-
Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
MaxBrenner
New member
99% of the 'articles' etc on that site are old myths and bro-science protocols that have been dis-proven and shown to be false.
Here is a study done by Alan Aragon on Chocolate Milk Vs Serge Recovery (the supplements company who owns T-Nation) -
An Objective Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surge Recovery | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
Another good one to check out -
Supplement Marketing on Steroids by Alan Aragon | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
I will post the full articles also if you wish.
MaxBrenner
New member
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.
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.
MaxBrenner
New member
Supplement Marketing on Steroids
by Alan Aragon
Bold claims vs. realistic expectations
A T-nation article was recently brought to my attention by a flood of emails. Folks expressed everything from awe to outrage, but the biggest sentiment was disbelief. “I, Bodybuilder” is in the form of a conversation between staff writer Nate Green and the owner of Biotest, Tim Patterson. It’s a prelude to the formal release of an upcoming supplement called Anaconda.
Is the article unintentionally humorous to discerning minds? Yes. Is any of it supposed to be tongue-in-cheek? Probably not. Does it read like one big, hairy advertisement? Yes. However, to the majority of the T-nation forum members, it probably reads like the Second Coming of the Lord.
To quote the video on the article’s opening page, the product/protocol was “developed out of a black-ops bodybuilding project” where the user can experience “muscle mass being built as fast as humanly possible.”
This hyped-up marketing script is business as usual. But, make no mistake about it; a lot of kids are going to be staking their entire sense of self-worth on the effectiveness of the magic bullet. Here are the claims made in the video on the article’s opening page as well as in print on the 3rd page:
Christian Thibaudeau gained 27 lbs of muscle in 6 weeks and increased seated overhead press to 375 pounds for 5 cluster reps.
Sebastien Cossette gained 20 lbs of muscle in 8 weeks and added 100 lbs to his front squat.
In contrast to the above, here’s a review of what I’ve observed as realistic rates of muscle gain according to training status. Keep in mind that these figures are based on what I’ve seen in the last 15 years in the field working with mostly drug-free athletes:
Realistic Rates of Lean Body Mass Gain Based on Training Status
Training Status Definition Monthly Gain (% of Total Body Weight)
Novice Less than 2 years consistent training 1.0-1.5% (1-5-2.0 lb. per month)
Intermediate 2-4 years consistent training 0.5-1.0% (0.8-1.5 lb. per month)
Advanced More than 4 years consistent training 0.25-0.5% (0.5-0.8 lb. per month)
*Women can expect to achieve the lower end of these ranges at best.
My note: The issue of realistic muscle gains was discussed in more detail in the article What’s My Genetic Muscular Potential.
The Cream of the Physique Crop
As you can see, the T-nation claims are infinitely more exciting than the expectations I’ve set for my clients and students. Some quick math reveals that they’re promising muscle gains averaging at roughly 3.5 lbs per week, or about 14 lbs per month. That’s over 4 times the typical rate I’ve observed in novices, and at least 15 times the rate I’ve observed in advanced trainees.
Let’s step back for a second and look at the big picture. It’s rare for a fully-grown, skeletally mature adult in his early twenties or older to put on more than 50 lbs of muscle during an entire training career. Just imagine a college graduate weighing a relatively lean 185 transforming into a muscular 235-pounder by the time he’s in his mid to late 20’s. This is a very formidable feat.
Just how respectable is it? I’ll list the competition stats of all 12 Mr. Olympias (for those living in a cave, the Mr. Olympia is the most prestigious title in bodybuilding):
The Mr. Olympia Winners
Name Years Won Height Competition Weight
Dexter Jackson 2008 (Current) 5′6.5″ 230 lb.
Jay Cutler 2006,2007 5′9″ 255 lb.
Ronnie Coleman 1998-2005 5′10″ 270 lb.
Dorian Yates 1992-1997 5′10″ 255 lb.
Lee Haney 1984-1991 5′11″ 235 lb.
Samir Bannout 1983 5′8″ 210 lb.
Chris Dickerson 1982 5′6″ 190 lb.
Franco Colombu 1976, 1981 5′4″ 185 lb.
Arnold 1970-1975, 1980 6′1″ 230 lb.
Frank Zane 1977-1979 5′9″ 185 lb.
Sergio Oliva 1967-1969 5′8″ 225 lb.
Larry Scott 1965-1966 5′7″ 205 lb
*These heights and weights are averages from various sources online.
For anyone who disagrees that our lean 235 lb example is impressive, consider the fact that only 3 of the 12 Mr. Olympias had a competition weight that significantly exceeded 235 lbs. Keep in mind that there’s a very good chance that NONE of the Olympia winners were drug-free. When you consider that these guys won the genetic lottery to begin with, then enhanced their supernormal potential with multiple drugs, the sobering limits of the drug-free, genetically mediocre majority become apparent.
So, looking back at the T-nation claims, it’s downright comical that they’re claiming about 2-3 year’s worth of gains in 2 months or less. If they didn’t flat-out fabricate, they definitely exaggerated while omitting a few important details. It’s possible for a scant handful of genetically blessed individuals to gain lean mass at the rates they listed, but the majority of these cases are rebound weight gains after prolonged dieting phases involving substantial weight loss.
The said rebound weight gain is typically accompanied by the honeymoon phase of creatine and/or drugs. However, one of the claims is that Kevin Norbert lost 14 lbs of fat while 24 net lbs was gained. So, we’re talking 38 lbs of new muscle in 8 weeks? Give me a frickin’ break, guys. Later on in the article, the exorbitant claims relent a little bit. I’ll quote Patterson directly:
Specifically, from using these methods, we expect the average lifter to gain about 20 pounds of muscle from his first 15-week program — hopefully more — and keep all of it.
I’m defining our average guy as an in-shape 175-pound lifter who’s accustomed to hard training, who’s totally committed to working hard, and who wants to build a lot of muscle mass as fast as humanly possible.
Research Shakes its Head
Now their attention-grabbing 14 lbs per month claim at the start of the article (illustrated by the results of the 3 ‘gifted’ bodybuilder dudes) is reduced to about 5.3 lbs per month on the last page. Still, this figure is about double the average I’ve observed in rank novices, and they’re setting this expectation for trainees “accustomed to hard lifting”. Fine, but how does this hold up against the research? Let’s compare these expectations with the results of athletes on anabolic/androgenic drugs. Let me quote a comprehensive review by Hartgens and Kuiper [1]:
Although many strength athletes frequently report increments of about 10–15kg of bodyweight due to AAS administration, such alterations have not been documented in well designed prospective studies. Most studies show that bodyweight may increase by 2–5kg as a result of short-term (<10 weeks) AAS use. The most pronounced average gain of bodyweight was reported by Casner and coworkers after 6 weeks of stanozolol administration [7 kg in 6 weeks]. However, in a case report, an increase of 12.7kg over a 2-year AAS administration period was registered.
The above quote is worth re-reading enough times until it sinks in. The key point is bolded. The greatest drug-enhanced gains seen in the scientific literature are 7 kg (15.4 lbs) in 6 weeks, or about 2.5 lbs per week. This is roughly a pound less per week than the claims made at the start of the article, and a pound more than the expectations set for the ‘regular guys’ at the end.
However, it’s not at all fair to use the highest recorded drug-enhanced rates of gain as a benchmark. Reiterating the above review, the norms for drug-enhanced gains in the short term (within 10 weeks) are 2-5 kg (4.4-11 lbs), and roughly 12.7 kg (27.9 lbs) over 2 years. The latter two figures collectively average out to a monthly gain of 0.9-1.1 lbs. Let me repeat, all of these figures were achieved with drugs.
To single out the population we’re discussing, I combed through Hartgens and Kuiper’s review for studies strictly on drug-enhanced bodybuilders, and the average rate of gain was 3.4 kg (7.5 lbs) in 8-10 weeks This amounts to 0.83 lb per week, or 3.3 lbs per month.
Assuming T-nation’s expectation of the ‘regular’ population’s gain of 5.3 lbs per month (1.3 lb per week), this rate is still about 38% faster than what’s been observed in drug-enhanced bodybuilders. Keep in mind, creatine supplementation for roughly 12 weeks has been demonstrated to cause an average gain of about 2 kg over non-supplemented conditions [2].
So even if we assumed an additive effect of creatine plus anabolics/androgenics, we’d be looking at a gain of roughly 3.7 lb per month. The gains T-nation promises are still roughly 30% faster than this.
Another research example of drug-assisted gains is a year-long case study by Alén and Häkkinen, who examined the stats and details of an elite bodybuilder [3]. During the course of a year, his fat-free mass increased from 83 to 90 kg (182.6 to 198 lb), which is a gain of 15.4 lb. He used anabolic/androgenic drugs throughout the study, with the exception of 4 weeks off in the middle of the 12 month period.
So, if 15.4 lbs of lean mass in a year is all this genetically gifted, drug-enhanced, international-level bodybuilder can muster, what makes the genetically average, drug-free, non-newbie, non-rebounding trainee think he can exceed that in less than 4 months? Only the Biotest staff knows the secret.
Back Down to Earth
Let’s bring things back to reality. If we’re figuring on a 5-year span with minimal lapses in program compliance with the goal of going from a mortal 185 to a Olympian 235, then the simple math is about 10 lbs of muscle gained per year on average. Can a novice gain double that rate in his first year? Yes.
However, heading toward the advanced stages, gains happen at half of this rate, and progressively less as your genetic potential draws closer. Speaking of which, perhaps the most exhaustive work on the topic of genetic potential for muscular gain in drug-free trainees has been done by Casey Butt. You can read more at his website The WeighTrainer – Your Maximum Muscular Bodyweight and Measurements.
A similar topic was recently discussed by Lyle McDonald in an article titled What’s My Genetic Muscular Potential?
Last but not least, here’s one of my favorite sections from the article that may or may not be a jab at my Objective Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surge Recovery:
Nate Green: Nick ended up gaining 20 pounds of new muscle and increasing his bench press by 55 pounds, and that’s addictive.
Tim Patterson: After experiencing these kinds of results, from week to week, it’s impossible to be satisfied with anything else. These guys are hooked — we’re all totally hooked — and simply refuse to train any other way.
Nate Green: I can’t give you any failures, because there are none at this point.
Tim Patterson: Oh, I’m sure there will be a couple of dozen pus-filled Internet moron-trolls who can’t wait to prove how they ‘got nothing from loaded insulin surges and HTH, and all you really need is ‘chocolate milk and a banana.’
See, scientifically unsupported talk is cheap. On the other hand, buying into bold marketing claims can be expensive; it’s $80 bucks for a bottle of Anaconda. The name’s appropriate, since it sounds like a good way to put your wallet in a chokehold.
by Alan Aragon
Bold claims vs. realistic expectations
A T-nation article was recently brought to my attention by a flood of emails. Folks expressed everything from awe to outrage, but the biggest sentiment was disbelief. “I, Bodybuilder” is in the form of a conversation between staff writer Nate Green and the owner of Biotest, Tim Patterson. It’s a prelude to the formal release of an upcoming supplement called Anaconda.
Is the article unintentionally humorous to discerning minds? Yes. Is any of it supposed to be tongue-in-cheek? Probably not. Does it read like one big, hairy advertisement? Yes. However, to the majority of the T-nation forum members, it probably reads like the Second Coming of the Lord.
To quote the video on the article’s opening page, the product/protocol was “developed out of a black-ops bodybuilding project” where the user can experience “muscle mass being built as fast as humanly possible.”
This hyped-up marketing script is business as usual. But, make no mistake about it; a lot of kids are going to be staking their entire sense of self-worth on the effectiveness of the magic bullet. Here are the claims made in the video on the article’s opening page as well as in print on the 3rd page:
Christian Thibaudeau gained 27 lbs of muscle in 6 weeks and increased seated overhead press to 375 pounds for 5 cluster reps.
Sebastien Cossette gained 20 lbs of muscle in 8 weeks and added 100 lbs to his front squat.
In contrast to the above, here’s a review of what I’ve observed as realistic rates of muscle gain according to training status. Keep in mind that these figures are based on what I’ve seen in the last 15 years in the field working with mostly drug-free athletes:
Realistic Rates of Lean Body Mass Gain Based on Training Status
Training Status Definition Monthly Gain (% of Total Body Weight)
Novice Less than 2 years consistent training 1.0-1.5% (1-5-2.0 lb. per month)
Intermediate 2-4 years consistent training 0.5-1.0% (0.8-1.5 lb. per month)
Advanced More than 4 years consistent training 0.25-0.5% (0.5-0.8 lb. per month)
*Women can expect to achieve the lower end of these ranges at best.
My note: The issue of realistic muscle gains was discussed in more detail in the article What’s My Genetic Muscular Potential.
The Cream of the Physique Crop
As you can see, the T-nation claims are infinitely more exciting than the expectations I’ve set for my clients and students. Some quick math reveals that they’re promising muscle gains averaging at roughly 3.5 lbs per week, or about 14 lbs per month. That’s over 4 times the typical rate I’ve observed in novices, and at least 15 times the rate I’ve observed in advanced trainees.
Let’s step back for a second and look at the big picture. It’s rare for a fully-grown, skeletally mature adult in his early twenties or older to put on more than 50 lbs of muscle during an entire training career. Just imagine a college graduate weighing a relatively lean 185 transforming into a muscular 235-pounder by the time he’s in his mid to late 20’s. This is a very formidable feat.
Just how respectable is it? I’ll list the competition stats of all 12 Mr. Olympias (for those living in a cave, the Mr. Olympia is the most prestigious title in bodybuilding):
The Mr. Olympia Winners
Name Years Won Height Competition Weight
Dexter Jackson 2008 (Current) 5′6.5″ 230 lb.
Jay Cutler 2006,2007 5′9″ 255 lb.
Ronnie Coleman 1998-2005 5′10″ 270 lb.
Dorian Yates 1992-1997 5′10″ 255 lb.
Lee Haney 1984-1991 5′11″ 235 lb.
Samir Bannout 1983 5′8″ 210 lb.
Chris Dickerson 1982 5′6″ 190 lb.
Franco Colombu 1976, 1981 5′4″ 185 lb.
Arnold 1970-1975, 1980 6′1″ 230 lb.
Frank Zane 1977-1979 5′9″ 185 lb.
Sergio Oliva 1967-1969 5′8″ 225 lb.
Larry Scott 1965-1966 5′7″ 205 lb
*These heights and weights are averages from various sources online.
For anyone who disagrees that our lean 235 lb example is impressive, consider the fact that only 3 of the 12 Mr. Olympias had a competition weight that significantly exceeded 235 lbs. Keep in mind that there’s a very good chance that NONE of the Olympia winners were drug-free. When you consider that these guys won the genetic lottery to begin with, then enhanced their supernormal potential with multiple drugs, the sobering limits of the drug-free, genetically mediocre majority become apparent.
So, looking back at the T-nation claims, it’s downright comical that they’re claiming about 2-3 year’s worth of gains in 2 months or less. If they didn’t flat-out fabricate, they definitely exaggerated while omitting a few important details. It’s possible for a scant handful of genetically blessed individuals to gain lean mass at the rates they listed, but the majority of these cases are rebound weight gains after prolonged dieting phases involving substantial weight loss.
The said rebound weight gain is typically accompanied by the honeymoon phase of creatine and/or drugs. However, one of the claims is that Kevin Norbert lost 14 lbs of fat while 24 net lbs was gained. So, we’re talking 38 lbs of new muscle in 8 weeks? Give me a frickin’ break, guys. Later on in the article, the exorbitant claims relent a little bit. I’ll quote Patterson directly:
Specifically, from using these methods, we expect the average lifter to gain about 20 pounds of muscle from his first 15-week program — hopefully more — and keep all of it.
I’m defining our average guy as an in-shape 175-pound lifter who’s accustomed to hard training, who’s totally committed to working hard, and who wants to build a lot of muscle mass as fast as humanly possible.
Research Shakes its Head
Now their attention-grabbing 14 lbs per month claim at the start of the article (illustrated by the results of the 3 ‘gifted’ bodybuilder dudes) is reduced to about 5.3 lbs per month on the last page. Still, this figure is about double the average I’ve observed in rank novices, and they’re setting this expectation for trainees “accustomed to hard lifting”. Fine, but how does this hold up against the research? Let’s compare these expectations with the results of athletes on anabolic/androgenic drugs. Let me quote a comprehensive review by Hartgens and Kuiper [1]:
Although many strength athletes frequently report increments of about 10–15kg of bodyweight due to AAS administration, such alterations have not been documented in well designed prospective studies. Most studies show that bodyweight may increase by 2–5kg as a result of short-term (<10 weeks) AAS use. The most pronounced average gain of bodyweight was reported by Casner and coworkers after 6 weeks of stanozolol administration [7 kg in 6 weeks]. However, in a case report, an increase of 12.7kg over a 2-year AAS administration period was registered.
The above quote is worth re-reading enough times until it sinks in. The key point is bolded. The greatest drug-enhanced gains seen in the scientific literature are 7 kg (15.4 lbs) in 6 weeks, or about 2.5 lbs per week. This is roughly a pound less per week than the claims made at the start of the article, and a pound more than the expectations set for the ‘regular guys’ at the end.
However, it’s not at all fair to use the highest recorded drug-enhanced rates of gain as a benchmark. Reiterating the above review, the norms for drug-enhanced gains in the short term (within 10 weeks) are 2-5 kg (4.4-11 lbs), and roughly 12.7 kg (27.9 lbs) over 2 years. The latter two figures collectively average out to a monthly gain of 0.9-1.1 lbs. Let me repeat, all of these figures were achieved with drugs.
To single out the population we’re discussing, I combed through Hartgens and Kuiper’s review for studies strictly on drug-enhanced bodybuilders, and the average rate of gain was 3.4 kg (7.5 lbs) in 8-10 weeks This amounts to 0.83 lb per week, or 3.3 lbs per month.
Assuming T-nation’s expectation of the ‘regular’ population’s gain of 5.3 lbs per month (1.3 lb per week), this rate is still about 38% faster than what’s been observed in drug-enhanced bodybuilders. Keep in mind, creatine supplementation for roughly 12 weeks has been demonstrated to cause an average gain of about 2 kg over non-supplemented conditions [2].
So even if we assumed an additive effect of creatine plus anabolics/androgenics, we’d be looking at a gain of roughly 3.7 lb per month. The gains T-nation promises are still roughly 30% faster than this.
Another research example of drug-assisted gains is a year-long case study by Alén and Häkkinen, who examined the stats and details of an elite bodybuilder [3]. During the course of a year, his fat-free mass increased from 83 to 90 kg (182.6 to 198 lb), which is a gain of 15.4 lb. He used anabolic/androgenic drugs throughout the study, with the exception of 4 weeks off in the middle of the 12 month period.
So, if 15.4 lbs of lean mass in a year is all this genetically gifted, drug-enhanced, international-level bodybuilder can muster, what makes the genetically average, drug-free, non-newbie, non-rebounding trainee think he can exceed that in less than 4 months? Only the Biotest staff knows the secret.
Back Down to Earth
Let’s bring things back to reality. If we’re figuring on a 5-year span with minimal lapses in program compliance with the goal of going from a mortal 185 to a Olympian 235, then the simple math is about 10 lbs of muscle gained per year on average. Can a novice gain double that rate in his first year? Yes.
However, heading toward the advanced stages, gains happen at half of this rate, and progressively less as your genetic potential draws closer. Speaking of which, perhaps the most exhaustive work on the topic of genetic potential for muscular gain in drug-free trainees has been done by Casey Butt. You can read more at his website The WeighTrainer – Your Maximum Muscular Bodyweight and Measurements.
A similar topic was recently discussed by Lyle McDonald in an article titled What’s My Genetic Muscular Potential?
Last but not least, here’s one of my favorite sections from the article that may or may not be a jab at my Objective Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surge Recovery:
Nate Green: Nick ended up gaining 20 pounds of new muscle and increasing his bench press by 55 pounds, and that’s addictive.
Tim Patterson: After experiencing these kinds of results, from week to week, it’s impossible to be satisfied with anything else. These guys are hooked — we’re all totally hooked — and simply refuse to train any other way.
Nate Green: I can’t give you any failures, because there are none at this point.
Tim Patterson: Oh, I’m sure there will be a couple of dozen pus-filled Internet moron-trolls who can’t wait to prove how they ‘got nothing from loaded insulin surges and HTH, and all you really need is ‘chocolate milk and a banana.’
See, scientifically unsupported talk is cheap. On the other hand, buying into bold marketing claims can be expensive; it’s $80 bucks for a bottle of Anaconda. The name’s appropriate, since it sounds like a good way to put your wallet in a chokehold.
jchen
Admits he threw a pine co
Haven't those 'Whats my muscular potential?" calculators been proven to be inaccurate?
I am not disagreeing with any of the articles you have posted.. clearly the guys who are marketing Anaconda are geared up. One look at the Christian Thibadodododo fella and you can tell he's not natural.
Good articles though Max.
I am not disagreeing with any of the articles you have posted.. clearly the guys who are marketing Anaconda are geared up. One look at the Christian Thibadodododo fella and you can tell he's not natural.
Good articles though Max.
MaxBrenner
New member
Not to sure if the muscular potential calculators have been shown to be inaccurate. I've not looked much into them anyways. Just a little gimmick in my mind but I guess it does give you some sort of gauge to go on. Either way, the results reported are above what someone on Anabolics could expect!
The site has no credibility what so ever. It is just simply there to lure uneducated/ naive people in as a marketing tool for the sister companies supplements. Don't get me wrong it is a smart business Idea, it is just to bad that the have no credibility or morals etc.
The site has no credibility what so ever. It is just simply there to lure uneducated/ naive people in as a marketing tool for the sister companies supplements. Don't get me wrong it is a smart business Idea, it is just to bad that the have no credibility or morals etc.
MaxBrenner
New member
I'm not sure if Alan has actually written anything on Creatine. Here is an article from Lyle McDonald on Creatine and some other amino's from this link -http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/supplements-part-2.html
Creatine
If there is a single dietary supplement in existence that can be said to work, creatine is probably it. With several hundred studies supporting it’s effectiveness and safety, creatine is arguably with one the must-have supplements for most athletes including team and mixed sports athletes (with a few notes made below).
Creatine has been shown to positively impact all manners of performance measures ranging from repeat sprint performance to weight room performance and others (if creatine has a negative impact it is typically on endurance due to a slight weight gain that occurs). Most of the reported side-effects of creatine have not been borne out by research (see comments on cramping in the previous chapter) and the biggest danger of creatine use is a slight weight gain of 1-2 kg due to water retention.
For athletes who need to make weight, this can be a problem and, as noted in the chapter on hydration and cramping, will increase fluid requirements. Even those athletes who need to make a certain weight class can use creatine supplementation during their main training phase and go off at least one month before competition; this will give the body time to get rid of the extra water and drop the weight.
While a number of ‘high-tech’ creatines have come and gone, for the most part bulk creatine monohydrate works as effectively, if not more effectively, than the other types. The only possible exception is a micronized creatine which can be useful for athletes who have stomach problems with the standard monohydrate. All of the other variations on creatine (i.e. creatine ethyl-ester) are no more effective but do cost more.
Traditionally, creatine has been supplemented one of three ways, which I’ve described below:
The method used in the studies was to consume 20 grams of creatine in 4X5 g doses per day for 5 days. While this loads the muscle with creatine the fastest, it can also cause stomach upset in some people.
A less aggressive protocol would be to consume 10 g/day of creatine for 10 days. While this will take longer to reach saturation levels, most people report less stomach problems.
Finally, creatine can simply be taken at a dose of 3-5 grams per day for roughly a month.
The only difference in approaches is the speed of loading. Athletes may simply wish to put 3-5 grams of creatine in their pre- or post-workout shake and be done with it. Maintenance doses are 5-10 g/day depending on the athlete’s size after loading has been finished (larger athletes need more to maintain muscular levels).
I should mention that some percentage of athletes are creatine non-responders. For various reasons, they receive no benefits from creatine, no performance improvement and no weight gain. If an athlete uses creatine in one of the above dosing patterns and no weight gain occurs, they are a non-responder and can discontinue use.
As noted above, after loading, creatine levels will drop gradually over a period of about a month if no more is consumed. Athletes who need to drop water weight should discontinue creatine supplementation at least 30 days prior to the weigh-in of their event.
Beta-alanine
A fairly recent addition to the performance supplement arsenal for mixed sports is beta-alanine. Acting as a buffer of acidosis in skeletal muscle, beta-alanine can improve certain types of performance, especially in activities that rely heavily on anaerobic metabolism (e.g. maximal efforts lasting roughly 30-60 seconds). At least one study found that beta-alanine plus creatine improved weight room gains; mixed sports athletes looking to increase strength/power or muscle mass may want to consider beta-alanine.
The biggest drawback to beta-alanine is the required dosing schedule which is 400-800 mg of powder 4 times per day (for a total dose of 1.6-3.2 grams per day). In some people, beta-alanine can cause a tingling/itching/flushing sensation. This isn’t dangerous, simply irritating. And the dose must be split in this fashion for optimal effects.
Branched-chain Amino Acids (BCAA)
The BCAA are leucine, isoleucine and valine, three amino acids that have a branching chemical structure (hence their name). Many studies have found that BCAA and specifically leucine is critical for stimulating skeletal muscle growth and protein synthesis and for this reason BCAA are often suggested for athletes trying to gain muscle mass.
Other aspects of performance have also been measured with early work suggesting that BCAA might decrease fatigue during high-intensity exercise; an equal amount of work found no effect. In some situations, BCAA may actually hurt performance through one of several mechanisms (e.g. ammonia production).
I’d note that BCAA are found to some degree in all high quality proteins with the highest concentration being found in the dairy proteins: whey and casein. This is yet another reason for athletes to consider adding those specific proteins (either in powder or food form) to their diet; this will help to ensure that BCAA intake is optimal.
In that vein, my general feeling is that, if sufficient dietary protein is being consumed (e.g. you’re following the recommendations in this book), additional BCAA is unnecessary and will have little to no effect. In most studies where BCAA had a benefit, it was on a background of inadequate protein intake.
As noted above, BCAA may protect immune system and athletes involved in very heavy training might consider extra. BCAA are fairly expensive, with daily doses running from 10-20 grams per day and supplements can be bitter tasting. I would consider BCAA supplementation as something for athletes to use only when everything else in their diet was taken care of.
Creatine
If there is a single dietary supplement in existence that can be said to work, creatine is probably it. With several hundred studies supporting it’s effectiveness and safety, creatine is arguably with one the must-have supplements for most athletes including team and mixed sports athletes (with a few notes made below).
Creatine has been shown to positively impact all manners of performance measures ranging from repeat sprint performance to weight room performance and others (if creatine has a negative impact it is typically on endurance due to a slight weight gain that occurs). Most of the reported side-effects of creatine have not been borne out by research (see comments on cramping in the previous chapter) and the biggest danger of creatine use is a slight weight gain of 1-2 kg due to water retention.
For athletes who need to make weight, this can be a problem and, as noted in the chapter on hydration and cramping, will increase fluid requirements. Even those athletes who need to make a certain weight class can use creatine supplementation during their main training phase and go off at least one month before competition; this will give the body time to get rid of the extra water and drop the weight.
While a number of ‘high-tech’ creatines have come and gone, for the most part bulk creatine monohydrate works as effectively, if not more effectively, than the other types. The only possible exception is a micronized creatine which can be useful for athletes who have stomach problems with the standard monohydrate. All of the other variations on creatine (i.e. creatine ethyl-ester) are no more effective but do cost more.
Traditionally, creatine has been supplemented one of three ways, which I’ve described below:
The method used in the studies was to consume 20 grams of creatine in 4X5 g doses per day for 5 days. While this loads the muscle with creatine the fastest, it can also cause stomach upset in some people.
A less aggressive protocol would be to consume 10 g/day of creatine for 10 days. While this will take longer to reach saturation levels, most people report less stomach problems.
Finally, creatine can simply be taken at a dose of 3-5 grams per day for roughly a month.
The only difference in approaches is the speed of loading. Athletes may simply wish to put 3-5 grams of creatine in their pre- or post-workout shake and be done with it. Maintenance doses are 5-10 g/day depending on the athlete’s size after loading has been finished (larger athletes need more to maintain muscular levels).
I should mention that some percentage of athletes are creatine non-responders. For various reasons, they receive no benefits from creatine, no performance improvement and no weight gain. If an athlete uses creatine in one of the above dosing patterns and no weight gain occurs, they are a non-responder and can discontinue use.
As noted above, after loading, creatine levels will drop gradually over a period of about a month if no more is consumed. Athletes who need to drop water weight should discontinue creatine supplementation at least 30 days prior to the weigh-in of their event.
Beta-alanine
A fairly recent addition to the performance supplement arsenal for mixed sports is beta-alanine. Acting as a buffer of acidosis in skeletal muscle, beta-alanine can improve certain types of performance, especially in activities that rely heavily on anaerobic metabolism (e.g. maximal efforts lasting roughly 30-60 seconds). At least one study found that beta-alanine plus creatine improved weight room gains; mixed sports athletes looking to increase strength/power or muscle mass may want to consider beta-alanine.
The biggest drawback to beta-alanine is the required dosing schedule which is 400-800 mg of powder 4 times per day (for a total dose of 1.6-3.2 grams per day). In some people, beta-alanine can cause a tingling/itching/flushing sensation. This isn’t dangerous, simply irritating. And the dose must be split in this fashion for optimal effects.
Branched-chain Amino Acids (BCAA)
The BCAA are leucine, isoleucine and valine, three amino acids that have a branching chemical structure (hence their name). Many studies have found that BCAA and specifically leucine is critical for stimulating skeletal muscle growth and protein synthesis and for this reason BCAA are often suggested for athletes trying to gain muscle mass.
Other aspects of performance have also been measured with early work suggesting that BCAA might decrease fatigue during high-intensity exercise; an equal amount of work found no effect. In some situations, BCAA may actually hurt performance through one of several mechanisms (e.g. ammonia production).
I’d note that BCAA are found to some degree in all high quality proteins with the highest concentration being found in the dairy proteins: whey and casein. This is yet another reason for athletes to consider adding those specific proteins (either in powder or food form) to their diet; this will help to ensure that BCAA intake is optimal.
In that vein, my general feeling is that, if sufficient dietary protein is being consumed (e.g. you’re following the recommendations in this book), additional BCAA is unnecessary and will have little to no effect. In most studies where BCAA had a benefit, it was on a background of inadequate protein intake.
As noted above, BCAA may protect immune system and athletes involved in very heavy training might consider extra. BCAA are fairly expensive, with daily doses running from 10-20 grams per day and supplements can be bitter tasting. I would consider BCAA supplementation as something for athletes to use only when everything else in their diet was taken care of.
Rugby88
I have Ep1c Calendar kunce
Yea but you can miss a shit load more than 1 or 2 if you train when your sick.
Hey guys just letting yas know ive decided to take the time off training until it is fully cleared and dusted or start fresh next week if its not gone by then. I have been training 5 days a week for the last 11 weeks most of the time with a lingering flu that i havent been able to get rid of so im taking this as a message that my body needs a rest. Thanks everyone for your input. Any ideas on whats the best sort of diet while not training and trying to retain muscle strengh and size?
Fadi
...
I will support the training while someone suffering from the fever. The reason is that we can face the harmful results in case of training during the sick. I will prefer to the relaxation on the training.
Los Angeles Fitness Trainer
Los Angeles Fitness Trainer
Last edited:
