unless it was put there through infusion. Rather, dietary fructose will either be stored in the liver as glycogen (see below) before being converted to glucose and released into the bloodstream, or simply converted to glucose and released after consumption. Again, free fructose is rarely found in the bloodstream in appreciable quantities even when it’s consumed in the diet."
- Fruit is not necessarily a bad thing if eaten right though. Low insulin spike but some other issues. Off to class now so no time to discuss.
Disappointment* Known SCAMMER - Do Not Trust *
To fans of sugars pwo...recentl evidence is suggesting the most effective combo for this is glucose AND fructose. Ironically thats the sugars found in honey. Also ironically Arnold and others were touting this (honey) some 35 years ago .
Me i dont pay much attention to this. I used hi gi carbs for a long time...to only find that it didnt make a diiference. If anything me and sugars dont mix well ...my response to carbs needs to be monitored or i pay (unlike my buddy dukkit - that bastard *L*) . Glycogen stores will be replenished regardless ...no insulin spike imo will be great enough without exogenous insulin to create real benfit or justify the sugar intake. Now i use vanilla protein with oats and cinnamon.
All in all - the longer im around..the less important i really think this is ...
Last edited by jimmyinkedup; 03-03-2011 at 03:38 PM.
Senior Member
Most fruits are actually lower on the GI scale (-50) some like watermelon tend to be higher though
Senior Member
Yeah I remember reading about this before, I did it for a while too. It's a great way to eat those cereals you loved as a kid!Coco Pops are the bee's knees pwo...
I'm in comp prep and still use em
Senior Member
That's me mate.. Sitting around 8% right there.
No milk pwo for me, water only. I use about 40-50g coco pops, mix 1 scoop WPI and 1 scoop casein with it + other aminos in my shaker pwo. Just like eating breakfast (if I could still get away with eating stuff like this for breakfast lol), it's delicious!
I have only incorperated this since I began my comp prep 5 weeks ago. The best change I ever made! I am Skiploading for my prep which is where I got the idea for kids cereal... It will now be a staple out of prep also.
Previoulsy I was using 25g glucose + 10g Leucine to elicit a stronger insulin response while keeping blood sugar down slightly. Then 10 mins later I would follow up with my WPI/Casein + aminos.... This worked well also and I have read quite a few studies regarding glucose + leucine combo benefits pwo prior to protein intake.
Junior Member
gbrice... i have read bananas are good after a workout for certain reasons. I also have oats after a workout tho
Member
im thinking of doing this protocol for a higher insulin response as well and adding 1g of HCA capsules to the shake:
POST WRKOUT #1 (2:45 PM) – 1 SCOOP OF TITAN V-CORE WHEY POWDER [155 Calories/26 grams Protein/4 grams Carbs/2 grams Fat]
2.5 CUPS OF RAW MILK [250 Calories/27 grams Protein/36 grams Carbs/6 grams Fat]
30 GRAMS DEXTROSE POWDER [105 Calories/0 grams Protein/27 grams Carbs/0 grams Fat]
Totals: (510 Calories/53 grams Protein/61 grams Carbs/8 grams Fat)
VET
Once again, you're giving your incorrect opinion as fact. Do you do any research or reading on your own or do you just regurgitate the incorrect information that your "trainer" gives you? Last week, you say that any excess protein gets converted and stored as body fat and now fructrose is the best source for restoring muscle glycogen.
Since I already know that you won't take Lyle McDonald's word for it, per Twist's post, I'll try to explain to help you understand. It's not that fructose restores liver glycogen before muscle glycogen, it's that fructose is different than the other glucose-like sugars in that it is not a direct source of energy for the body. You cannot use fructose to restore muscle glycogen at all until it is processed by the liver and converted to glucose (or stored in the liver as glycogen if stores are low). Once it is absorbed in the intestines, it travels straight to the liver to be converted to a usable source of fuel - glucose. I'm not saying that fructose is bad, just that it is not ideal for post WO as the availability of it to be used as a fuel source is delayed while it is converted to a usable source of energy.
This is not my opinion or Twist's, or GB's, or even Lyle McDonald's - it is a fact that has already been proven. Look at any nutrition reference manual, encyclopedia Britannica, even wikipedia and you will see that it is everywhere. Try reading more and posting on subjects that you know nothing about, less.
Sorry for the rant - I'm carb depleted and this just set me off.
AR's Diet Pimp! ~HOF~
It's not that banana's are BAD PWO, I didn't mean that. What I meant is that they are not ideal as compared to other carb sources. They are good for restoring potassium, absolutely. But restoring muscle glycogen can be accomplished much more efficiently with a plethora of other sources vs. banana's.
Vitamin Enhanced Sociopathic Post Whore
Hahah just saw this
Carbs are my friend.
Last summer while I was "cutting" I say cutting like that cuz for me cutting means dropping a few grams of carbs, and doing cardio 3 days a week... and I get down to single digits in a few weeks.lol
Anyways... last summer I used cookie dough postworkout for my carbs. Had a 6 pack back in 3 weeks. lol
Gotta love genetics!!!!!
AR's Diet Pimp! ~HOF~
I hate you, for all of the above. Die.
=)
Vitamin Enhanced Sociopathic Post Whore
*Bro hugs!*
Disappointment* Known SCAMMER - Do Not Trust *
yeah yeah i know i know...
Anyway......
ttys bro ....
Member
lol, well im going by what my trainer tells me. hes been bodybuilding for 27 years now, hes 53 with 6% bf at 5"6 215 ibs. wuld put most guys in my gym to shame :P he knows his sh!t and thts wht he says...alot of myths around BB out there!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote