Posts by goldencyclist60

Zachary Palmer3 said:Has anyone actually tried Gold Standard Whey?
If anyone’s got some they want to offload for a decent price, hit me up in the DMs!

Does anyone know if mixing whey + Vitargo is actually better than just doing whey + glucose?
Is Vitargo even worth the cash?
thanks

Vitargo claims they speed up glycogen recovery and crank up the insulin response way more than other sports drinks, and apparently, "science" backs them up. Personally, I can't be bothered digging through papers to see if the methodology isn't total garbage, but what should really jump out at you is the fact that they almost certainly funded those studies themselves. You really think that doesn't mess with the results? 😉

And besides that...
if you're just grinding in the gym, glycogen recovery isn't your top priority. Honestly, whatever glucose gives you is plenty—I'd even suggest adding some fructose (glucose + fructose = sucrose, even if the ratio isn't perfect). The insulin spike you get from glucose and amino acids is more than enough to stop muscle breakdown after a workout.

Steven Lopez35 said:Nobody really got back to me, so I'm gonna try asking this again.

Which supplement shop in the Midwest has the cheapest whey if I want them to ship it to a spot near St. Louis so we can just swing by and grab it in the car?

GNC

Walter White said:It’s not a direct comparison, sure, but he’s pitting PWM against various ratios of chocolate milk—which is loaded with sucrose—versus Surge, which leans heavily on glucose... and here’s the kicker: he actually reaches a conclusion that regular people can wrap their heads around. That’s something those big-shot sports nutrition brands absolutely hate.

Spot on...

Anyway, circling back to protein—anyone interested in this deep dive into the endless whey vs. casein showdown?

Walter White said:here's an article from Lyle McDonald's blog that Argon put together regarding glucose vs. sucrose in a post-workout meal

It’s not a head-to-head comparison between glucose and sucrose, but you can definitely pull some useful takeaways from it. What I’ve always respected about McDonald is his common sense—basically how he weighs potential benefits against the downsides and the actual cost of implementation (and I don't just mean money)
In case you're wondering who the guy is, if you live by "no pain, no gain," Lyle McDonald is one of the heavy hitters and most proven experts in the sports nutrition scene.

And while we're talking chocolate milk (yeah, I swear by it as a post-workout option, assuming you aren't lactose intolerant like me—total gut wreck 😢)
http://oakbrooksc.com/docs/stager_chocmilk_study.pdf here's the full study 😉

slydriver52 said:See? Not even a big deal. Took me all of sixty seconds to find this.
Basically, Clif Bar, the US Navy, and all those other companies making recovery supplements don't offer a glucose and fructose blend in the right ratio combined with proteins—or any other sources, ugh.
Nutritionists recommend a blend, ugh, definitely not just pure sugar for recovery, and even Ignac Kulier recommends it. But you're still clinging to your theories like a drunk clings to a lamppost and won't let go.🙂
I'm done.

Man, "no pain no gain" is acting like an expert just because my old bones ache.😁

My suggestion was aimed at casuals and non-elite athletes, people who couldn't care less if they're using sucrose or glucose; at that level, sucrose is cheaper and works just as well as glucose.
Plus, I specifically mentioned a mix of glucose, fructose, and galactose in a 2(3):1:1 ratio. I don't think I'm being a total drunk about the sucrose thing.🙂
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Ignac Kulier isn't exactly a global authority. In America, where we actually have serious nutritionists, he’s nobody.

slydriver52 said:Alright, fine. Then tell me—which elite pro athlete actually chugs pure sucrose after a workout? You know, the ones with actual nutritionists on payroll? Find me one recovery supplement that uses a 1:1 glucose-to-fructose ratio that any real nutritionist would actually recommend to an athlete besides you.
And honestly, finding those studies you're obsessing over isn't hard. You don't need a PhD subscription for that.
I've read the conclusions myself.😉
The issue is these studies were mostly done on overweight or obese people, and only a few on people at a healthy weight. They gave them liquid fructose drinks ranging from 50-110g depending on the study—usually around 60-80g—right before a main meal where we have no clue what else they ate. We also have zero data on what these people ate during the rest of the day or how active they actually were. For all we know, they weren't even exercising. It’s totally questionable how those results would apply to recreational lifters or pro athletes if they were consuming that much fructose immediately after intense activity as a 1:1 ratio (pure sucrose) just to refuel glycogen. Basically, the study wasn't conducted on athletes, so you can't use it as "proof" that you should be slamming pure sugar after a workout.

Man, you are really digging your heels in, aren't you? Everything you're saying is exactly why those studies make you look smarter than you actually are. 🙂
But I'm done. I'm out of this debate, and frankly, you should learn when to quit too—especially given your age.
Stop stripping things out of context, stop putting words in my mouth, and go find someone else to peddle this nonsense to. Good luck at the championships. 🙂

Aaron Harris2 said:Look, we already decided the PDF stays right where it is—tucked under the Food subforum.
The "Food & Wellness" section isn't some medical journal meant to drop heavy scientific advice on people to help them stay fit. It’s just a place for folks to swap stories about what they’re eating, supplements they use for specific diets, and how those diets actually worked out for them.
Why link it to Food? Because here in the States, everything revolves around food—so obviously, the wellness stuff goes there.
The Health mod is totally on board with this too.

Honestly, this isn't even a new rule. This was settled years ago when we first expanded the Food section. To be fair, if we tried running it over in the Health section, it probably wouldn't have gained any traction anyway (at least not on this scale).

Since we welcome all our well-meaning users here, I hope you enjoy hanging out on our forums. 🙂

Thanks for clearing that up. 🙂

slydriver52 said:When are they actually gonna be widely accepted?

look, sorry, but I absolutely haaaaave to 😁
they ARE accepted—the peer review (and it’s not just one) is proof enough right there.
just admit you're wrong in this argument so we can both go to sleep. I've got swimming, cycling, the gym, some college work, and a client meeting tomorrow to deal with. 😉
night, and hopefully you wake up a little smarter tomorrow!

Jeffrey Garcia6 said:After debating whether we should focus on food science or health trends, the consensus is we're sticking strictly to the food side of things.

😢
mind if I ask why though...?

slydriver52 said:Yeah, right.🤣

So you think "normal conditions" just means they're eating a standard amount of fructose? What about everything else they eat? Their daily activity levels? You're ignoring half the equation here.

Man, you totally miss how these studies actually work... let's just kill this debate. It's getting late, alright? We've already covered everything.

slydriver52 said:Was this study—or these studies—actually done under real-world conditions or what?

Man, do you seriously want to keep going with this? 🙂
Yeah, these were real-world studies. The results of the analysis indicate that there is no evidence which shows that the consumption of fructose at normal levels of intake causes biologically relevant changes in triglycerides (TG) or body weight in overweight or obese individuals.

The big difference between the studies proving this and the ones claiming the exact opposite is that those other guys used insane, abnormal amounts—we're talking like 50% of total calories coming from fructose.
Look, I'm begging you to stop clogging up the forum. Seriously, everything there is to say has been said, and even a kid could see where this ends. If you really need more clarification, just hit me up via PM or at online.nutricionist@gmail.com and we can set up a consultation. 🙂

slydriver52 said:So you're basically hiding behind some random article about "scientific evidence," even though you haven't actually read the study itself to see if it holds water?
Look, there are all kinds of studies out there. I don't see any reason why we should take a study seriously if the conditions weren't realistic to begin with. Tons of papers with citations exist, but if they aren't grounded in reality, they get tossed. I'm just speaking generally here.

The conclusion is staring you right in the face if you just read the abstract. These conclusions come from studies conducted by top-tier experts—the actual authorities in nutrition and whatnot—and frankly, I trust them. Review articles are basically like textbooks; they're a synthesis of everything known about a topic. If that isn't enough for you, I don't know what is...
I'm done arguing with you. I've said my piece (or rather, science has said its piece), and anyone with half a brain will get what I'm getting at.

slydriver52 said:Look, you clearly aren't getting it.
Go ahead, find me one single scientific study that actually backs that up, then maybe I'll believe you.
Real scientific studies have references listed right under them. Nobody here cares about those "reviews" you keep shoving down our throats in almost every post.
I want specifics: which exact study confirmed this, what kind of evidence was used, what were the actual experimental conditions, etc.
So, what? Everything on Wikipedia is just wrong now?
And while we're at it, what's your take on Ignac Kulier and his book where he dives into the whole sucrose and fructose thing?

I get what you're saying, but you're gonna have to wait a while before you can even open the full article without paying a subscription fee. Besides, you don't honestly think a top-tier scientific journal like Critical reviews in food science and Nutrition would let a review paper go out without citing its conclusions, right? 😁
We're talking about dozens of different studies here—and honestly, no offense, but I doubt you'll ever read them all.
It’s not that everything is wrong, but look at who wrote it ("regular" folks). Sure, they cited sources, but like I said, a few outlier references that claim the opposite of the vast majority of scientific literature DON'T MEAN MUCH...
I haven't really dug into his work yet, even though I own a bunch of his books. I prefer getting my info straight from the source rather than second-hand. That's exactly why this happens—people cherry-pick one random study and jump to totally wrong conclusions.

slydriver52 said:Look, don't go dropping links to articles without any actual references, and quit downplaying citations just because you don't like what they say.
What you posted is just a basic review—kind of like a Wikipedia entry, except mine actually has references to back up the claims, while yours doesn't. Besides, you’re acting like this is some groundbreaking news, but the article you linked is from 2010.🤷

Alright, if you want to play games, let's go step-by-step:
1. A reference is the actual paper used to back up an argument. So, saying an article without references is a total joke.
2. I'm not "downplaying" references. Science works like this: a review article is way more valuable than a single study because it gathers a massive pile of those studies to draw a conclusion. When you have small-scale studies that contradict the vast majority of scientific literature—like that "study" of yours—they basically get ignored. And yeah, obviously I don't agree with a reference if it's one of those outlier studies.
3. Do you even know what a review article actually is? A Wikipedia entry doesn't really count as one...
4. In the world of science, a two-year-old paper is still considered brand new, btw.

Is that enough references for you?

I'm not even sure if you get what a "reference" actually means here.
I'm talking about actual peer-reviewed scientific papers (I'll even take one single review 😁) that back up my point: The fructose is either bonded to cellulose and transported out the GI tract or processed by the liver into citrates, aldehydes, and, for the most part, lipid droplets (fat).

Where are the references for that article?

Erm... that article *is* the reference for my claim that there's zero proof that consuming normal amounts of fructose spikes triglyceride levels or body weight no evidence which shows that the consumption of fructose at normal levels of intake causes biologically relevant changes in triglycerides (TG) or body weight in overweight or obese individuals, even in the overweight crowd (who are supposed to be the sensitive group)

some researchers suspect that eating large amounts of fructose increases the likelihood of weight gain
Excessive fructose consumption may contribute to the development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

A 2008 study found a substantial risk of incident gout associated with the consumption of fructose or fructose rich foods.[64] Cases of gout have risen in recent years, despite commonly being thought of as a Victorian disease, and it is suspected that the fructose found in soft drinks (e.g., carbonated beverages) and other sweetened drinks is the reason for this.[65][66]

That's just one single study that doesn't prove anything on its own, which is why I gave you a review article (a synthesis of previous studies).
Everything you just listed is nothing more than unproven assumptions pulled from isolated studies and honestly, they don't carry much weight as they are.

fructose is the real issue here when it comes to packing on the fat

Look, if you're slamming massive amounts—stuff you could never actually hit through a regular diet—you might see your blood triglycerides spike, but that doesn't mean you're automatically gaining fat. It’s simple math: too many calories leads to fat gain. Period.

Sucrose has a GI of 65 while glucose sits at 100

First off, GI is totally irrelevant here. What matters is insulin response, which depends on quantity. You need to look at GL—the glycemic load—which is basically what GI means once you factor in how much you're actually eating. And second, like I said before, even a small amount can be enough to trigger the pancreas to dump enough insulin to basically shut down catabolism.

The fructose is either bonded to cellulose and transported out the GI tract or processed by the liver into citrates, aldehydes, and, for the most part, lipid droplets (fat).

And see? There isn't a single reference for that claim (and I think there's a good reason why)...

Instead, check this out: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21108071. It's one of the more recent reviews...
Notice that they're talking about NORMAL intake...

Keith Gonzalez said:It exists. Based on how they specialize and the actual classes you take in med school, nutrition is part of the curriculum at PBF.
Why they decided to stick it there, who knows. Clearly the mods are cool with it, so whatever. 🤷

I'm asking because it's listed on Wikipedia, but I didn't bring it up before because... well, Wikipedia. 😁

Isn't that kind of an insult to science? Is there any way to get it changed? I doubt it’s such a massive ordeal, right?

Keith Gonzalez said:Nah, nutrition isn't actually a branch of medicine. So your argument doesn't really hold water.

Maybe you've got a point there, but do you even know if there’s some official, definitive list out there defining every single medical specialty?

but still... does the science of food belong in gastronomy?

slydriver52 said:When I say "proper" nutrition, I’m talking about the kind of diet most gym rats follow when they're trying to pack on muscle or cut fat.
Most of us are on the same page here. I’ve even done some reading and checked out your blog.
Look, I don't want to get into a heavy debate with you since this is your professional field, but let's be real—it's never just black and white. You can't just tell someone to load up on Glycemic index and by-products of sucrose Sucrose right after a workout without knowing their specific goals or what kind of athlete they are. We all know glycogen depletion during a standard hypertrophy session isn't actually that massive. If a regular guy wants to build muscle post-workout, he's better off hitting the maltodextrin or glucose for that insulin spike, rather than worrying about fast glycogen replenishment because, frankly, it's not necessary. Nutrition depends on everything: goals, genetics, the sport, training phase, etc. It's impossible to give a one-size-fits-all answer for what anyone needs and how much.
Timing matters too. If I can swing a greasy cheeseburger before a workout, it doesn't mean a marathon runner or a swimmer can do the same without ending up with a wrecked stomach. They might be able to eat that stuff maybe two hours after training, or during a carb-loading phase before a big event, but definitely not as their last meal before a race.

I'm with you on most of that, but... 😁
Of course it's not black and white—that's exactly my point.
And regarding bodybuilding and insulin: you don't need an insane spike to effectively shut down muscle protein breakdown after training. Even a moderate amount of Glycemic index and by-products of sucrose Sucrose does the trick. Plain glucose isn't going to magically do anything more.
And yeah, "optimal" hypertrophy dieting isn't wildly different from the athletic diets I personally advocate for. The issue is that the current bodybuilding scene is totally warped. Look at any typical bodybuilder's routine and there's a good chance it's far from optimal for their actual goal. The reality—which proves my point—is that plenty of these guys succeed *in spite* of their diet, not because of it. Training is still king.

slydriver52 said:Gotta make this quick because I'm rushing to work.
Look, you disagree with me because clearly you haven't dealt with the grind of training for actual competition. If I can crush a couple of bacon cheeseburgers and still kill it in the gym, then "perfect" nutrition isn't my thing. I think you missed my point—I never said food doesn't matter, I just meant that "perfect" eating isn't nearly as vital for athletes. Training is what counts; I've proven that myself. When you're trying to build strength, explosiveness, endurance, agility, or speed, you don't need to eat like a bodybuilder. You just gotta watch your calories so you don't get heavy and sluggish. What you actually eat matters way less than just hitting your daily intake, except for those pre- and post-workout meals. Of course, genetics plays a huge role too... it's not that simple..........................
We could debate this until tomorrow.
Besides, I even have a beer before bed to relax my muscles—helps a ton when I'm wiped out. 😉
My conditioning keeps improving week after week, even without some strict diet.

I don't know if you realize this, but burgers and beer actually have a place in a balanced diet... a "proper" diet isn't just defined by specific ingredients.
And besides, I don't see how you're saying anything different here, because it looks like we're basically on the same page?