Best protein powders for muscle gain?

goldencyclist60 said:Fine, if you want to play this game, let's go step by step:
1. A reference is the actual article that backs up your claim. Therefore, an article without references is nothing but nonsense.
2. I’m not downplaying references; what science teaches us is that a review article is far more valuable than a single study. Why? Because a review aggregates a massive pool of those specific studies to draw a conclusion. Isolated studies with small sample sizes that contradict the vast majority of scientific literature—exactly like the one in "your" study—are almost always ignored. And naturally, I don't agree with that reference, given it's precisely that kind of outlier.
3. Do you even know what a review article actually is? A Wikipedia entry doesn't exactly qualify.
4. In the scientific community, a two-year-old paper is considered brand new, by the way.

It's clear you aren't getting this.
Go ahead, find me one legitimate scientific study that confirms your claim, and then I'll believe you.
Real scientific papers have citations under every single finding. Around here, nobody cares about the reviews you keep trying to shove down our throats in every post.
I want to see the specific study that confirmed this, the evidence it used, the conditions under which it was conducted, and so on.
So, are you telling me what's on Wikipedia is wrong?
Besides, what's your take on Ignac Kulier and his book, where he discusses Sucrose and fructose?

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.

goldencyclist60 said:I hear you, but you'll have to hang in there for a while longer before you can access the full article without paying (unless you pay up). That said, do you honestly believe a prestigious scientific journal like Critical reviews in food science and Nutrition would allow a review article to be published without backing its conclusions with references? 😁
And we are talking about dozens of studies here—studies I seriously doubt you’ll ever read in their entirety (no offense intended).
Not everything is incorrect, but consider who wrote this ("average" people). Sure, they cited references, but as I stated before, individual studies that claim the exact opposite of the vast majority of scientific literature DON'T HOLD MUCH WATER...
I haven't personally delved into his specific work, even though I own quite a bit of it. I prefer gathering knowledge firsthand rather than through secondhand accounts, specifically because of what's happening right now—one can cherry-pick isolated studies to draw completely wrong conclusions.

So, you're leaning on a general article that discusses scientific evidence, yet you haven't actually read the scientific study that provides that evidence, so how can you possibly judge if its claims are realistic or not?
There are all kinds of studies out there. Why should a study be treated as gospel if the experimental conditions weren't realistic? Plenty of cited studies exist that were ultimately rejected because they lacked real-world applicability. I'm speaking generally here.

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.

goldencyclist60 said:The conclusion is staring you right in the face if you actually read the abstract. These findings didn't come from some amateur; they were pulled from studies conducted by top-tier experts and leading authorities in nutrition. I don't know what your issue is, but I trust them. Think of review articles like textbooks—they represent a massive synthesis of established knowledge on the subject. If that doesn't satisfy you, I'm at a loss...
I'm done arguing. I've laid out my position (or rather, what the science has laid out), and anyone with a shred of common sense will understand exactly where I'm coming from.

Was the study—or those studies—conducted under real-world conditions, or was it just lab work?

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. 🙂

goldencyclist60 said:Man, do you really want to keep this going? 🙂
Look, these studies were conducted under realistic conditions. 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 difference between the studies supporting this and those claiming the opposite is simple: the latter used absurdly high doses—we're talking about fructose making up 50% of their total caloric intake.
I’m asking you nicely to stop clogging up the forum. Everything that needs to be said has been said, and the conclusion is obvious to anyone paying attention. If you need more clarification, shoot me a DM or hit me up at online.nutricionist@gmail.com and we can set up a consultation. 🙂

Aha.🤣

So, by your definition, "realistic conditions" just means consuming a relatively moderate amount of fructose? What about the rest of their diet? What about their daily activity levels?

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.

goldencyclist60 said:You clearly don't grasp how study methodology works. Let's just end this debate; it's getting late, alright? Everything has already been said.

Like I said before: nothing in this field is black and white, and you can't just take every single study at face value. When these findings are actually peer-reviewed, widely accepted, and integrated into standard American sports nutrition protocols, then—and only then—might I consider following them.
Even Ignaz Kulier had some thoughts on this matter.😉

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!

Alright, then tell me: which elite athletes with high-end nutritionists are actually dumping pure sucrose into their systems after a workout? Find me one recovery supplement on the market that uses a 1:1 glucose-to-fructose ratio recommended by actual pros, other than yourself.
And let’s be clear—finding the studies you're citing isn't the hard part. You don't need a paid subscription to access them.
I've read the conclusions myself. 😉
The problem is these studies were primarily conducted on overweight and obese subjects, with far fewer participants of a healthy weight. They gave these people liquid fructose doses ranging from 50g to 110g depending on the study—usually sitting around 60-80g—right before a main meal that could contain anything. We have no idea what else these people ate throughout the day or what their daily activity levels looked like. For all we know, they weren't even exercising. It is highly questionable how those results would translate to recreational lifters or elite athletes if that fructose intake was consumed immediately following intense physical activity as a 1:1 ratio (pure sucrose) specifically for rapid glycogen replenishment. These studies weren't performed on athletes, so you can't use them as proof that consuming pure sugar after a workout is the way to go.

Look, guys, everyone needs to just calm down for a second... maybe go start a separate thread about sugar intake for athletes if you want to debate that. This space is specifically for protein 😬

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. 🙂

goldencyclist60 said:Look, you’re clearly obsessed with digging this hole deeper. Your entire argument is exactly why these studies actually make you weaker 🙂
but I’m done here. I've finished this debate with you, and frankly, you should learn when to walk away—especially at your age.
Stop stripping things out of context, stop putting words in my mouth, and find someone else to peddle this nonsense to. Good luck at the championships. 🙂

One more thing.
There is no recovery supplement on the market with a 1:1 glucose-to-fructose ratio. Not a single nutritionist outside of your own head would ever recommend pure sucrose to an athlete for recovery. You’ve clearly forgotten how this whole conversation started. And please, stop trying to force your opinions on people and recommending pure sugar post-workout; someone might actually listen to you.
And finally, here is the copy-paste reality of your "studies":

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE OVERALL BODY OF
EVIDENCE
The purpose of this review was to use a systematic, evidence-based
approach to determine if a causal relationship exists between
ingestion of fructose in a normal, dietary manner and
the development of alterations in lipid and/or carbohydrate
metabolism and increases in body weight in overweight or obese
humans. Studies investigating the effect of sugar on blood
lipids, glucose, insulin, obesity, or body weight of overweight
or obese humans were identified by literature searches, obtained
and reviewed. All studies that used levels of sugar consumption
greater than the estimated 95th percentile (± SE) intake
levels were excluded from the analysis. The remaining studies
were graded according to a scale developed by the authors, based
on guidance provided by FDA for evaluation of health claims.
Although the majority of the studies were considered to be of
moderate quality, the database is considered to be sufficient for
the assessment.
The results of the majority of the short-term studies involving
overweight or obese subjects show that in the short-term (i.e.
up to approximately three hours after consumption), ingestion
of 30–100 g/day fructose is associated with either no change or
a slight increase in serum TG and decreases in plasma insulin
and glucose compared similar amounts of glucose or sucrose.
In overweight or obese subjects that also have non-insulin dependent
diabetes, the effects of fructose on blood glucose are
considered to be beneficial. There is no evidence which suggests
that fasting plasma TG are increased in overweight or obese
subjects after long term ingestion of up to 60 g/day fructose.
Long-term studies that utilized subjects who were either normal
weight or overweight indicate that there is no effect of up to
100 g/day fructose on fasting plasma TG. An additional, long-term
(four week) study performed in nine overweight subjects
with impaired glucose tolerance and high TG levels (compared
to normal weight subjects) shows that fasting TG are similar
after consumption of either 122 g/day fructose or glucose. Because
only two long-term studies with relatively few subjects
have investigated the effect of ingestion of normal amounts of
fructose on TG levels of overweight or obese subjects, it is clear
It remains unclear how consuming standard
amounts of sugar affects triglycerides in this group,
which means we need more research. While the ten
studies focusing on extreme sugar
consumption (>95th percentile) suggest that sugar spikes
triglycerides in overweight or obese subjects, there is zero evidence that
consuming sugar at or below the 95th percentile level
triggers this response.
Furthermore, there is no proof that eating normal amounts
of sugar leads to increased hunger or higher body
weight in overweight or obese people (when compared to other
carbs), provided it isn't eaten in massive excess. Generally speaking,
overweight or obese subjects given 40–75 g of
sugar or glucose two to four hours before a
meal eat roughly the same amount of food. Giving 50
or 60 g/day of sugar for 13 weeks to healthy overweight subjects
or obese patients with Type II diabetes showed
no change in body weight compared to their starting point. Research involving
populations of normal weight, overweight,
and obese subjects indicates that a diet containing up to
85 g of sugar for five weeks doesn't impact body weight
relative to diets with similar amounts of other carbs.
One specific study noted that 122 g/day of
sugar for four weeks didn't affect the body weight of overweight
subjects with impaired glucose tolerance; however, the actual data
backing this claim wasn't even shown. Consequently, no reliable
studies have actually looked at how consuming sugar at levels near the 95th percentile
impacts the body weight of overweight or
obese subjects. Even though the sugar levels in studies examining
satiety, appetite, or weight are lower than the
95th percentile seen in the heaviest consumer groups
(136 g/day for women aged 19–30 and 146 g/day for
men aged 19–22), the data supports the idea that sugar
doesn't trigger significant shifts in appetite or
body weight in obese or overweight individuals when consumed
at typical levels (around 50 g/day).
To wrap this up: the current review demonstrates that consuming normal
amounts of sugar has the exact same effect on triglycerides or body weight
in overweight or obese people as eating similar amounts of other
carbohydrates like glucose or sucrose. There is no evidence
suggesting that sugar intake approaching the 95th
percentile causes negative impacts on body weight
or serum triglycerides in overweight or obese subjects. The studies that *did*
show bad effects from sugar on these metrics
were all conducted using extreme intake levels (>95th percentile).
REFERENCES
Aeberli, I., Zimmermann, M. B., Molinari, L., Lehmann, R., L’Allemand, D.,
Spinas, G. A., and Berneis, K. (2007). Fructose intake is a predictor of LDL
particle size in overweight schoolchildren. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition 86: 1174–1178.
Bantle, J. P., Raatz, S. K., Thomas, W., and Georgopoulos, A. (2000). Effects
of dietary fructose on plasma lipids in healthy subjects. American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition 72: 1128–1134.
Bingham, S., Luben, R., Welch, A., Tasevska, N., Wareham, N., and Khaw, K. T.
(2007). Epidemiologic assessment of sugars consumption using biomarkers:
Comparisons of obese and nonobese individuals in the American Prospective
Investigation of Cancer Norfolk. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and
Prevention 16: 1651–1654.
Bohannon, N. V., Karam, J. H., and Forsham, P. H. (1980). Endocrine responses
to sugar ingestion in man: Advantages of fructose over sucrose and glucose.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association 76: 555–560.

Bowen, J., Noakes, M., and Clifton, P. M. (2007). Appetite hormones and energy
intake in obese men after consumption of sugar, glucose and whey protein
beverages. International Journal of Obesity 31: 1696–1703.
Chong, M. F. F., Fielding, B. A., and Frayn, K. N. (2007). Mechanisms for the
acute effect of sugar on postprandial lipemia. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition 85: 1511–1520.
Crapo, P. A. and Kolterman, O. G. (1984). The metabolic effects of 2-week
sugar feeding in normal subjects. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
39: 525–534.
Crujeiras, A. B., Parra, M. D., Rodr
´
ıguez, M. C., Mart
´
ınez de Morentin, B. E.,
and Mart
´
ınez, J. A. (2006). A role for fruit content in energy-restricted diets
in improving antioxidant status in obese women during weight loss. Nutrition
22: 593–599.
D
´
ıaz, E. O., Galgani, J. E., and Aguirre, C. A. (2006). Glycaemic index
effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obesity Reviews 7: 219–
226.
Dolan, L. C., Potter, S. M., and Burdock, G. A. (2010). Evidence-based review
on the effect of normal dietary consumption of sugar on development of
hyperlipidemia and obesity in healthy, normal weight individuals. Critical
Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 50: 53–84.
Downes Gastrich, M., Lasser, N. L., Wien, M., and Bachmann, G. (2008).
Dietary complex carbohydrates and low glycemic index/load decrease levels
of specific metabolic syndrome/cardiovascular disease risk factors. Topics on
Clinical Nutrition 23: 76–96.
Endres, J., Poon, S. W., and Welch, P. (1989). Diabetics in long-term care. Effect
of sweetness on dietary intake. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
561: 157–161.
FDA-CFSAN (1993). Redbook II: Toxicological Principles for the Safety Assessment
of Food Ingredients. Chapter VI: Human Studies, pp. 1–9. US Food
and Drug Administration (FDA). Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
(CFSAN), College Park, MD.
FDA-CFSAN (2009). Guidance for industry. Evidence based review system for
the scientific evaluation of health claims. US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), pp. 1–26. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN),

What exactly is the core question you all are bickering over? It would make this much easier to follow. If I’ve grasped the situation correctly, we're debating whether consuming sucrose in a PWM is a preferred choice (Achilles) versus opting for dextrose (No Pain). Or have I completely misread the room?

There. Problem solved. Took me all of sixty seconds to figure this out.
The reality is that Clif Bar, the US Navy, and all those other companies churning out sports recovery supplements don't offer a blend of glucose and fructose in the specific ratio needed when paired with proteins—or any other supplemental sources, ugh.
Nutritionists advocate for that specific blend for recovery rather than just plain old sugar, and even Ignac Kulier backs that approach. Yet, you’re still clinging to your little theories like a drunk at a bar, refusing to budge.🙂
I'm done.

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.

goldencyclist60 said:Well, slydriver52 is preaching about "no pain, no gain" because he’s clearly feeling the aches of getting older.😁

My recommendation was aimed at weekend warriors and casual athletes—people for whom it doesn't matter whether they use sucralose or glucose. At that level, sucralose is cheaper and just as effective as glucose.
Besides, I already mentioned using a blend of glucose, fructose, and galactose in a 2(3):1:1 ratio. I'm not just blindly clinging to sucralose like some fanatic.🙂
I hate to burst your bubble, but Ignacy Jan Paderewski isn't exactly a global authority. In America, where we lack serious nutritionists, he might be considered one.

Man, you just ended up insulting yourself.🤦
I'm heading out for a snack, and honestly, I recommend you do the same.🙂

Here is an article from Lyle McDonald's blog where Argon breaks down the glucose versus sucrose debate in terms of PWM/U.

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 😉